Given the literary evidence in the Gospels, I would affirm Ralph Martin’s assertion that “[While Jesus] revered the Temple as his Father’s house, it held for him no indispensable place and no magical value…His chief concern seems to have been to safeguard the shrine as a ‘house of prayer’ for all peoples” (Worship in the Early Church, p.21). However, Jesus’ view of the Temple seems to vary from evangelist to evangelist in the Gospels. In Mark, for instance, it becomes clear that Jesus has quite the adversarial relationship with the Temple cultus of his day. The famous scene in which he clears the money-changers from the Temple is not so much a “cleansing” as it is a “cursing of the Temple,” as the story is situated within the classic Markan framing narrative of the cursing and withering of the fig tree (11:12-14, 20-21). Writing from a post-Temple perspective, it is not difficult to see how Mark saw the withering of the fig tree as a parallel to the Roman destruction of the Temple in 70 CE, and attributed both to Jesus’ supernatural power. However, in Matthew’s account—widely considered the most Jewish of all the Gospels—following the “cleansing,” Jesus and his disciples set up shop in the Temple to cure the blind and the lame (21:14-16) before retreating to Bethany. Here, rather than cursing the Temple, it might be reasonably asserted that Matthew views Jesus as establishing the Temple’s true purpose and potential.
Jesus’ relationship with the synagogue is a little more discernable. His presence and activity in the synagogues at Capernaum and Nazareth are well documented, as is the conflict that emerges from that presence. Though his relationship with the synagogue authorities was often tenuous (he was nearly thrown off a cliff once!), Luke 4:14-16 suggests that Jesus spoke regularly in the synagogue, and was even in fact quite popular at the beginning of his ministry. Jesus’ own words in Mark 13:9 seem to assume that his followers would continue to worship in the synagogue just as he had. This, however, raises an interesting question: What changed Jesus’ attitude? If the synagogue was to be a sort of Temple in absentia, why does Jesus appear to be fairly pro-synagogue but later develop a more adversarial view of the Temple?
the archives near Emmaus 
Is Jesus pro-Synagogue or pro-people? It seems that Jesus went where the people were and the people went where Jesus was. The conflict seems not with the Temple or Synagogue per se, but with the power structures and authorities that lead them. From a critical perspective, perhaps it was not Jesus’ attitude that changed towards the Synagogue, but the authors of the Gospels and the communities which they came from as can be noted in the historical development of Christianity as reform-Judaism to opposed to status-quo Judaism.
Very interesting article. I always look at that as Jesus’ rebellion against the Pharisees and not necessarily the people of the Temple. Nice to see a couple different ideas laid out.
As regards the Temple I think you are correct that Jesus understood the it to be worthwhile if it was functioning as intended: to be the place that represented Israel’s God in Zion to all the nations. Jesus wanted it to be a House of Prayer for the world. This seems to indicate that the Temple’s worth was based on whether or not Israel was functioning as she ought to function. If the prophetic vision of the people coming to Jerusalem was not being fulfilled then maybe the people weren’t playing their proper role in the world, and if the people weren’t playing their proper role then the Temple itself was functioning incorrectly, and if the Temple was not functioning correctly then it lost its ability to make Jerusalem into a City on a Hill shining into the darkness of the pagan world. If Israel wasn’t going to draw the nations to Zion, then God would sent his people into the nations: a diaspora. (Yes, I am parroting N.T. Wright here.)
I think Tyler may be correct that part of the hostility toward the Synagogue reflects the situation of the early Church. That said, I don’t think it is a complete invention, a total anachronism. If Jesus was rejected by some groups here and there he would have been rejected in their cultural hub, the Synagogue. That Jesus was likely rejected in many Synagogues, as he was rejected by many of his people once his mission became more radical and confusing, this would have provided a touch point for his later followers to remember how as Jesus moved closer to his destiny more and more people turned from him and now that his Gospel has been made know it is no surprise that people turn from his followers.
That’s fascinating, Brian. While reading the Luke 4 passage I stewed long and hard on the notion that Jesus began as a popular teacher/preacher/healer, but with time grew more and more radical and lost more and more followers along the way to Golgotha. Seems typical of many prophetic types. In the years shortly before his assassination, Dr. King drew much criticism regarding his stance on Vietnam. Gandhi also grew more radical as he aged, and after his cooperative effort to liberate India from Great Britain faced strong opposition from Hindus and Muslims alike for his support of a split Indian/Pakistani state.
Indeed, even in the Gospels Peter doesn’t have his “aha!” moment until sometime after the disciples have been with Jesus. If this is so then his earliest disciples may have seen him as a teacher of Israel (like Nicodemus), a neo-prophet (like John the Baptist), and a miracle worker/exorcist, but he seems to have been hesitant to declare himself Messiah openly. Once the cat was out of the bag “things just got real” as the kids would say!
Tylertully’s perspective is bang-on. Jesus came first to address the House of Judah and after the House of Israel – who were a people, not a building. That said, it isn’t clear that when Jesus spoke of the temple he spoke of a brick and mortar edifice. At least two things suggest this:
In [Matt 26:61] where Jesus says “I am able to destroy the temple of God, and to rebuild it in three days.” wasn’t concerned with a brick and mortar edifice and may represent how Jesus’ really saw the temple (people filled with the Holy Spirit).
Stephen uses [Isa 66:1-2] in [Acts 7:49] in a commentary that exhibits an anti-brick and morter interpretation of the temple. He quotes Isaiah to show that God isn’t concerned with the building but with the Spirit-filled flock (created in His image) who inhabits the building. Stephen’s understanding is credited to Jesus (and matches his attitude denoted above), so this reflects indirect evidence of Jesus’s perspective.
If true it means that Jesus’ attitude about the building itself doesn’t change but becomes more obvious over time, while his attitude around the real temple (meaning His flock) is what he valued ….
A minor observation about “how Mark saw the withering of the fig tree as a parallel to the Roman destruction of the Temple in 70 CE“. This understanding is widely accepted, but by no means certain. An alternative perspective would be since Jesus was addressing Jerusalem he instead saw the fig tree as representative of the House of Judah. This is consistent with a prophetic understanding (see [Jer 24:5-8]). Although the Romans destroyed the temple in 70 CE Jesus wasn’t so interested in that. Rather he was more interested in the real temple. By cursing the House of Judah as the fig tree, he was foreseeing their destruction by the Romans. Basically he was foreseeing Zechariah’s prophecy “Strike the shepherd, and the sheep will be scattered [Zech 13:7]).
He was seeing the House of Judah sacked and scattered by Roman invasion (of which the temple was only a part).
The only trouble that I have with Jesus’ “cursing” the temple and claiming it “redundant” (in the words of Wright) is the fact that His followers continue to show a reverence for the temple after the resurrection. In Acts we see them meeting there. Of course, this may only mean that in this way the infant Church did not follow the way of Jesus. Perhaps it was not a part of their vocation to act out Jesus’ prophetic symbolic acts.
Along with the synagogues, it appears that the early church’s continuation with the his synagogue visits adds evidence. The early Christians appear to have felt rather comfortable meeting in the synagogues.
freedominorthodoxy.blogspot.com
Could it be that the early Church hoped for national repentance? For example, Peter’s Pentecost sermon is remembered as calling the people to repent of their actions against the Messiah so that they may participate in the renewal of the Spirit. Many responded positively, and Luke depicts even Pharisees joining the movement. There may have been hope that Jesus’ vindication would not necessitate judgment because the people would recognize their error. Maybe Jesus’ words were taken as those of other prophets, i.e., A will happen (unless B happens. The Temple will be destroyed! (Though if the nation repents there will be mercy.)
The same could be said of the Synagogue. While there may have been memory of Jesus’ being rejected in many (even some) Synagogues, and while there was hope that this trend would be reversed now that they were proclaiming his resurrection (and it may have been in many locations), as soon as there was even some rejection the present followers of Jesus made conceptual connections with the early days of the movement.
The Essenes (apparently) had the same relationship with the ruling authorities Jesus did (from the anti-Jerusalem/temple comments found aplenty in the DSS).
The Jerusalem hierarchy / temple authorities clearly had a relationship with Herod who, as we know, wasn’t an Israelite Jew but an Edomite Jew.
This raises the question of whether of whether or not the temple hierarchy had an Edomite connection, and whether or not the source of this ‘sheep/goat’ animosity was ethnic in origin.
One intriguing clue may be the statement found in [John 8:33] “We are offspring of Abraham and have never been enslaved to anyone. How is it that you say, “You will become free”?“.
The Edomite nation had never been enslaved by any other, however Israel had twice been enslaved (Egypt, Babylon). Both Edom and Israel/Judah were Abrahamic nations (offspring) but only Israel/Judah were covenant nations. No (educated) Israelite would claim not to have been enslaved.
While Lk. 4:14-16 points to Jesus commonly being in synagogues and being “glorified” by all, the very next scene in 4:16-30 includes the time when “he was nearly thrown off a cliff.” So even though at the beginning, his home synagogue of Nazareth speaks well of him, very quickly they begin to question his “credentials,” and in response to his words about going to Gentiles, want to throw him off a cliff. Thus from beginning to end in the Gospels, Jesus meets stern resistance in the synagogues.
Mk. 13:9 does not assume his disciples will continue to worship in the synagogues. Jesus is warning his disciples that they will be delivered up to councils (run by rulers of the synagogues, the scribes and Pharisees) due to their mission, and will be beaten in synagogues as well as stand before governors and kings for his sake, to bear witness to them. Just as Jesus’ purpose in going to synagogues was to bear witness to his new kingdom, and face mostly rejection, so his disciples would do the same–and suffer the same.
As for the temple, Mark does correlate the cursing of the fig tree with the “cleansing” (a prophetic sign regarding its future destruction). Matthew also puts these two events side by side also (though without the “bracketing” of Mark). When Jesus heals people after the “cleansing” in Matthew, this does not mean he sees a more positive role for the temple. It is just another way of bearing witness to his new kingdom, and is as usual met with resistance. In Mt. 24:1-2 when his disciples admire the temple buildings, Jesus says its future is to have not one stone left on another.
In Acts, this pattern continues: the disciples bear witness to the risen Jesus (and heal some) in the temple courts, and some end up in prison (due to the temple authorities, the chief priests). Stephen becomes the first martyr due to his disputes with synagogues (Acts 6:9-15), who “delivered” him to their ruling authorities (chief priests and scribes) in the “council.” As Paul bore witness initially in synagogues wherever he went, he was consistently rejected (by most) and sometimes beaten.
It is not a temple or synagogue that is important in this new kingdom. It is gatherings (churches) of disciples, who often gather in homes to share their teaching and caring for one another, just as Jesus did.
I don’t believe the answers are as clear cut as you present them above, Lucas.
Luke mentions that Jesus taught in the synagogues (συναγωγαῖς, plural) throughout the Galilee region, not just in his hometown of Nazareth. This includes his likely home-base of Capernaum. It also implies the passage of some time and the building up of a reputation among the locals, as it’s not very possible to speak in multiple synagogues at once. So chronologically speaking, there is no reason to suspect that 4:16-30 begins Jesus’ ministry. Narratively speaking, it’s just where the conflict begins. There is no need to flesh out Jesus’ growing popularity in 4:14-16 because it’s just setup for where the pertinent details start. Jesus was a popular synagogue speaker in the Galilee region before the events of 4:16-30. While he never condemns the synagogues per se, he often condemns the authorities who are in charge of the synagogues.
I would also argue that Mark 13:9 DOES presuppose that the disciples will continue to attend synagogue meetings, and that they will be beaten in the synagogues because of their faith in Christ. The “they” in “they will hand you over to councils” is ambiguous (any old Galilean? synagogue/Temple authorities? who?), but in any case is not necessarily directly related to the next clause about being beaten in the synagogues, any more than being beaten in the synagogues is directly related to standing before governors and kings. The fact that Jesus says his disciples will be beaten in synagogues is evidence that he assumes synagogue worship will continue after he is gone (and historically, that’s what happened—Matthew’s Gospel in particular was written during a period of intense unrest during which Jewish Christians were expelled from the synagogues).
Could you illustrate your point regarding the Matthean text? From the textual evidence, Jesus appears not to condemn the Temple as severely in Matthew’s Gospel as he does in Mark’s. The “not one stone left upon another” is kind of painting the bullseye around the arrow. After all, the Temple had already been destroyed when Matthew wrote the passage. Furthermore, to predict that not one stone will be left upon another is not necessarily a condemnation of the Temple. It’s merely a prediction.
The gathering in homes of the early church does not inherently imply a rejection of the Temple cultus, nor of the synagogue gathering. However, I do agree that a central component of early Christian thought was the notion that the Shekinah was in fact located within the hearts of the believers (a la Wright). Paul follows this line of thought frequently in his letters. Yet this does not necessitate a total rejection of the Temple as a “house of prayer.” Jesus does, after all, still refer to the Temple as his Father’s house.
Jesus’ relationship with the Temple is tricky. On some occasions he seems to strongly condemn it, while in others he appears to sympathize with it and mourn its loss. It is precisely because of this difficult and unclear depiction that I chose to write this post.