No One Knows The Hour (part 35)

This line of thinking becomes especially poignant when one considers that Jesus’ dealings with and in the Temple are a central feature of the Gospel accounts, and that all three make it more than clear that it is this ongoing clash with the Temple authorities, culminating in Jesus’ enacted judgment (in the mold of Jeremiah) against the Temple that ultimately resulted in the collusion with the Roman authorities that was productive of His death by crucifixion. 

While this can be said, it is more than possible that Mark did in fact write His Gospel before the Temple had come to its end, as is often posited.  Mark’s Gospel lacks the embellishments (in the sense of a more rounded-out presentation) on Jesus’ life that are to be found in Matthew and Luke, with this lack of embellishment being quite understandable.  If Mark writes before the Temple’s fall, whereas Matthew and Luke write after the fall and because of that fall, then it is understandable that Mark’s account would be more direct and straightforward, lacking the material details and stories to be found in the narratives on offer in Matthew and Luke.  Understandably, composing their accounts of Jesus in a post-Temple-fall world, Matthew and Luke could be far more comfortable relating more of Jesus’ life story, as preserved and transmitted via the oral tradition. 

Together with these important realizations, if one also holds to the idea that the early church, having rightly comprehended what Jesus meant by His fall-of-the-Temple-focused discourse (as recorded in Matthew 24, Mark 13, and Luke 21), tightly connected the fall of the Temple with the coming of the Son of Man to the Ancient of Days in order to receive His kingdom, then the heavy inclusion of all of the Son of Man language throughout the Gospels makes even greater sense.  While this study will not take the time to offer an in-depth review of all of the mentions of the Son of Man, it is worth taking a bit of time to review and to draw out some conclusions and inferences that would have been obvious to Jesus’ original audience. 

In a superficial review, one cannot help but notice that John has the fewest uses of “Son of Man.”  Mark clocks in with the next fewest, while both Matthew and Luke are replete with its usage (Luke nearly doubling Mark’s count, while Matthew more than doubles Mark’s usage).  While John obviously pursues its agenda on a different path than do the synoptics, Mark’s relative restraint in using the term is understandable if it is, in fact, cautiously and expectantly composed before the fall of the Temple.  If Jesus presents Himself as the Danielic Son of Man, while tying the expected reign of the Son of Man to the fall of the Temple, it would not be odd to see a pre-Temple-fall composition being a bit more judicious in the use of the term.  If both Matthew and Luke are composed and disseminated post-Temple-fall, then all things considered, it would make far more sense to include far more Son of Man language. 

Of course, one does not simply assert that a lack of details in indicative of a pre-fall composition, as Mark could certainly have been just as precise and non-verbose, as opposed to his evangelistic counterparts, while writing after the Temple’s fall.  Once a position has been achieved in which it possible to correctly and contextually hear Jesus’ Son of Man language within His crystal clear, prophetical, and predictive speech about the coming fall of the Temple, doing so in the light of Daniel’s seventh chapter, it would be a tremendous dis-service to fail to reflect on a few of its appearances prior to the Temple speech in which Jesus connects the Temple’s fall with the Son of Man’s arrival and kingdom acquisition.  

No One Knows The Hour (part 15)

While still in the Temple, Jesus says “The experts in the  law and the Pharisees sit on Moses’ seat.  Therefore pay attention to what they tell you to do and do it.  But do not do what they do, for they do not practice what they teach” (Matthew 23:2-3).  The previously referenced Markan warning comes out with what comes next, as Jesus says “They do all their deeds to be seen by people, for they make their phylacteries wide and their tassels long.  They love the place of honor at banquets and the best seats in the synagogues and elaborate greetings in the marketplaces, and to have people call them ‘Rabbi.’…  And call no one your ‘father’ on earth, for you have one Father, who is in heaven” (23:5-7,9). 

When considering the fact that Jesus is saying all of these things at the Temple, which is understood to be the place where heaven and earth join together---the place where the realm of the Creator God’s dwelling and the realm of man’s dwelling meet, intersect, and overlap, Jesus’ contrast between earth and heaven takes on an interesting dimension that will be revisited at a later point in this study.  In addition, his talk of the calling of someone “father,” in juxtaposition to His sustained critique of the Temple authorities, while also going on to say “The greatest among you will be your servant.  And whoever exalts himself will be humbled, and whoever humbles himself will be exalted” (23:11-12), adds fuel to the critical, judging fire of His actions in the Temple and His words that follow that action.  Indeed, Jesus goes on to stoke those flames, providing stark contrast to the humble servant mentality when He says “But woe to you, experts in the law and you Pharisees, hypocrites!  You keep locking people out of the kingdom of heaven!  For you neither enter nor permit those trying to enter to go in” (23:13). 

When “kingdom of heaven” is placed on terra firma, rather than thinking of it as some place “out there,” while also tying in the conjoining thoughts of land and Temple, one rightly hears Jesus continuing His critique of the Temple authorities and their mis-use of the Creator God’s Temple.  Shortly thereafter, Jesus makes explicit mention of the Temple and their mis-use of it, still echoing Jeremiah in style if not in substance when He says “Woe to you, blind guides, who say, ‘Whoever swears by the Temple is bound by nothing.  But whoever swears by the gold of the Temple is bound by the oath.’  Blind fools!  Which is greater, the gold or the Temple that makes the gold sacred?” (23:16-17)  In a mocking report of the words of the Temple authorities, Jesus informs his audience of what they say and then comments on it, saying “’Whoever swears by the altar is bound by nothing.  But if anyone swears by the gift on it he is bound by the oath.’  You are blind!  For which is greater, the gift or the altar that makes the gift sacred?  So whoever swears by the altar swears by it and by everything on it.  And whoever swears by the Temple swears by it and the one who dwells in it.  And whoever swears by heaven swears by the throne of God and the one who sits on it” (23:18-22). 

There is a fascinating and almost imperceptible movement that takes place from verses thirteen through twenty-two.  It is only with the Temple firmly in view that one is able to pick up on that movement.  In verse thirteen Jesus mentions the kingdom of heaven.  In verse sixteen He mentions the Temple.  In eighteen and nineteen, within the same movement of thought, He speaks of the altar.  Beginning in the twentieth verse, Jesus goes on to draw conclusions.  In verse twenty He again speaks of the altar.  In verse twenty-one He mentions the Temple.  In verse twenty-two He speaks of heaven and the throne of God. 

Through this entire sequence, Jesus has moved out of and back into the Temple.  As was said, this movement can only be seen if the Temple is kept in view, and it only comes together after hearing Him speak all the way to the end of the twenty-second verse.  When Jesus mentions the kingdom of heaven, He speaks of the holy of holies and the place in which the Ark of the Covenant is supposed to be resting (though it was not there at that time)---where the Creator God would come down to sit, as if on His throne, to dwell with His people.  By mentioning the Temple, He moves outside of the holy of holies to the holy place, for it is the holy place, which housed the holy of holies, that was thought of as the Temple proper.  Jesus then mentions the altar, which was positioned outside of the holy place in the Temple court.  In His conclusion He speaks of the altar that sits outside of the holy place, then the Temple (the holy place), and finally heaven and the throne of the Creator God, which is an unmistakable reference to the holy of holies and the throne-like lid of the Ark of the Covenant. 

No One Knows The Hour (part 12)

Looking through the synoptic Gospels and comparing the records that follow Jesus’ actions in the Temple and His being questioned as a result of those actions, one is forced to notice similarities and differences.  As has been seen, Matthew reports the parable of the two sons, the parable of the tenants, the parable of the wedding banquet, the challenge concerning Caesar and taxes, the question from the Sadducees about marriage the resurrection, and the rabbinic challenge concerning the greatest commandment.  From there, Matthew has Jesus proceed to offering up the “seven woes” that comprise the twenty-third chapter of his Gospel.  Matthew built on Mark’s account and traveled a longer path in the story of Jesus that he presented, and it must be said that Matthew’s account is the busiest of the three.   

Mark, which is generally understood to have provided the basis for both Matthew and Luke, does not have a parable of the two sons, narrates the parable of the tenants, lacks a parable of the wedding banquet, recounts the conversation about the paying of taxes, reports the question by the Sadducees, and offers up a memory of the question about the greatest of the commandments.  In something of an anomaly, Mark’s presentation of the exchange concerning commandments is actually longer than that which is reported by Matthew.  Matthew and Mark differ in their account of Jesus’ words, with Matthew’s Jesus saying “All the law and the prophets depend on these two commandments” (22:40).  In Mark, Jesus does not say this. 

In addition, “The expert in the law said to Him, ‘That is true, Teacher; you are right to say that He is one, and there is no one else beside Him.’” (Mark 12:32b)  Here, the expert in the law quotes back to Jesus what has been said, which also informs the reader that Mark has another statement that is omitted by Matthew, in that Jesus here says, to begin His response to this man, “The most important is: ‘Listen, Israel, the Lord our God, the Lord is one.’” (12:29)  This is the preface to the specific quotation from Deuteronomy in regards to loving the Lord with heart, soul, mind, and strength.  This is also a reminder that in Matthew, Jesus is not reported to have mentioned “strength.”  The man continued, conflating Jesus’ answers and the quotations together, saying “And to love Him with all your heart, with all your mind, and with all your strength and to love your neighbor as yourself is more important than all burnt offerings and sacrifices” (12:33). 

Just in case it may be thought that this study was reaching a bit by calling attention to the fact that the section being called to mind with the neighbor quotation from Leviticus begins with mention of the peace offering sacrifice, and that this serves as yet another reminder of the setting---that being the Temple and that which takes place in the Temple, this response confirms that such was not a reach at all.  Beyond that, just to reconfirm the intimate ties between the Temple, the importance of the promised land, and concepts concerning the kingdom of God, Mark reports that “When Jesus saw that he had answered thoughtfully, He said to him, ‘You are not far from the kingdom of God.’” (12:34a) 

This final statement is also part of a fuller account (in this particular pericope) than that which is on offer from Matthew.  Luke omits this exchange concerning the commandments entirely, which is not surprising.  One remembers that Luke made no mention of the withered fig tree in conjunction with Jesus’ entry into Jerusalem, so it apparently does not fit with Luke’s overall purpose.  Following his report about Jesus’ actions in the Temple and the questioning from the authorities that He underwent there, Luke follows Mark by not presenting a parable of the two sons, and moving right along to the parable of the tenants.  There is no parable of the wedding banquet as part of Luke’s Temple narrative, though Luke does present a great banquet, with similar features, in his fourteenth chapter.  Following the parable of the tenants, Luke moves to the discussion about taxes, and then to the question about marriage and the resurrection.

Hated (part 1)

You will be hated by everyone because of My name.  But the one who endures to the end will be saved. – Mark 13:13  (NET)

Jesus---the healer, the wondrous miracle worker, the good and wise man, the social revolutionary---tells His disciples that they will be hated by everyone because of His name.  He says this while in the process of answering a question posed by Peter, James, John, and Andrew (13:3).  Prior to the question and the answer, one of His disciples had spoken of the Temple, making reference to its size and grandeur.  This occurs after Jesus has observed the significant offerings that were being made for the Temple, which would be used for its ongoing upkeep, adornment, and expansion. 

The amount of money that filtered through the Temple was substantial, with large offerings able to do wonderful things for the Temple that visibly represented Israel’s hopes, its dreams, and its God.  Nevertheless, Jesus focuses in on one particular woman---a poor widow, who “came and put in two small copper coins” (12:42b).  He said to His disciples, “I tell you the truth, this poor widow has put more into the offering box than all the others.  For they all gave out of their wealth.  But she, out of her poverty, put in what she had to live on, everything she had” (12:43b-44). 

It is tempting to view the recognition of such obviously sacrificial giving as a badge of honor and praise from Jesus.  At first glance, it would appear that Jesus is singling this woman out (the imagery, of course, is always that of an older woman, but that is not necessarily the case, as it would have been common for her to have been quite young) and holding her up for praise due to her gift.  It would seem to be the case that at least one of the disciples hears these words from Jesus as praise for the woman, as He seemingly honors her very small gift above the others. 

Thus this disciple takes it upon himself to say “Look at these tremendous stones and buildings” (13:1b), as if to say “So much money has been given to erect and to maintain this Temple.  Some of those gifts have been quite large, and many were no doubt sacrificial in nature.  In addition, all of the people participate in this construction and maintenance program by their gifts.  This Temple would not be what it is today if all gave only what this widow gave, and yet you, Jesus, say that she gave more.”   

Jesus’ response to His disciple allows for consideration of the very strong possibility (probability) that His recognition of the widow’s gift was actually something of a lament.  What has actually taken place is that this woman has given all that she has to live on, when in reality, it is the Temple authorities, as they represent the covenant God of Israel that provides for His people, that should be supporting her and not allowing her to do this very thing.  Instead, the implication is that this widow is now going to suffer hunger and thirst and privation as a result of her support of a Temple (and a Temple regime) that is shortly going to come to an end. 

Emphasizing that this is the point at which He is driving, Jesus says “Do you see these great buildings?  Not one stone will be left on another.  All will be torn down!” (13:2)  These are cataclysmic words.  These are weighty words.  The Temple will be torn down?  What do you mean the Temple will be torn down?  This is big news---the biggest!  Moreover, such words are not being spoken by some raving lunatic.  This is being said by the man recently hailed with “Hosanna!  Blessed is the one who comes in the name of the Lord!  Blessed is the coming kingdom of our father David!  Hosanna in the highest!” (11:9b-10) 

This is being said by the same man who had entered the Temple, and with a demonstration of a deep and abiding respect for the Temple and its purposes, along with a respect for Who and what it symbolized, drove out those who were selling and buying in the Temple courts and overturned the tables of the money changers and prevented merchandise from being carried through the Temple courts (11:15-16), saying “Is it not written: ‘My house will be called a house of prayer for all nations’?  But you have turned it into a den of robbers!” (11:17)  First He defends its honor, and now He speaks of its destruction.

Collapse Of The Temple (part 3)

As he “channels” and calls the prophet Jeremiah to the mind of the people of Jerusalem, Jesus had a great deal to say about the Jerusalem Temple.  His activity in Jerusalem, as one would expect, was centered around the Temple, though He did not treat it at all in the way which was expected of the messiah.  The messiah, more than likely, would have been expected to honor the Temple. 

However, when it came to the Temple of Jerusalem, Jesus did and said some rather interesting things.  The things He said and did were not necessarily directed against the Temple itself, as it, though a symbol of something much larger, was merely a building.  Rather, Jesus’ words were directed against the Temple authorities, who seemingly wielded the presence of a building and what it was meant to represent and contain, against the people of Israel, so as to preserve their own power and position. 

With that frame of mind created, one can look at one of the stories recounted in the Gospel of Mark as fairly representative of that which can be seen in both Matthew and Luke.  In the eleventh chapter of Mark it is said that “Jesus entered the Temple area and began to drive out those who were selling and buying in the Temple courts.  He turned over the tables of the money changers and the chairs of those selling doves, and He would not permit anyone to carry merchandise through the Temple courts” (11:15-16). 

This disruption in business would have had an obvious impact on the sellers, as they would be losing money by being unable to carry out their trade for a period of time.  In and of itself, such action is not a critique of the activity of buying and selling (though one could question the legitimacy and necessity of the way in which the sacrificial cult was in operation in that day) but of the greed and corruption that would so often be the companion of the commerce. 

Regardless, the disruption would certainly create some enemies for Jesus, as shutting down the buying and selling also shuts down the operations of the Temple, effectively shutting down the Temple itself.  Not only is this having an effect on livelihoods, but this is something of a symbolic pronouncement against the Temple, as Jesus actively calls into question not what was there taking place, but rather the ongoing need for the Temple.

Additionally and as would be expected, the disruption would have had an impact on the finances of the Temple authorities, as they would have had a stake in each transaction made within the Temple in relation to the sacrificial cult.  Thus, more enemies for Jesus.  These are more powerful enemies than the merchants who plied their business at the pleasure of the Temple authorities.  Thirdly, Jesus might very well have been taking a chance at angering the people, and turning the populace in general against Him, as they would have been unable to buy the necessary items to make what they understood to be their necessary offerings, thus jeopardizing their right-standing with their God (their covenant status).  

However, it would seem that the potential for anger amongst the commoners was quickly diffused, which can be seen when one encounters Jesus’ words in which He said, “Is it not written: ‘My house will be called a house of prayer for all nations’?  But you have turned it into a den of robbers!” (11:17b)  In this, Jesus apparently reveals to the people that the merchants in the Temple, in collusion with the Temple authorities, had conspired together to cheat the people through false dealings in their money-changing and sale of animals.  Beyond that, it is possible that there is an implication that the Temple authorities were cheating the people through their insistence that the sacrifices were a continuing necessity.