Page 14 of 15

Posted on

Did Jesus Offer Sacrifices at the Temple?

Recently someone asked me this question: Did Jesus offer sacrifices at the Jerusalem temple?   I thought it was a great question so I thought I’d attempt to address it.  Now to answer it properly would take more time and space than I have, but let me at least point toward an answer.  The question is a historical question not one based on any particular theological agenda.  How likely is it that Jesus of Nazareth would have made pilgrimage to the temple and offered a sacrifice or sacrifices there? Jerusalem temple

Now the Gospels make it clear that Jesus did go the temple on occasion as a child and as an adult, but there is no account of Jesus himself actually offering a sacrifice at the temple.  That may not mean that Jesus did not offer a sacrifice while there.

Now the main activity of the temple was sacrifice.  That is why there were 24 courses of priests. Technically, only priests offered sacrifices but the sacrifices were provided by worshipers, usually male head of households. The worshipers brought the sacrifices (animals, wine, grain, etc) to the prescribed place and handed them over to the priests.

The temple was a busy place.  According to the law, the sacrificial system had been established by God; it was therefore good (Psalm 119). Even if some of the prophets had railed against empty ritual and ethical lapses, they did not condemn the temple itself and sacrifices wholesale (e.g., Amos 5:21-27).  Almost universally, it was the temple leadership who got an earful from the Jerusalem prophets. But we must remember that not all sacrifices were “sin” or “guilt” offerings.  Many sacrifices were for peace offerings, fellowship offerings, votive offerings, offerings of consecration.

Let’s consider a few episodes from the New Testament and see if they shed any light on our question.

After Jesus is born and the time of Mary’s menstrual impurity had run its course, Luke reports that Mary and Joseph took the baby Jesus to Jerusalem to present him to the Lord at the temple.  This was in keeping with Mosaic law (Leviticus 12.6-8).  We’re told they offered a sacrifice in accordance with the law, a pair of two young pigeons (Lev 5.11).

When Jesus healed the leper (Mark 1:40-45), he instructed him to go to the priest and offer for his cleansing what Moses commanded (Leviticus 14:1-32).  The declaration that a leper was cleansed involved sacrifices in the temple.  Would Jesus have directed the man to go to the temple and sacrifice if he was teaching his disciples to neglect the temple worship completely?

And there is the matter of the temple tax  (Matthew 17:24-27).  The tax collectors seek out Jesus and his disciples in Capernaum.  They appear to frame the question as if they expected Jesus to somehow object.  Perhaps Jesus’ teachings and actions had aroused their suspicions. But Peter lets them know in no uncertain terms that did pay the temple tax.  The tax is described in Exodus 30:11-16 as a half a shekel “a contribution to the LORD.”  When Peter approached Jesus at home, Jesus appears to claim exemption; but in order not to make waves Jesus instructs Peter to go fishing. And when he does he catches a  fish that had swallowed a coin worth enough to pay the annual temple tax for both of them.  The temple tax was used for the upkeep of the temple which included the sacrifices. tyrian shekel

Then, there is the Last Supper which many consider a Passover meal (though there are debates about it).  John, for example, has Jesus crucified on the day of preparation for the Passover (19:31).  But there may have been calendrical debates going on at the time because Mark (14:12-25) and the Synoptics present it as a Passover meal.  Jesus sends two of his disciples into the city to make preparations which likely included securing a place for the meal and securing the food itself which would have included the lamb from the temple.  Even if Jesus himself did not sacrifice in the temple, he had others do it for him.  This suggests he had no argument in principle with the sacrifices.

But what about the temple incident (Mark 11:15-19 and par.)?  I’ve written about that elsewhere. As a prophet, Jesus is enacting (God’s) judgment upon the temple and predicting its destruction. An event which happens in AD 70.  Essentially, the operation of the temple had become robbery under the temple authorities, and the place where the Gentiles were allowed to gather and worship was overrun by animals and merchants.  The sanctity of the temple and its purpose had been lost.  The problem was not the sacrifices themselves—they had been set up and ordained by God—the problem was with those who superintended the temple.

So what are we to make of this?  In the end I see no reason to deny that Jesus like any good Jew of his day would have made pilgrimages to the temple and offered sacrifices there.  Based on Hebrews some may wish to conclude that Jesus did not offered sin sacrifices, but there were other ranks of offerings and sacrifices which the righteous Jew could and should make at the temple.

Finally, when opponents accused Jesus of trying to abolish the law and the prophets (Matthew 5:17), he claims boldly he comes to fulfill them not to neglect or abolish them. Nothing could be more central to the law than the sacrifices.

 

 

 

Posted on

Why was Jesus baptized?

Epiphany was January 6th.  It marked the end of the Christmas season.  Between Christmas day and Epiphany are the 12 days of Christmas, which most know these days through the English carol.

The word “epiphany” comes from the Greek; it means “manifestation” or “appearance.”  It was used primarily in religious texts to describe the appearance of a god. Essentially, Epiphany as a holy-day is the celebration that God has become a human being in Jesus of Nazareth.  In the west the holiday is commonly associated with the arrival of the wise men to see the baby Jesus. In the east Christians link Epiphany to the baptism of Jesus in the Jordan by John the Immerser.  You may recall the heavenly voice said as Jesus came up from the water, “This is my Son whom I love, with him I am well pleased” (Matthew 3:17).  In baptism God’s Son is revealed to the world.Jesus' baptism

When you read the Gospels, it is clear that John’s baptism is about repentance and the forgiveness of sins.  So the question arises: Why did Jesus need to repent?  Or what sin was Jesus guilty of that he needed to be forgiven?  In Matthew ‘s account of Jesus’ baptism we are told that John finds Jesus’ request to be baptized puzzling for he demurs and says “I need to be cleansed by You.  Why do You come to me?” (Matthew 3:13-14).   But Jesus convinces John to superintend his baptism.

So why was Jesus’ baptized?  The rest of the New Testament and Christian tradition claim that Jesus was without sin so he had no need to repent—in the traditional sense of the word—and be forgiven.

Let me suggest several reasons why Jesus went to John and insisted that the prophet dip him in the Jordan River.  First, Jesus wanted to identify with John.   When Jesus heard what John was doing in the desert—calling  people to change their ways and announcing the arrival of the kingdom of God—the Nazarene wanted to be there, to drink it all in,  for he sensed in his spirit that it may be his time.  Second, Jesus wanted to identify with the women and men who were coming to John in repentance and faith.  These were the “poor in spirit” Jesus would declared “blessed” in his Sermon on the Mount.  Put another way, Jesus wanted to identify with sinners.  Later, as controversies increase around him, he will be criticized for being a friend of sinners.  Third, Jesus’ baptism marks a turning point in his life.  The word translated “repentance” in most Bible translations means “a change of mind” (metanoia).  Now a true change of mind is always accompanied by a corresponding change of behavior.  After his baptism everything changes for Jesus.  He will leave behind the carpenter shop to become an itinerant preacher and healer.  He will leave behind his home in Nazareth to set up his headquarters in Capernaum.  He will leave behind a private life and become a most public person.  Jesus’ baptism is the turning point of his life.  Fourth, Jesus’ baptism foreshadows his coming death, burial, and resurrection.  Now I must admit that this last reason is more speculative, but it is certainly consistent with the story as it unfolds in the Gospel.  When Jesus submits to John’s baptism, because of who he is—God’s Son, the Anointed One–he gives baptism an entirely new focus.  Those who follow Jesus in baptism will do so as an act of initiation into the Christian faith; through baptism they participate in Christ’s life, death, and resurrection (Roman 6).  For Christ-believers baptism is the start of their new life; it is the turning point of their lives just as it was for Jesus.

There could be no better way to close out the Christmas season than with the baptism of new believers.  I know many churches wait until Easter to baptize, but it makes sense for churches to follow the rhythm of the Church calendar and celebrate Jesus’ baptism and his revelation to the world by participating in the events celebrated at Epiphany.

Posted on

The Virgin Birth: what did Mary provide?

Now that the 12 days of Christmas are in full swing, I want to propose what I think will be a controversial reading of Matthew’s account of Jesus’ virginal conception and birth.  Consider it a theological thought experiment if you like, but it is an attempt to take seriously Matthew 1:20.  The first Gospel says no more about the topic but what he does say is clearly suggestive:

“Joseph, son of David, do not be afraid to take Mary as your wife, for the child conceived in her is from the Holy Spirit.” (Matthew 1:20)

Now immediately, we must set aside any modern notions of conception, for though Matthew and his audience would have been aware generally of how babies were made, they were not versed fully in the biology of it.   The Greek word translated “conceived” in most modern translations does not mean what moderns mean when they think scientifically regarding conception.  So we must not insist that it carry the full freight of our biological knowledge.  The word simply means “to bring forth.”  The same word was used earlier in the chapter dozens of times to refer to how fathers bring forth children: e.g., “Abraham was the father of Isaac, and Isaac the father of Jacob” (Matthew 1:2a,b).  The King James read: “Abraham begat Isaac; and Isaac begat Jacob” (Mat 1:2 KJV).virgin-mary-and-jesus

If we assume for a moment that Matthew was aware of at least some of the biological processes involved, would he have thought that Mary provided the ovum or was Mary for him more like a surrogate mother, a vessel in whom the Christ-child, Emmanuel, was destined to grow?  If Mary provided the ovum, who or what supplied the seed?  I suggest Matthew’s account should be interpreted as making Mary Jesus’ surrogate mother not his biological mother.

Now to be fair neither Matthew nor his audience could have been familiar with the notion of an “egg” as we know it.  Not until the invention of the microscope were humans able to see the mico-world.  Instead they viewed the woman’s womb as the ground upon which the seed could be planted.  They were after all an agricultural people so many of their life images were drawn from agriculture.  If the seed found favorable “ground,” then a child would result.  If a woman’s womb were “barren,” then the couple remained childless. 

Let”s be clear.  Matthew does not see her pregnancy as a sexual act.  In fact, the way he tells the story it is obvious he is trying to distance his account from any notion of sexual intercourse.  Perhaps that is because during his days charges were being made by Jesus’ opponents about his legitimacy; or more likely in my view, Matthew had a theological and apologetic purpose.

According to the first evangelist, Mary is a virgin and stays a virgin up to the time of Jesus’ birth (Catholics and many other faithful believers say forever).  Furthermore, the child which will come forth from her is “from the Holy Spirit” (likely a genitive of source governed by the Greek preposition ek).  Matthew must have been aware of Greek myths and pagan stories of gods coming down and having sexual relations with women and giving birth to semi-divine beings (e.g., Hercules).  His account of Jesus’ miraculous birth is meant to distance Jesus’ origins as far as possible from these pagan notions.  That which is in Mary is from the Holy Spirit.  Full stop.  It is the work of God in her from start to finish.

Reading Matthew’s account in this way makes it possible to view Jesus as a new Adam in line with other NT writers (e.g., Paul in Romans 5, 1 Corinthians 15 and the Gospel of Luke in particular).  The genealogy of the third Gospel (Luke 3) begins with Jesus and traces his lineage all the way back to Adam (cf. Matthew’s geneaology which begins with Abraham and ends with Jesus: Matthew 1).  Jesus is therefore the Son of Adam, who is none other than the Son of God..  The God who said, “Let there be light” and light “became” can surely say, “Let there be a child in the womb of my loyal servant, Mary,” and make it so.  Adam was the product of adamah (Hebrew for “earth”) and the breath (Spirit) of God (Genesis 1-3).  Jesus, son of Mary, was the product of the Holy Spirit, according to Matthew.  Mary did not provide the biological raw materials. What she did provide–by common agreement with God–was a nurturing place or “ground” for the Christ child to grow and develop.  Natalogists can explain to us all that the woman’s body provides a child that grows within her.  Once implanted there is a great deal of exchange that takes place from the mother’s body to the baby’s. Needless to say, “we are wonderfully made.”

Now some may wonder whether reading Matthew’s account in the way I propose detracts from Jesus’ full humanity.  How could Jesus be fully human if he did not have a biological mother the way we moderns understand it, that is, in sharing Mary’s DNA?  Well was Adam “fully human”?  He had no mother.  His wife was to become the mother of all the living.  God sculpted Adam from the earth and breathed into him the breath of life and he became a living soul, fully human.  The analogy I suggest we consider here is new creation and new Adam.  What was in Mary was “from the Holy Spirit” start to finish.

Now if we take Mary’s role as surrogate rather than biological mother, we do not detract one bit from her ultimate significance in the story of salvation.  She remains the virgin mother in whom a miracle has taken place to bring forth a son who is properly called “Emmanuel” (God with us).  All of the honor due Mary as theotokos (“the Mother of God”) is not set aside by this reading of Matthew.

Posted on

Did Jesus Have a Violent Streak?

I’m posing this question because it was posed to me.  Actually, it was not a question; it was an accusation made by Rabbi Stuart Federow of Congregation Sha’ar Shalom in Clear Lake, TX.  I had made the statement that Jesus was a model of non-violence.  Federow’s jaw dropped and he began to list all the ways in which Jesus was violent, especially the temple incident when Jesus upset the tables of the moneychangers and drove out the animals being sold for sacrifice.  According to the rabbi, this event proved that Jesus had a violent streak. Jesus cleanses temple 1

While I don’t have time to deal with all the charges Federow made, let me consider the temple incident and ask whether Jesus acted violently on this occasion.

You may recall that the temple incident is recorded in all four Gospels.  The Synoptics place the episode late in the story right before Jesus’ execution.  John tells the story early in his account.  The majority of scholars follow the Synoptics and take it as an event late in Jesus’ life.  Others think it is possible Jesus “cleansed the temple” twice: one early in his ministry and the other right before he died.  Clearly, powerful people would have been upset with what Jesus did, and it is likely to have been the catalytic event that led to his execution by the Romans.

I suggest the best way to understand the temple incident is as a prophetic act.  Prophets not only spoke their messages; they often acted them out.  Isaiah walked around naked for 3 years to show the humiliation coming to the Egyptians and Cushites when the Assyrians took them into exile (Isaiah 20).  Today Isaiah would be accused of public nudity and probably put in jail.  Ezekiel laid on his left side in the road for 390 days in mock siege to signify the length in years Israel would suffer God’s judgment.  Today Ezekiel would be accused of mental illness and hospitalized.  Jeremiah purchased real estate near Jerusalem only days prior to the fall of his nation to the Babylonians. Today Jeremiah would be accused of being a bad real estate investor.  These prophetic acts were usually accompanied with an oracle (sermon) which explained what was happening and why, from God’s point of view.  By today’s standards many prophetic acts would be considered anti-social at least and perhaps even criminal.

When Jesus entered the temple he began to drive out those who sold and bought in outer court, the area where Gentiles were allowed to gather and worship (Mark 11:15-17 and par.).  He overturned the tables of the moneychangers and did not allow anyone to carry anything through the temple.  Exactly what Jesus is objecting to is unclear, but together with the episode of the cursing of the fig tree (Mark 11:12-14, 20-21) and the Olivet discourse (Mark 13) we may make some reasonable conclusions.  First, pilgrims traveling to Jerusalem needed sacrificial animals to participate in the temple worship.  Providing them with appropriate sacrifices was an important service.  But why did they set up their business in the one area where the nations (outsiders) were allowed to worship?  Couldn’t they have offered their services outside of the temple? Imagine the urine and feces which flowed down the pavements from the animals kept in cages and fences.  Imagine the stench and the noise of commerce.  Was this a house of prayer for all the nations?  Furthermore, the temple area was so large that merchants apparently used the porticos and porches as a shortcut so they could save themselves a few steps. Jesus expressly forbade them from making such casual use of God’s house.  Essentially, each of these actions violated the sanctity of the temple. The Mishnah Berakah 9.5 gives us some examples worthy of consideration: “One should not act silly while facing the Eastern Gate [of the Temple in Jerusalem] for it faces toward the Chamber of the Holy of Holies.  One should not enter the Temple mount with his walking stick, his overshoes, his money bag, or with dust on his feet.  And one should not use [the Temple mount] for a shortcut.”  If these actions violated the sanctity of the temple, how much more setting up stalls, selling animals, and exchanging money.Jesus-Cleansing-the-Temple

Quoting Isa 56.7 and Jer 7.11, Jesus may well have told us why he acted.  God’s house was to be a house of prayer for all the nations, but the temple authorities had made it into a den of robbers.   As long as people used the temple courts as a cut-through and merchants set up shop selling animals where the nations were to gather for worship, the sanctity of the temple was in jeopardy.  Instead of being a place where the humble and repentant assembled, the temple porticos had become a haunt for criminals.

Do not forget that in Jesus’ day anti-temple sentiments were running high.  The high priesthood had been bought and sold by scoundrels, and many faithful Jews had withdrawn completely from the temple.

Jesus’ actions in the temple that day are best understood as a prophetic act intended to portray the coming destruction of the temple. Jesus was not “cleansing the temple,” he was pronouncing divine judgment against it.  He did so in a big, unforgettable way.  But hyperbole characterized  Jesus’ teaching all along: “If your right hand offends you, cut it off throw it away.”  Was Jesus advocating self-mutilation or was he driving home a point about the seriousness of sin?  Obviously, the latter is the case.  Jesus was not advocating violence against oneself.  When Jesus overturned the tables, scattered the animals, and put an end to that day’s commerce, he was acting out in one place what the Romans would do across the entire temple mount 40 years later.   A few days after the temple incident, Jesus gave a sermon called “the Olivet discourse” which described in some detail the events prior to and during the fall of Jerusalem.

I do not think Jesus acted violently that day in the temple anymore than Isaiah was acting lasciviously in his own day.  Martin Luther King, Jr. and Mahatma Ghandi considered Jesus a great example of non-violence and so should we.  These modern prophets in their own way inspired movements which shocked the world and profoundly shaped it.

Posted on

Did Jesus Have All His Teeth? (Part 2)

Last week I posed a historical question: when Jesus entered public life (at the age of 30) did he have all his teeth?  It is a question which can’t be answered with certainty.  There is no physical description of Jesus from contemporary sources to help us nor are there any physical remains, so to address the question you look analogically at what happens to 30 somethings who have limited access to dental care. Consider this: what would you look like today without the benefit of braces earlier in life? how about the bridges, the caps, the crowns, the whitening toothpaste?  The chances are good you wouldn’t have that perfect, made for TV smile. 

Sallman's Head of Christ
Sallman’s Head of Christ

This historical question has a theological component.  You see most people have some image of Jesus in their heads.  As they read the Gospels or pray, they imagine Jesus looking one way or another.  Those images have been laid down in our experience.  It may have come from a painting you saw on the wall in Sunday School like Sallman’s the Head of Christ (1941; see the Warner Sallman Collection).

It could have come from a favorite movie like Mel Gibson’s The Passion of the Christ. Jim Caviezel is a dashing, leading man type who portrayed Jesus in Gibson’s 2004 epic drama.

Jim Caviziel as Jesus
Jim Caviziel as Jesus

Or perhaps your favorite is the Laughing Jesus who has a nice set of choppers.

But there is another place where our image of Jesus comes. From our theology. Orthodox theology tells us that Jesus is fully God and fully man.  This means, at least in our sanctified imaginations, that Jesus is a perfect man, a man with no physical flaws or blemishes. A man taller than most, with eyes more penetrating than most, with teeth perfect and whiter than most.  Our commitment to the divinity of Jesus often trumps our understanding of his humanity so that we could well imagine the infant Jesus speaking fluent Chinese from the manger.

The Laughing Jesus
The Laughing Jesus

But to embrace the incarnation, a central tenet of faith, we must take seriously Jesus’ humanity.  A truly human Jesus would have to learn to speak proper Aramaic and Greek.  He would have to practice his letters to form them properly.  What else could Luke mean when he said that Jesus grew in wisdom and stature (Luke 2)?  He would have had to apprentice with his father in the carpenter shop in order to make goods his neighbors needed.  He would have had belly aches, vomiting, and diarrhea.  He would have been laid up for days with the flu and had bunions and blisters on his feet.  A truly human Jesus would have had toothaches and probably lost some teeth before he was in his 20s.  Fortunately, his wisdom teeth would have come in about then in order to fill in the gaps and help chew his food. 

We are not very comfortable with a truly human Jesus because we’re not comfortable in our skin. So I guess it makes sense that we would think Jesus had a different kind of skin, skin that wouldn’t blister in the sun, freckle or wrinkle with age.  Our Jesus may have been the Word made flesh (John 1) but He had a different sort of flesh than ours. 

The 2nd century Christians known as the Gnostics were so uncomfortable in their skin that they denied Christ his. He only appeared to be human. He only seemed to suffer for there can be no true participation of the divine in the ugliness of humanity. 

If the incarnation is true, if God has become flesh and dwelled among us in the historic person known as Jesus of Nazareth, and if Jesus truly died on the cross and rose bodily from the grave, then this body we inhabit matters. It matters to God.  It must also matter to us.