All Will Be Torn Down (part 4 of 4)

Jesus continues: “For nations will rise up in arms against nation, and kingdom against kingdom.  And there will be famines and earthquakes in various places.  All these things are the beginning of birth pains” (24:7-8).  If these things are the beginning of birth pains, what will be the result of those birth pains?  Clearly, the answer, unless we allow ourselves to be diverted from the subject at hand, is the throwing down of the Temple.  What else will be associated with these birth pains?  In conjunction with all that Jesus has said will happen in the lead-up to the fall of the Temple, Jesus says “They will hand you over to be persecuted and will kill you.  You will be hated by all nations because of My name.  Then many will be led into sin, and they will betray one another and hate one another.  And many false prophets will appear and deceive many, and because lawlessness will increase so much, the love of many will grow cold.  But the person who endures to the end will be saved” (24:10-13).  Yet again, here is another “end.”  What is the “end”?  The fall of the Temple.  It is necessary to keep coming back to that point, for we are far too conditioned to let our minds wander to different ideas. 

In conjunction with these Temple-related things that will occur, “this Gospel of the kingdom will be preached throughout the whole inhabited earth as a testimony to all the nations, and then the end will come” (24:14).  The end, naturally, is the fall of the Temple.  Lest we think that the Temple is somehow not in view, Jesus then goes on to say “So when you see the abomination of desolation---spoken about by Daniel the prophet---standing in the holy place” (24:15a).  To this Matthew (and Mark) appends the editorial insertion of “let the reader understand,” thus indicating that this is an event of which those that are hearing or reading this discourse should be well aware (which also lets us know that these written works come from a time period after that of which Jesus speaks has already occurred). 

The conclusion to Jesus’ thoughts about the abomination of desolation and the holy place is “then those in Judea must flee to the mountains.  The one on the roof must not come down to take anything out of his house, and the one in the field must not turn back to get his cloak.  Woe to those who are pregnant and to those who are nursing their babies in those days!” (24:16-19)  Which days are those?  The days in which the Temple is going to be thrown down, with not one stone left on top of another.  Jesus, speaking to a Jewish audience that would be concerned with such things, adds “Pray that your flight may not be in winter or on a Sabbath” (24:20).  Mark does not make mention of the Sabbath. 

Ominously, Jesus continues, saying, “For then there will be great suffering unlike anything that has happened from the beginning of the world until now, or ever will happen.  And if those days (i.e. the days in which the Temple will fall) had not been cut short, no one would be saved.  But for the sake of the elect those days will be cut short” (24:21-22).  For a people and a discourse heavily influenced by the seventh chapter of Daniel, this would sound a great deal like “While I was watching, that horn began to wage war against the holy ones and was defeating them, until the Ancient of Days arrived and judgment was rendered in favor of the holy ones of the Most High” (7:21b-22a), which was prefaced by the promise that “The Holy ones of the Most High will receive the kingdom and will take possession of the kingdom forever and ever” (7:18).     

Jesus then says “Then if anyone says to you, ‘Look, here is the Christ!’ or ‘There he is!’ do not believe him.  For false messiahs and false prophets will appear and perform great signs and wonders to deceive, if possible, even the elect” (24:23-24).  When will this occur?  At the time that the Temple is going to fall.  Jesus helpfully adds “Remember, I have told you ahead of time” (24:25).  He then goes on to say “So then, if someone says to you, ‘Look, he is in the wilderness,’ do not go out, or ‘Look, he is in the inner rooms,’ do not believe him.  For just like the lightning comes from the east and flashes to the west, so the coming of the Son of Man will be” (24:26-27).  With this, Jesus links the coming of the Son of Man, which is not a heaven to earth coming, but a coming before the Ancient of Days, with all of these things that will portend and be associated with the fall of the Temple.  If we are being true to the text, this fact is inescapable. 

All Will Be Torn Down (part 3 of 4)

What we have to do when we hear the disciples ask about Jesus’ coming, is hear them asking that question as first-century Jews whose mindsets were thoroughly influenced by the imagery on offer in the extraordinarily popular and influential work of Daniel.  In the seventh chapter of Daniel, a vision is reported in which “with the clouds of the sky one like a son of man was approaching.  He went up to the Ancient of Days and was escorted before Him.  To Him was given ruing authority, honor, and sovereignty.  All peoples, nations, and language groups were serving him.  His authority is eternal and will not pass away.  His kingdom will not be destroyed” (7:13b-14).  In this vision, one like a son of man came to Ancient of Days.  This is the coming to which the disciples make reference, and to which Jesus will make reference in His answer as reported by Matthew. 

Is this a leap of logic and an unsupported assertion?  Well, we have already discussed the issue of common sense, demonstrating that the disciples could not possibly have been asking Jesus about a coming to earth when He was already there, as there is nothing in the Gospel narratives to that point that would suggest that such a question would be appropriate or that such thinking would be warranted.  The prevalence and popularity of Daniel in that time and culture compels us to hear talk of coming along the lines that it suggests, which was a coming before the Creator God of that one that represented Israel, that Israel might be delivered from those under which it suffers oppression.  That, of course, was a primary concern of the day. 

Matthew underscores the fact that Daniel is in mind and that it was an instructive work in that day, as later on, as Jesus answers the disciples’ question, He makes reference to Daniel, saying “So when you see the abomination of desolation---spoken about by Daniel the prophet” (24:15a).  It is fascinating to make note that it is Matthew alone that has Jesus specifically naming the book of Daniel as part of His responsive discourse.  Though Mark makes reference to it by mention of the abomination of desolation, there is no specific mention of Daniel.  In Mark, it is the mention of the abomination of desolation that first calls Daniel to the mind of the hearer or reader, whereas the one hearing Matthew’s tale has already had Daniel called to mind by the mention of the signs of Jesus’ coming.  It therefore makes sense that Matthew’s Jesus makes mention of Daniel, whilst Mark’s Jesus merely makes a reference.  Both build on the crucial reference.  For Matthew’s purposes, Jesus’ coming (not to earth but to the Ancient of Days) is what marks the end of the age (of Israel being oppressed, among other things) and is linked to the destruction of the Temple.  He makes that explicit in the foreground, with his framing of the disciples’ question.  This linkage is also found in Mark and Luke, but as we know, they do not have the disciples marking their query with a concern for the end of the age, so the connection between the two comes later in Jesus’ response to the question. 

When we attempt to move along and listen to Jesus’ response to the disciples’ question, as they react to all that He has said and done in the Temple, we should not attempt to interpret and apply every statement that Jesus makes.  Rather, we should listen to Him with the full realization that He is responding to a question, whether it be the question on offer in Matthew, Mark, or Luke, about the fall of the Temple.  We are not allowed to take a flight of fancy and hear Jesus talking about anything but that which He has been asked to address.  The obvious intent of the authors do not allow for this.  So as Jesus answers, we hear every word in connection with His statement, in reference to the Temple, that “not one stone will be left on another.  All will be torn down,” and the disciples’ inquisitive response to that statement.  This is not exactly a far-fetched or groundbreaking idea, especially when we consider how Temple-centric the Gospel narratives have been since Jesus made His triumphal entry. 

Drawing from Matthew, we hear Jesus’ answer, as He tells His disciples how they will know that the Temple is about to fall.  He begins by saying “Watch out that no one misleads you” (24:4b), which is quite prescient, considering the many strange paths down which many erstwhile interpreters have attempted to lead God’s people, as they present Jesus’ discourse in isolation from all that comes before it.  Continuing, Jesus says “For many will come in My name, saying ‘I am the Christ,’ and they will mislead many.  You will hear of wars and rumors of wars.  Make sure that you are not alarmed, for this must happen, but the end is still to come” (24:5-6).  What is “the end”?  In context, of course, “the end” is the fall of the Temple, for that is the question that Jesus has been asked.  We do not import foreign notions into the text.  The end is the fall of the Temple, and for Matthew, we already and also know that this end is connected to the son of man appearing before the Ancient of Days, as detailed in Daniel 7.  Both Mark and Luke have Jesus here speaking of the end, and since neither one of those records have the disciples asking about the end of the age (which we know is not the end of the world), this reinforces the fact that the end of which Jesus speaks is the end of the Temple that currently stands in Jerusalem, for that is the object squarely in view.      

All Will Be Torn Down (part 2 of 4)

Interestingly, it is Matthew’s presentation that becomes the guide, in many Bible translations, that provides the summary heading for various sections.  For example, in a number of translations, this paragraph of Matthew twenty-four is headed by “Signs of the End of the Age.”  This makes sense, as the disciples have asked “what will be the sign of your coming and of the end of the age?”  However, even though the disciples do not ask the question this way in either Mark or Luke, not making mention of the end of the age, the same paragraph is often headed with “Signs of the End of the Age.”  This demonstrates the way in which our very non-Jewish (Greek-influenced) conceptions of the end of the world have somehow become equated to such an expression by a Jew in the first century, though it is has no such connection.  Beyond that, we can see that the conflation of end of the age and end of the world are read into Mark and Luke, becoming the controlling paradigm by which those two accounts are heard, even though, according to the words of the disciples that are on offer by those two evangelists, the end of the age is nowhere in sight. 

Again, it becomes helpful to let the weight of evidence be our guide.  Since the foundational narrative, that being Mark, which is significantly expanded upon by Matthew (due to either written materials in the author’s possession, a more robust oral tradition, or a more vivid imagination) does not resort to such language, and Luke, which also builds on Mark, does not have the disciples posing their question in such a matter, it is best to distance ourselves from the end of the age language.  We do this even though we know that, in its usage, it does not point to the end of the world, as it is difficult to shake ourselves free from long-ingrained sensibilities.       

Though it is not present in Mark or Luke, the notion of Jesus’ coming, as it frames the discourse on offer by Jesus and influences the way that we read and perceive Matthew’s twenty-fourth chapter, is something with which we also must deal.  Much as we tend to hear “end of the age” in the light of our “end of the world” sensibilities, we also tend to hear speech about the coming of Jesus in terms of His coming to earth from heaven.  We do this because we are reading post-ascension, and because, being inhabitants of this world whereas Jesus is off in heaven somewhere, any talk of Jesus’ coming must be talk of Him coming from heaven to earth. 

Now, before even addressing the issue, as best as is possible, from the mindset of a first century Jew, let us look at this issue as a matter of common sense.  When Jesus speaks in terms of not being seen until He comes, He is alive and kicking.  Remember, we have to hear these things in their narratival context.  Though Jesus has made mention of His death and Resurrection, such as is found in the seventeenth chapter of Matthew when He says “The Son of Man is going to be betrayed into the hands of men.  They will kill Him, and on the third day He will be raised” (17:22b-23a), this isn’t exactly something that is clearly understood by His disciples.  In fact, Matthew says “they became greatly distressed” (17:23b).  Prior to that, in the sixteenth chapter, when Jesus says something similar, “Peter took Him aside and began to rebuke Him” (16:22a).  So, returning to the realm of common sense, since Jesus is with them when He says these things---He has not been crucified or resurrected, and He has not ascended into heaven (though this written record does come after all of these things have taken place), we cannot have the disciples presuming these things as part of their query.  While the hearers heard it and we read it with knowledge of these things, the narrative does not push us to hear the disciples’ question as post-earthly-life-and-ministry of Jesus.  Yes, this can become convoluted and confusing, but it is incumbent upon us to make our best attempt to inhabit the story as it is on offer, positioning ourselves to hear Jesus live and in person, as one of His disciples.  Doing that, we are then not posing a question to Jesus, about His coming, from a post-ascension perspective that has Jesus coming back to earth.  That would merely gets things out of order.  At this point, as far as His disciples are concerned, Jesus isn’t going anywhere. 

Yes, He’s talked about His coming death and resurrection, but we cannot force the disciples to have already come to terms with what those words truly meant.  In fact, this is where Luke provides us a wonderful glimpse into the mindset of the disciples of Jesus, through His Emmaus-road presentation in chapter twenty-four of His gospel.  There, downhearted and dejected disciples, who were clearly struggling to cope with Jesus’ death and what it meant, say “we had hoped that He was the one who was going to redeem Israel” (24:21a).  Not only was there no expectation of a resurrection, though Jesus has been reported to have spoken, in advance, of His being raised, there was certainly no hope or expectation of an ascension, and there was obviously no prevailing ideology that had Jesus returning to earth from heaven.  As far as they knew, He was dead, which also meant that He was a failed messiah.  So in terms of rightly dealing with Matthew’s narrative, the movement of the story does not allow us to have either us or the disciples themselves injecting a hoped-for return of Jesus to earth into their question about His coming.  It simply does not fit. 

All Will Be Torn Down (part 1 of 4)

And He said to them, “Do you see all these things?  I tell you the truth, not one stone will be left on another.  All will be torn down!” – Matthew 24:2  (NET)

As tempting as it may be, we cannot allow ourselves to be dragged out of the appropriate mindset and context as we hear Jesus speaking throughout the twenty-fourth chapter of Matthew.  With what comes in the previous three chapters, the setting is clear.  The context is clear.  The scene has been in the process of being set since Jesus made His triumphal entry into Jerusalem and went straight to the Temple.  The Temple has remained the setting.  In the process of interpreting Jesus’ words, moving away from the scene of the Temple at this point would be moving in the direction of extreme unfaithfulness to the text.  Pretending that Jesus has somehow changed His entire mode of thought and that He is no longer speaking about the Temple, would indicate that we have a disjointed and confused Jesus.  Additionally, doing the same thing to Matthew’s treatment (or that of Mark or Luke), renders the Gospel treatment as incoherent and lacking in any real value or substance for their community of hearers and readers, or for the wider community of Christ-followers in the first century. 

It is nearly beyond the pale of comprehension to hear Jesus make a reference to the Temple, saying “I tell you the truth, not one stone will be left on another.  All will be torn down” (24:2b), and to then have the disciples make a massive and dramatic shift, away from that very Temple to which Jesus has just referred, when they “come to Him privately” and say “Tell us, when will these things happen?  And what will be the sign of your coming and of the end of the age?” (24:3b)  Clearly, as Matthew puts it, the disciples well-understood that Jesus was speaking about the Temple in which He had acted and in which the events of the previous three chapters of the narrative had all occurred. 

Why this talk of the coming of Jesus and of the end of the age?  Well, seeing as how Jesus has just been reported to have said, “For I tell you, you will not see Me from now until you say, ‘Blessed is the one who comes in the name of the Lord!’” (23:39), which is only to be found in Matthew’s account, the question about Jesus’ coming is reasonable.  That statement, of course, followed the statement concerning the house of Israel, that being the Temple, being left desolate (23:38).  The desolation of the Temple, combined with the insistence that “not one stone will be left on another” and “all will be torn down,” would be an unimaginably catastrophic event for a Jewish hearer of Jesus, and this point must be under continual consideration as we hear the words of Jesus.  In addition, there is no need to be hung up on “end of the age” language, because inevitably we will import our non-Jewish “end of the age” thinking, which has been long and unfortunately associated with the end of the world.  The idea of the physical world coming to an end---the demise of the created order---is foreign to the Jewish way of thinking, as the constant affirmation of Scripture is that of a good creation gone wrong and God’s activity in the world to set things right and restore that has fallen. 

In that light, it would be better to hear the words of Mark at this point, in which the disciples, in reference to Jesus speaking about the tearing down of the Temple, say “Tell us, when will these things happen?  And what will be the sign that all these things are about to take place?” (13:4)  Similarly, Luke reports the disciples asking, “Teacher, when will these things happen?  And what will be the sign that these things are about to take place?” (21:7)  Neither Mark nor Luke have the disciples asking about Jesus’ coming, which, as we have seen before in regards to the devouring of the property of widows and the story of the widow making her offering to the Temple (found in Mark and Luke, but not in Matthew), is an indication of textual integrity, as they do not, as has just been said, have Jesus talking about His coming.  So while the Jewish conception about “the end of the age” is a legitimate point of discussion and concern, it shall be sufficient for our purposes to say that it makes no reference to a supposed end of the world, and confirm that, regardless of the language used in Matthew, the question that is being asked is the same as that being asked in Mark and Luke. 

The point that must be underlined is that the disciples are asking the question in relation to what Jesus has been saying about the Temple.  This appears to be the authorial intention.  Along with that, we need to make ourselves aware of the very strong possibility that the Gospels authors are writing after the Jewish revolt and after the Temple has been destroyed by the Romans, which most certainly colors our approach to the narrative, our attempts to understand what is being said, and our responsibility to make the correct applications as Christ-followers in our own day.  Now, this is not to take away from the prophetic activity of Jesus, but allows for a dimension of analysis, in which the authors, and therefore those who are hearing and reading these biographical compilations about the life of Jesus, are reporting these words of Jesus from the perspective of a world in which revolution has been attempted and crushed, and in which Rome and its legions have destroyed the Temple and Jerusalem. 

Challenges, A Psalm, A Widow & A Judged Temple (part 3 of 3)

Venturing on to the twenty-fifth verse, and not allowing for a breach in the continuous stream of thought, we continue to hear Jesus speaking of the Temple and its corrupt rulers (though those who were Pharisees were not necessarily Temple authorities, nor is this necessarily true of the experts in the law, but they would represent that which stood behind the laws and traditions, which was the Temple) when He says “Woe to you, experts in the law and you Pharisees, hypocrites!  You clean the outside of the cup and the dish, but inside they are full of greed and self-indulgences.  Blind Pharisee!  First clean the inside of the cup, so that the outside may become clean too!” (23:25-26)  Though a personal application is surely intended here, we should not allow the personal and individual application to completely override the major focus of the woeful discourse that is on offer from Jesus. 

With yet another statement that could be dually applicable to individual and Temple, Jesus adds “Woe to you, experts in the law and you Pharisees, hypocrites!  You are like whitewashed tombs that look beautiful on the outside but inside are full of the bones of the dead and of everything unclean.  In the same way, on the outside you look righteous to people, but inside you are full of hypocrisy and lawlessness (23:27-28).  Piling on, and making sure that it is well understood that Jesus still has the Temple not only as the setting, but within view of His judging speech, He adds “For this reason I am sending you prophets and wise men and experts in the law, some of whom you will kill and crucify, and some you will flog in your synagogues and pursue from town to town, so that on you will come all the righteous blood shed on earth, from the blood of righteous Abel to the blood of Zechariah son of Barachiah, whom you murdered between the Temple and the altar” (23:34-35).  With the close of this statement, we are reminded of the earlier mentions of Temple and altar, giving this portion of the statement even greater weight as it relates to the pronounced judgment.  Jesus then adds: “I tell you the truth, this generation will be held responsible for all these things!” (23:36) 

Now, what would His hearers and the Gospel hearers/readers have understood by “this generation”?  Most likely, they would have understood that in its very plain and literal sense of “this generation,” meaning, those that were hearing him would be held responsible for what has been outlined throughout His discourse---they would experience that which represented God’s judgment.  Jesus then goes on to say, “O Jerusalem, Jerusalem, you who kill the prophets and stone those who are sent to you!  How often I have longed to gather your children together as a hen gathers her chicks under her wings, but you would have none of it!” (23:37)  Then, while standing in the Temple courts, Jesus makes yet another very clear reference to the Temple, continuing His speech to Jerusalem and saying, “Look, your house is left to you desolate!” (23:38)  The house, of course, is the Temple---the house of God.  The desolation of the house could be a backwards and present reference to the fact that the glory of God had never rested in this Temple from the time that it was rebuilt in the days of Ezra and Nehemiah, or it could be a forward reference, encompassing the generation to be held responsible, pointing to the desolation of the Temple that would result in its destruction.  Though both are probably legitimate inferences to be drawn from the statement, Matthew’s narrative seems to clearly point toward the latter, as he moves us on to find out that “as Jesus was going out of the Temple courts and walking away, His disciples came to show Him the Temple buildings” (24:1). 

This seems like an odd action on the part of the disciples, especially since Jesus has been in the Temple.  Does Jesus really need to be shown the Temple buildings at this point?  Our questions are answered when we hear what Jesus says next, as Matthew has drawn our attention specifically to the Temple buildings so that we might hear Jesus quite clearly when He says to His disciples “Do you see all these things?  I tell you the truth, not one stone will be left on another.  All will be torn down!” (24:2)  Matthew reflects a similar maneuver by Mark, but reports a statement from the disciples that shows us that the disciples well understood that Jesus was speaking of the Temple itself when He speaks about Jerusalem’s house being desolate.  “One of His disciples said to Him, ‘Teacher, look at these tremendous stones and buildings!’” (13:1b)  To complete the picture, we note that Luke’s rift on Mark’s record differs, stating “Now while some were speaking about the Temple, how it was adorned with beautiful stones and offerings” (21:5) 

So why this sudden mention of buildings?  Clearly, there is something being communicated here at an even deeper level, and it is perhaps best presented by Matthew.  It appears to reflect the post-Resurrection understanding of the nature of the Temple.  With this thought, we can think about what is said in the second chapter of John.  As Jesus, as part of the Gospel of John’s record of His actions in the Temple, is questioned about His activity, we read that “the Jewish leaders responded, ‘What sign can you show us, since you are doing these things?’  Jesus replied, ‘Destroy this Temple and in three days I will raise it up again.’” (2:18-19)  An editorial comment is provided, telling us that “Jesus was speaking about the Temple of His body” (2:21).  There is also the post-Resurrection, pre-synoptic conception of the nature of the Temple of God, perhaps best reflected in the Apostle Paul’s first letter to the church at Corinth, in which He writes, in reference to the church community, that “your body is the temple of the Holy Spirit” (6:19a).  To this can be added thoughts from the second chapter of the Ephesian letter, where we find the church community (or communities) being told that “you have been built on the foundation of the apostles and prophets, with Christ Jesus Himself as the cornerstone.  In Him the whole building, being joined together, grows into a holy temple in the Lord, in whom you are also being built together into a dwelling place of God in the Spirit” (2:20-22).  This language of Jesus as cornerstone borrows from the one hundred tenth Psalm, which, as we have seen, Jesus references during His time in the Temple.  What is being made quite clear by Matthew, and the other Gospels to a slightly lesser extent, is that even though Jerusalem’s Temple will be torn down, all that is actually being torn down is a building.  God’s Temple, in Christ, will never be torn down.

Challenges, A Psalm, A Widow & A Judged Temple (part 2 of 3)

Matthew, almost surprisingly, makes no mention of the widow and the offering box.  He does not position Jesus across from the offering box, to view the happenings, as does Mark.  Matthew does offer up the warnings about the experts in the law, their desire for greetings and the best seats, but he makes no mention of the devouring of widows’ property, or their long prayers.  Of course, Matthew’s lack of the warning about the devouring of widows’ property actually makes sense of the fact that he does not provide a record of the widow’s offering, as he does not have a need to demonstrate that which he has not mentioned. 

Where Mark and Luke record the warnings and the widow’s offering, Matthew, and Matthew’s Jesus are more evocative.  Some might say that what Matthew puts in place of the warning and the offerings is far more harsh; and it would be difficult to disagree, for this is the point at which Matthew presents the “seven woes.”  Because Matthew is using Mark as the basis for his narrative, we can assert, with reasonable confidence, that Matthew, even though he omits part of the warning and the story about the widow, has the whole of these things in mind as he presents Jesus’ pronouncement of woe.  Even if he does not have the devouring and the widow precisely in mind, we can certainly assert that he was aware of the story, since he presents half of the warning that we find in Mark and Luke.  Of course, the fact that the whole of the story is there in Mark and Luke, combined with the fact that Luke relies heavily on the Markan narrative, means that Matthew must have known the story of the widow.  Honestly, as we understand the setting and the narrative flow, it is almost unreasonable to surmise that Matthew is not here thinking about the second half of the warning and the widow’s offering.  So even if the widow is not going to be immediately called to the minds of Matthew’s hearers and readers, especially if his story is heard and read in isolation from the Markan and Lukan constructions, we, like the Gospel’s author, have the privilege of knowing the story, and it dances in our thoughts as we hear the words of Jesus through the twenty-third chapter. 

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” (23:2-3).  The 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 we consider the fact that Jesus is saying all of these things at the Temple, which is thought to be the place where heaven and earth join together---the place where the realm of 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 He also goes 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 the 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 we place “kingdom of heaven” on terra firma, rather than thinking of it as some place “out there,” while also tying in the conjoining thoughts of land and Temple, we rightly hear Jesus continuing His multi-chapter, sustained critique of the Temple authorities and their mis-use of God’s Temple.  Shortly thereafter, Jesus makes explicit mention of the Temple and their mis-use of it, echoing the then-celebrated prophet 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 if we have the Temple firmly in view that we are able to pick up on it.  In verse thirteen, Jesus mentions the kingdom of heaven.  In sixteen, He mentions the Temple.  In eighteen and nineteen, in the same movement of thought, He speaks of the altar.  Beginning in the twentieth verse, Jesus draws 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 into the Temple.  As was said, this movement can only be seen if we keep the Temple in view, and it only comes together after we have heard 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 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, that 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.  He then, in His conclusion, speaks of the altar that sits outside of the holy place, then the Temple (the holy place), and finally heaven and the throne of God, which is an unmistakable reference to the holy of holies and the throne-like lid of the Ark of the Covenant. 

Challenges, A Psalm, A Widow & A Judged Temple (part 1 of 3)

In chapter twelve of Mark, Jesus says, “How is it that the experts in the law say that the Christ is David’s son?  David himself, by the Holy Spirit, said, ‘The Lord said to my lord, “Sit at My right hand, until I put your enemies under your feet.”’  If David himself calls him ‘Lord,’ how can he be his son?” (12:35b-37a)  Luke’s record is essentially identical to Mark’s, whereas prior to Jesus’ longer statement, Matthew reports that “Jesus asked them a question: ‘What do you think about the Christ?  Whose son is he?’  They said, ‘The son of David” (22:42).  Following Jesus’ words, Mark reports that “the large crowd was listening to Him with delight” (12:37b), and Matthew says that “No one was able to answer Him a word, and from that day on no one dared to question Him any longer” (22:46), while Luke offers no editorial comment.

As we have seen before and made abundantly clear, though Jesus is obviously offering a question that, according to the Gospel records, goes unanswered (thus, in the mold of rabbinic challenges in an honor and shame culture, asserting His final and unchallenged authority as a teacher), there is more than meets the eye (or ear).  This quotation by Jesus, lifted from the one hundred tenth Psalm, is designed to call to mind the entirety of the Psalm (as we should well understand).  Jesus, standing on the Temple mount, which is generally and idealistically referred to as Mount Zion (though the Zion mount may not have been the actual site of the Temple), quotes from a Psalm that says, “here is the Lord’s proclamation to my lord: ‘Sit down at My right hand until I make your enemies your footstool!’  The Lord extends your dominion from Zion.  Rule in the midst of your enemies!  Your people willingly follow you when you go into battle.  On the holy hills at sunrise the dew of your youth belongs to you.  The Lord makes this promise on oath and will not revoke it: ‘You are an eternal priest after the pattern of Melchizedek.’  O sovereign Lord, at your right hand he strikes down kings in the day he unleashes His anger.  He executes judgment against the nations; He fills the valley with corpses; He shatters their heads over the vast battlefield.  From the stream along the road he drinks; then he lifts up his head” (110:1-7). 

Though Jesus frames the desired response with His follow-up question, He and the Gospel authors are undoubtedly communicating a great deal of information.  In this Psalm, not only is there talk of Zion, which is quickly translated into Temple-talk, especially with Jesus standing in the Temple while speaking, but there is also talk of an eternal priesthood occurring in the place where there were constant priestly functions occurring.  With the quotation from the Psalms potentially calling to mind a mention of Melchizedek and an eternal priesthood, it also calls to mind a replacement priesthood---a bold move, considering Jesus’ location. 

Is it reasonable to make such a suggestion?  It seems to be so, especially when Mark and Luke do not follow-up with a theological and philosophical elaboration on what Jesus meant by His questions, but rather, report Him as saying “Watch out for the experts in the law.  They like walking around in long robes and elaborate greetings in the marketplaces, and the best seats in the synagogues and the places of honor at banquets.  They devour widows’ property, and as a show make long prayers.  These men will receive a more severe punishment” (Mark 12:38b-40).  Luke’s record is nearly identical.  Are the enemies the experts in the law, as stand-ins for the Temple authorities?  When Jesus mentions a more severe punishment, is He speaking in generalities, or does He have something in mind?  If it is something in mind, we might ask “A more severe punishment than what?”  Well, the striking down of kings, judgment against the nations, valleys filled with corpses, and heads shattered on battlefield seems to be fairly severe punishment, and the synoptic authors will be speaking of these things shortly.  Those that defile God’s Temple, and doing so through pretended service to His people (echoes of Jeremiah’s plaintive cry of judgment ringing through) will receive punishments of greater severity. 

To make the point about the devouring of widow’s property, Mark and Luke speak nearly identically with what comes next.  Using Mark’s record, they report that Jesus “sat down opposite the offering box, and watched the crowd putting coins into it.  Many rich people were throwing in large amounts” (12:41-42).  By this, they secure the presence of experts in the law at their synagogues and their banquets.  Continuing, Mark reports: “And a poor widow came and put in two small copper coins, worth less than a penny.  He called His disciples and said to them, ‘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” (12:41-44).  Far from being a praise of this widow, though it is certainly not a criticism, these are words of lament.  They portend judgment, for her property had been devoured.  Indeed, judgment---a more severe punishment---is what is coming.