book review: jesus and the temple by timothy gray

Jon Swales, Nov 2009 Trinity College, Bristol.

Book Review:

Jesus and the Temple: The Narrative Role of the Temple in Gospel of Mark, by

Timothy Gray

In Jesus and the Temple Timothy Gray seeks to explore, using the tools of narrative criticism,

the role of the temple in the Gospel of Mark. He advances two interrelated ideas. Firstly, that the

Markan Jesus announced that the temple in Jerusalem was to be destroyed, and secondly, that he

and his followers are the new eschatological temple.

Chapter One

Methodology

Gray's methodology, which he discusses in the opening part of his first chapter, focuses on his two-

fold approach of (a) narrative and (b)intertextuality. (a) His discussion of narrative criticism is

useful in that it shows this approach as having certain advantages over redaction criticism for it

allows one to focus on the text and not a reconstruction of either its prehistory or the hand of the


redactor.1b) Gray's discussion of intertextuality, which focuses on Mark's use of the OT, is

particularly brief in that he simply tells the reader that he will be presupposing the work of Richard

Hayes and applying his insights of metalepsis, 'the literary method of evoking a

particular context and meaning of one text through an allusion or brief citation

of that text',2 to Mark. In practise, this means that he 'holds that Mark's use of Scripture

is often more than atomistic, and so the wider context of the OT citation or

allusion will be examined.'3

In my opinion any serious study of Mark's gospel must, sooner or later, on account of the frequency

of the Old Testament citations and allusions, take account of the how the Old Testament is being

used.4 In the last few decades, spurred on by new literary approaches, there has been a growing

interest in Mark's use of the Old Testament resulting in a number of key books by scholars such as

Joel Marcus, Rikk Watts, Thomas Hatina5.

1 'The functional difference between the methods of historical criticism and narrative criticism is aptly compared to that between a window and a painting. Historical criticism seeks to look through the text in order to see the events, circumstances and motivations that led to the production of the text. Literary criticism, including narrative criticism, looks at the text in order to discern there the inner workings of the story world presented by the text. In other words, while historical criticism focuses on the degree to which a narrative refers to the real world (its referential function), narrative criticism deals directly with the contributions the various literary features of the text make to the telling of the story itself (its poetic function). Narrative critics do not deny the values of referential inquiry, but they leave this work to others and concentrate on the text as literature, with the goal of describing what and how the author communicates to the narrative’s readers.'

S.S Bartchy in Martin, R. P., & Davids, P. H. (2000). Dictionary of the later New Testament and its developments (electronic ed.). Downers Grove, IL: InterVarsity Press.

2 Gray, “Jesus and the Temple,” 7.3 Ibid. 7.4 “Of the sixty-nine OT references noted, six occur in two locations within the prologue

(1:1–13/15) and the rest are distributed as follows: seventeen occur in thirteen locations in the first section (1:14/16–8:21/26), twenty- two occur in twelve locations in the second section (8:22/27–10:45/52), and twenty-four occur in fifteen locations in the third section (10:45/11:1–16:8). The occurrence of the OT references approximately doubles in the last eight chapters, that is, “on the way” to and within Jerusalem. Over half are from the prophets (37 [54%]), including Daniel (9 [13%]). Isaiah is particularly influential (19, [28%]), especially chapters 40–66 (14 [20%]), and alone equals references to Torah (19 [28%]). Apart from one historical book (1%), the rest are from Psalms (12 [17%]) with all but one having Davidic connections and these mostly messianic/prophetic (7 [10%]). Each of the three larger groups is evenly represented except for Psalms, which is absent from the first main section. Granted the inevitable overlap and the generalizations inher-ent in categorizing, the great majority of the OT references concern Jesus’ identity and mission (36 [52%]), then points of law (16 [23%]), threats of judgement (10 [15%]), and warnings concerning discipleship (7 [10%]).”

Rikk Watts in Beale, G. K., & Carson, D. A. (2007). Commentary on the New Testament use of the Old Testament (p 111). Grand Rapids, MI; Nottingham, UK: Baker Academic; Apollos.Also,

'That Scripture played a profound role in the formation of early Christian thought is without debate. Almost every early Christian writing quotes from or alludes to it in one form or another. And Mark's Gospel, which contains approximately 30 quotations and possibly up to 200 allusions, is no exception. Whatever the exact number may be, their contribution to Mark's Gospel is significantly..But how is it that these scriptural quotations and allusions contribute to our understanding of Mark? How do they function in the gospel? From which perspective should they re read?'

T. R. Hatina, In Search of a Context: The Function of Scripture in Mark's Narrative (Sheffield Academic Pr, 2002). pg. 15 Hatina, T. R. In Search of a Context: The Function of Scripture in Mark's Narrative. Sheffield Academic Pr, 2002.


In one of these recent monograph 'In Search of a Context'6 Hatina poses a serious challenge to

the intertextual position which Gray assumes. He does this on a number of different levels,

however, I will just mention two of them. Firstly he challenges, on the basis of the ideological

context in which the term was coined, the very notion of using the word and concept

'intertextuality'7 within biblical studies. However, words and concepts evolve as they move between

disciplines which suggests that, although care must be taken to clarify concepts, it is not necessarily

illegitimate to reject the use of a phrase if its meaning has evolved. This is indeed the case with the

use of worldview (Weltanschauung) which is widely used with theological discourse but stems from

kantian roots.8 Secondly, he offers a significant challenge to Rikk Watts's understanding of Mark's

use of the OT, a method which is very similar to that of Timothy Gray. Hatina rejects the notion that

the original context of the OT needs to be taken into account. In discussion of the Markan

prologue's use of the OT he says,

'This use of scripture well coheres with an interpretative principal common in the early Church, namely that Scripture was read in the light of present situations. Dunn explains it this way, 'The authoritative Scripture is Scripture interpreted, Scripture understood in a sense which constituted a significant variation or development or departure from the original sense.'9

In the light of this 'metalepsis'--the use of the larger OT context--cannot simply be assumed, and

answers to the following questions will implicitly or explicitly determine the success of an

intertextual approach.

1) Does the narrative context determine the meaning of an allusion?

2) Does the interpreter look to external contexts such as the biblical book from which it

is taken, the early Jewish interpretative traditions, the historical Jesus, and/or early Kerygma?

Hatina, Thomas R. Biblical interpretation in early Christian Gospels. Continuum International Pub-lishing Group, 2006. 6 T. R. Hatina, In Search of a Context: The Function of Scripture in Mark's Narrative (Sheffield

Academic Pr, 2002).7 'some mention should be made of why i do not use the popular term for 'intertextuality'. I feel that a disclaimer is

important since an increasing number of biblical scholars investigating the use of Scripture in the New Testament are applying 'intertextuality' as a descriptive category to refer to the relationships between written texts, primarily as the embedding of fragments of earlier texts within later texts. The term is often used pragmatically to speak of a concern to uncover and investigate conscious or unconscious allusions to Scripture in the New Testament. What is, however lost in the process is the post-structuralist framework which 'intertextuality' arose and acquired its distinct meaning. Since 'intertextuality', as it is commonly understood in the post-structuralist context, is inimical to current historical-critical and even narrative critical enquiry, I refrain from its use. Elsewhere I have recently presented three major characteristics of intertextuality' which many biblical scholars have often failed to consider when they appropriate the term: (1) the ideological context wherein the term was coined, (2)the inherently related concept of text, and (3) the distinction between influence and intertextuality.'

T. R. Hatina, In Search of a Context: The Function of Scripture in Mark's Narrative (Sheffield Academic Pr, 2002). page 5 For more specific details of this see T. R Hatina, “Intertextuality and Historical Criticism in New Testament Studies: Is There a Relationship? 1,” Biblical Interpretation: A Journal of Contemporary Approaches 7, no. 1 (1999): 28–43.

8 David K. Naugle, Worldview: The History of a Concept (Wm. B. Eerdmans Publishing Company, 2002). 9 Hatina 182


3) Does it matter whether the OT texts are inherited from the Jesus tradition or are from

the hand of the redactor?

4) What is the literary competence of the Markan audience?

5) Is Mark being interpreted as a singular 'fresh' narrative or is it expected to be read as

a repeated performance?

6) What are the criteria for recognising an allusion?10

7)

To highlight the ways in which Timothy Gray's approach is, at times, inadequate we may note his

suggestion that there may be a correspondence between the priestly activities of distributing 'bread

and wine' (2 Sam 6:18-19; 1 Chronicles 16:2-3) and Jesus' celebration of the Passover (Mark 14:1-

25)11. He fails to mention that most translators do not interpret the Hebrew word הJKיָׁשNKָׁשOֲא as

wine, but as raisin cakes12. Neither can the LXX be called on for support as LXX 2 Sam 16:18-19

describes the gift as λάγανον ἀπὸ τηγάνου which may be translated as 'a cake from a frying pan13

and LXX 1 Chronicles 16:2-3 uses the word ἀμορίτην meaning baked produce/cake.

Mark 11-15

Leaving methodological matters behind, Gray offers a narrative overview of Mark 11-15 which

allows him to set both the entry narrative and the action in the temple in their narrative context,

providing coherence and offering effective resistance to an atomistic hermeneutical method. Gray is

correct to state that 'the temple dominates Mark's brief narrative about Jesus'14 and,

as my previous paper has shown, the Markan reader is drawn to make links between Jesus' death

and the temple. Although the temple is not mentioned explicitly in Mark 1-10 one does wonder

whether it is possible, from a narrative point of view, to understand Mark 11-15 without at least

10 Thomas R. Hatina, Biblical interpretation in early Christian Gospels (Continuum International Publishing Group, 2006). page 7

11 T. C. Gray, “Jesus and the Temple: The Narrative Role of the Temple in the Gospel of Mark” (The Catholic University of America, 2006), 135.

12 The KJV consistently translates the word as 'flagon of wine' receiving some support from some lexicons such as Wilhelm; Tregelles Gesenius, Gesenius' Hebrew and Chaldee lexicon to the Old Testament Scriptures (Bellingham, WA: Logos Research Systems, Inc., 2003), 87.I am not saying Gray's reading is impossible but it needs to be supported.

13 A. Pietersma and B. G Wright, A New English Translation of the Septuagint (Oxford University Press, USA, 2007).

14 Ibid. 10.


some analysis of Mark 1-10. There are several indications that a narrative analysis of the early

chapters would prove useful.

(i) It would allow a full development of both plot and characterisation to develop.

Gray seeks to highlight the plot of conflict in Mark between Jesus and his opponents

but leaves out of his discussion any interaction with this leadership in the earlier

chapters. (2:6,16,18,24; 3:22,3:6;7:1; 8:11,15, 10:2, 12:13,etc)

(ii) Both the baptism of John for the forgiveness of sins (Mark 1:4) and the

declaration of forgiveness to the paralysed man (Mark 2:5-10) provide, perhaps, an

alternative to the Temple cult.15

(iii) The prologue, as Rikki Watts has brilliantly argued, provides, on the basis of the

allusion to Isaiah and Malachi, the shape and template for understanding the rest of the

gospel. Although it picks this up at various points it is not developed through an an

overview of the first ten chapters.16

(iv) As will be seen later in this paper there is a strong case to be made in Mark 1-6 for a

portrayal of Jesus as the high priestly messianic figure. If so, this will then prove to be an

invaluable piece of the jigsaw for reconstructing the relationship between Jesus and the

temple.17

Gray moves on from this narrative overview into a detailed study of Jesus' way to the temple. He

approaches this from four angles

A. the details and the pace of the narrative ;

B. the motif of royalty;

C. the motif of 'the way';

D. the motif of the coming one from Psalm 118.

15 There is some discussion as to the relationship between John the Baptist and the temple cult. Webb sees John's baptism as a replacement for the temple cult

'the mediatorial role of 'the baptizer' in performing baptism to mediate forgiveness is parallel to the mediatorial role of a priest in performing a sacrifice to mediate forgiveness in the sacrificial system.' R. L Webb, “John the Baptist and His Relationship to Jesus,”

Studying the Historical Jesus (1994): 178–229. 192, whereas Taylor's recent study draws the opposite conclusions,

'nothing in our sources connects purification rituals with an anti-Temple stance. Immersion was never a substitute for Temple sacrifice.'

J. E Taylor, The Immerser: John the Baptist within Second Temple Judaism (Wm. B. Eerdmans Publishing, 1997). 31

16 R. E. Watts, Isaiah's New Exodus and Mark (Mohr Siebeck, 1997).17 Crispin H.T.[1] Fletcher-Louis, “Jesus as the High Priestly Messiah: Part 1,” Journal for the Study of the

Historical Jesus 4 (June 2006): 155-175; Crispin H.T.[1] Fletcher-Louis, “Jesus as The High Priestly Messiah: Part 2,” Journal for the Study of the Historical Jesus 5 (January 2007): 57-79.


We shall look at each of these briefly. (A) Gray suggests that the reader 'accustomed to the

typically breathless pace of the Markan narrative' would notice a 'significant

change in narrative pace'.18 Gray does not develop this but simply notes that 'the

narrative tempo gives a deliberate, even solemn, tone to the pace, serving to

highlight the importance of Jesus' entry and presence in Jerusalem and its

temple.'19 A recent monograph by Duran, entitled The Power of Disorder, explores the pace

and tempo in the latter part of the gospel of Mark in the light of recent anthropological studies on

the subject of ritualization. Duran informs us that ritualization occurs when,

'the actors, time , place and events...are set apart from the ordinary.'...'ritualization is the process of distinguishing some expanse of experience from the constant flow of life.'20

Duran suggests that Mark is seeking to differentiate the passion narrative from ordinary time, thus

making Jesus' death a solemn ritual. Mark achieves this through a 'distinct treatment of time,

the defined space of Jerusalem, and the sense that the events within the

Passion are those to which the gospel has been necessarily leading.'21 Gray

notices that the narrative pace does indeed slow down when he enters Jerusalem and the Temple

but, as Duran has shown, it should also be noted that the narrative tempo of Mark slows down and

climaxes at the scene of the crucifixion22 suggesting, contra Gray, that the cross is Jesus' final

destination rather than the temple.

(B) In Mark 11:3 we see that the disciples are told, when acquiring the colt, to respond to anyone

questioning their activity by saying 'ὁ κύριος αὐτοῦ χρείαν ἔχει'. Gray argues that this is a reference

to Jesus. Gray rightly states that 'the use of κύριος in 11:3 looks back to the prophetic oracles of

Isaiah 40 and Malachi 3 cited in the prologue' showing that 'the true nature of Jesus' authority as

Lord of the Temple.'23 Gray thus follows a recent drive within scholarship, led by Watts and

Marcus24, to see the opening prologue as being determinative for structure and template of the

whole gospel. However, Gray does not, in contrast to Watts, develop fully the Isaianic new exodus

motif.

(C) Gray argues that Mark's gospel is shaped around the 'way motif' and that the theology of the

18 Ibid. 15.19 Ibid. 16.20 Nicole Wilkinson Duran, The Power of Disorder: Ritual Elements in Mark's Passion Narrative (T.& T Clark Ltd..,

2009), 24.21 Ibid.22 Ibid. 31-32.23 Gray, “Jesus and the Temple,” 18.24 Watts, Isaiah's New Exodus and Mark; Joel Marcus, The Way of the Lord (T.& T Clark Ltd, 2004).


way has its primary focus in Jerusalems' temple with the 'cross loom[ing] in the narrative

background'25 As discussed in a previous paper I agree that the Malachi quotation in the

prologue does lead us to see that Jesus is on his way to the temple, but it is reductionistic to see the

cross as 'narrative background' for the closeness in proximity of the passion predictions with 'way to

Jerusalem' support the position that 'the way' of Jesus is not only the way to the temple but also the

way to the cross. (Mark 10:32-52)

(D) Gray interprets Jesus' arrival at Jerusalem (11:1-11), in which the crowd offer a rendition of

Psalm 118, as ironic in that the crowd are looking for a Davidic Kingdom but 'Mark

intends the motif of the 'coming one' to evoke prophetic, rather than

royal associations'.26 Jesus comes, not as a political liberator of the temple in the

tradition of Judas Maccabeus (1 Macc 5:45-54), whose violent revolution threw off gentile

oppression, but rather as the Lord described by Malachi... 'who comes as judge of the

temple, a 'coming' wholly different from the one the disciples and crowd expect.'27For Gray

'Mark and his readers know well that the crowd's nationalistic hopes for Jesus' 'coming to

usher a restored Davidic Kingdom are deeply mistaken'28

Gray is mistaken, in my opinion, to draw these conclusions from Mark 11:1-11. The choice is not

simply between a Davidic messiahship which looks like Judas Maccabeus and a non-messianic

prophetic figure, rather, Jesus may well be offering a fresh interpretation as to the nature of Davidic

messiahship. Michael Bird, in Are you the One who is to come?, traces the concept of

Messiah(s) throughout Old Testament and second temple literature and rightly points out that,

'the role of the Messiah(s) in the literature is multifarious. There was no single and uniform description of the messianic task. Likewise the means through which a Messiah accomplished his mission, including the degree of divine assistance, were diverse in the mind of interpreters.'29

Messianic interpretations were not set in stone so the possibility is raised that Mark is portraying

Jesus as Davidic messiah who is different from other contemporary Jewish interpretations.

Instead of offering counterpoints to Gray's individual argument I will simply sketch out an

alternative and more plausible reading. In contrast to Gray I would suggest that Jesus, in fact,

comes to the city as a Davidic Messiah to exercise his authority over the city and the temple.

However he is rejected by the leadership. The davidic welcome of the crowd is not shared by those

25 Ibid.29.26 Ibid., 32.27 Ibid. 33.28 Ibid. 32.29 Michael F. Bird, Are You the One Who Is to Come? (Baker Publishing Group, 2009), 53.


within the city. This rejection of Jesus as true priest and king by the city will lead to the

judgement and destruction of the city and the temple.

--------------

Excurses I: The Royal Entry?

In this excurses I will not offer counterpoints to Gray's argument but will instead present a number

of arguments in support of Jesus' royal entry into Jerusalem. Before doing so it is necessary to say

that the Markan Jesus, and thus the Markan reader, expects Jesus to die in Jerusalem and therefore a

paradox is created for the reader in which welcome and repentance is required but the Markan

Jesus and the reader know in advance that violence rather than acceptance and repentance will be

the response of the Jerusalem leadership.

The following points support my Davidic Messianic reading of the text:

1) Pilgrims, R.T France suggests, would normally come towards Jerusalem on foot (M. Hag 1:1).

Given the Markan Jesus’ normal mode of transport is walking on foot it is highly symbolic that

Jesus himself makes the arrangements for the acquisition of the colt (πῶλον). He does not come

towards Jerusalem as an anonymous pilgrim but as the centre of attention. One may assume that

readers familiar with the messianic passages of Zechariah 9:9-10 and Gen 49:11 would draw

parallels with the activity of Jesus. What is explicit in Matthew 21:5 and John 12:14, is implicit in

Mark. Jesus is announcing in symbolic action that he is the rightful humble King (Mark 10:35-45)

who, returning to the city, will bring peace to the nations (Zech 9:10)30. The Markan Jesus shares

company with the sign prophets who acted symbolically to evoke key moments of Israel's history

and eschatological hopes. (Ant. 20.167-168, Ant 20.97-98, War 6.285-86, Ant 20:169-72).31

Further support is found in the description of the colt as ἐφʼ ὃν οὐδεὶς οὔπω ἀνθρώπων ἐκάθισεν

(11:2) suggests that it is being used for a special purpose (Numbers 19:2, 1 Sam 6:7) with the LXX

describing the colt in Zech 9:9 as new colt πῶλος νέος, Likewise, although with the usual dating

problems of using the Rabbinic literature, the Mishnah also tells us that no-one is allowed to ride

any animal which the king rides on (m. Sanh. 2:5). Jesus' symbolic attention seeking gains the

appropriate response from the disciples as they place their cloaks upon the colt. Presumably Jesus

approves their action as he sits upon the colt. The crowds (πολλοί) join in the spectacle by

spreading their coats on the road which is a sign of paying great honour to the rider which has both

Old testament and Greco-Roman parallels. (2 Kings 9:13, Plutarch Vit. Cato Minor. 12) 32 The 30 'In fact several threads from Zechariah may have been programmatic for Jesus. Taken together the use of Zech 9:9

(The triumphal Entry), Zech. 14:21 (temple episode), and Zech 13:7 (passion prediction) provide a coherent and plausible context indicating that Zechariah was the script that Jesus sought to follow in the final days of Jerusalem.' Ibid. 124.

31 For a helpful discussion see Ibid. 123.32 Adela Yarbro. Collins and Harold W. Attridge, Mark : A Commentary on the Gospel of Mark,


crowd also call out an improvised version of Psalm 118:25 which ends with the words ἡ ἐρχομένη

βασιλεία τοῦ πατρὸς ἡμῶν Δαυίδ. They are, as a response to Jesus’ symbolic action of Messiahship,

hailing him as both King and Son of David. Although some would seek to divide the concepts of

'Son of David' and 'Messiah' the Markan text, despite 12:35-37, portrays Jesus as the 'Son of David'

(10:47-48 also Mark 2:25). 33 Jesus’ action and that of the disciples and crowd are not at cross

purposes for the Markan Jesus intended to act messianically and was received initially by οἱ

προάγοντες καὶ οἱ ἀκολουθοῦντες (11:9).

2) David Catchpole34, Brent Kinman35 and Paul Duff36 have analysed a number of Greco-

Roman sources which provide information 'about celebratory welcomes in the ancient

world, and from these basic patterns of behaviour emerge.'37 which can assist in

understanding Jesus' entry into Jerusalem. Kinman, after discussing a number of sources, draws the

following conclusions as to what an ancient observer may have expected if a member of royalty

approached. Firstly 'At the approach of the dignitary, a band of municipal officials

and other citizens, including the social, religious, and political elite, would

proceed some distance from the city in order to meet the celebrity well in

advance of the city walls'.38Secondly, 'once the dignitary had been met by a

delegation from the city, speeches of welcome would be given by select

members of the delegation'39 Thirdly, Kinman notes that 'grave consequences' would

follow if a city failed to render honour and customary regard for the royal visit. (Dio Cassius

62:24:1).40

If it is granted that the original readership understand Jesus as arriving as a Kingly-Messianic

figure, and if the readership were aware of the protocol regarding the reception of a King by a city,

then in reading the anti-climax of Mark 1:11, where Jesus by himself enters the temple, it would be

recognized that the Messianic King was being rejected and that it would be action which would be

followed judgement. As the Markan plot develops from Mark 1:1-11 we see that fate of the city is

Hermeneia--a critical and historical commentary on the Bible, 519 (Minneapolis: Fortress Press, 2007).

33 'the designation 'Christ' is not to be understood in its Jewish nationalistic, political and triumphalist 'Son of David' sense but in the sense in, which it later came to be understood by Hellenistic Christianity, that is, as a divine being who is to be identified with the community's exalted Lord.'

Telford, William. The Theology of the Gospel of Mark. Cambridge University Press, 1999. 3734 D. R. Catchpole, “The ‘Triumphal’ Entry,” Jesus and the Politics of his Day (1984): 136–85.35 Brent Kinman, “Parousia, Jesus' "A-Triumphal" Entry, and the Fate of Jerusalem (Luke 19:28-44),” Journal of

Biblical Literature 118, no. 2 (Summer 1999): 279-294.36 P. B Duff, “The March of the Divine Warrior and the Advent of the Greco-Roman King: Mark's Account of Jesus'

Entry into Jerusalem,” Journal of Biblical Literature (1992): 55–71.37 Kinman, “Parousia, Jesus' "A-Triumphal" Entry, and the Fate of Jerusalem (Luke 19,” 281.38 Ibid.39 Ibid. 282.40 Ibid.,283.


sealed. Jesus' action in the temple (11:15-19), being framed by the withering fig tree (11:12-15,20),

is a symbolic announcement of the destruction of the city. This is followed by the eschatological

discourse which, as we have seen in a previous paper, has the destruction of the city at its focus.

3) This interpretation is supported from within the Markan narrative by the episode of the

withered fig tree (11:12-15,20) and the parable of the vineyard (12:1-12). Jesus did not find

fruit on the fig tree which led to its cursing. Likewise, God does not initially send his son to

bring judgment on the vineyard tenants but to gain respect (v6, ὅτι ἐντραπήσονται τὸν υἱόν

μου). However they did not respect the son so judgment followed (Mark 12:8-9).

------------------------------

(IV) Gray concludes chapter one by offering a detailed analysis of the demonstration in the temple

following a similar reading of this passage to E.P Sanders and N.T. Wright in that the incident

in the Temple is not simply about economic abuse (cleansing) but is a symbolic action which

announces the destruction of Jerusalem.

'It goes well beyond social protest in Mark's account. '41' Mark does not intend to 'portray Jesus' demonstration simply as a social protest but rather as a prophetic gesture foretelling the eschatological end of the temple'42

Gray argues that Jesus, in excluding both πωλοῦντας καὶ τοὺς ἀγοράζοντας, would temporally have

halted the sacrificial cultic activities of the temple. Jesus drives out anyone who was carrying

σκεῦος διὰ τοῦ ἱεροῦ (v16) which Gray, on the basis of the LXX, understands as a cultic vessel'43.--

'Jesus not only puts an end to the temple's business operation, but he also

suspends the practise of cult and ritual.'44

In quoting Isa 56:7 'Jesus is pictured assuming the first person address of YHWH'

which allows 'Jesus to make a subtle but bold claim to the temple. Illustrating his

authority over it.'45 The eschatological time is at hand and the temple which was unable to

'draw the Gentiles into prayer is part of the old age and is therefore doomed;

the eschatological plans of God are now being ushered in by Jesus. The temple

cannot be reformed.'46 This understanding of the Temple incident is supported by its careful

framing between the two interrelated episodes of the cursing of the fig tree.47

41 Ibid. 38.42 Ibid. 44.43 Ibid. 43.44 Ibid. 45.45 Ibid. 48.46 Ibid. 51.47 Philip F. Esler, “The Incident of the Withered Fig Tree in Mark 11: A New Source and Redactional Explanation,”

Journal for the Study of the New Testament 28, no. 1 (September 1, 2005): 41-67.


I am convinced that the general thrust of Gray's interpretation of the temple incident is correct.

However, one does wonder whether he overstates his case. The 'symbolic action showing future

destruction' should be separated from the claim that Jesus 'suspends the practise of cult and ritual.'

Jesus could be against the temple leadership and announcing its doom without necessarily being

against the temple cult. In support of this we may note note that the Markan Jesus is involved in the

passover, the sacrifice of lamb which would have happened in the temple. 48 Although no lamb is

mentioned in Mark's description the last supper the meal is explicitly described as a passover meal

(14:12).

Gray's thesis, as I have mentioned previously, could be supported by the recent work of Crispin

H.T. Fletcher-Louis contained in a journal article and found in two parts entitled Jesus as the

High Priestly Messiah. His thesis is that Jesus 'thought he was Israel's long awaited

eschatological High Priest'49 It is unfortunate that this thesis was not explored in Gray's work

--------------

Excurses II: Jesus as the Eschatological High Preist

In the past scholarship has primarily focussed its attention on royal messiahship yet, Fletcher-Louis

states, 'evidence for belief in a sole royal figure at Israel's head is hard to find.'50

In contrast evidence for a belief is an eschatological high priest is found in both Old Testament and

intertestamental literature. 'The prophets, by and large, see the future in priestly

terms, even when the future is shared with Kings.'51

Using Mark as his base text, Fletcher-Louis explores the idea that Jesus saw himself as the

eschatological high priest. He explores this through (i) an exploration of the title 'Son of Man' and

an (ii) analysis of Mark 1-6.

(I) The high priest was 'an office that was at once human, divine and cosmic.'52 For

Fletcher-Louis, the Son of Man figure in Dan 7:13 is 'Israel's true eschatological high

priest. His coming to God with the clouds evokes the Day of Atonement when

the high priest enters God's presence surrounded by clouds of incense.'53 This

priestly reading of the 'Son of Man' gains support in the New Testament form Rev. 1:13-16 where

48 Scot McKnight, Jesus and His Death: Historiography, the Historical Jesus, and Atonement Theory (Baylor University Press, 2005), chap. 12 esp. p 254-255.

49 Crispin H.T.[1] Fletcher-Louis, “Jesus as The High Priestly Messiah: Part 2,” Journal for the Study of the Historical Jesus 5 (January 2007): 57.

50 Ibid. 163.51 Ibid. 168.52 Crispin H.T.[1] Fletcher-Louis, “Jesus as the High Priestly Messiah: Part 1,” Journal for the Study of the

Historical Jesus 4 (June 2006): 158.53 Fletcher-Louis, “Jesus as The High Priestly Messiah,” 58.


the Son of Man is dressed as the a high priest on the day of atonement. Fletcher-Louis also sees this

reading supported by both Mark 8:38,13:26 and 14:62, the former which describes the Son of Man

coming in divine power, and the latter being an accusation of blasphemy. The implicit link between

'Son of Man' and priesthood being made due to the divine nature of the priesthood. The suffering of

the Son of Man (passion predictions) is paralleled by the suffering of the high priest (4QTLevi with

Q 17:24-25). Furthermore in Mark 10:45 the Son of Man came to give his life as a ransom for

many.

The only parallel to someone giving themselves as this kind of ‘ransom’, is the stipulation in Numbers 3 that the tribe of Levi is to be given to serve , ‘to work’, in the sanctuary where they are to act as ransom monies in place of the lives of the firstborn of the tribes of Israel.54

ii) Fletcher-Louis goes on to explore Jesus' priesthood in Mark 1-6. Firstly, he notes that Jesus is

identified by the demon as 'the Holy One of God'. (1:24)

The acclamation does not suit a king or a prophet. God is Israel’s Holy One. And angels are often called holy ones. But the only precedent for a singular ‘the Holy One of God’ is Aaron (Ps. 106.16; Num. 16.7 ‘the holy one (of the LORD)’), who dramatically wins the right to the title in the battle with Korah and his rebellious company in Numbers 16.55

Secondly, 'three of Mark's healing stories are noteworthy because the conditions

they claim Jesus healed correspond to conditions of impurity which Num. 5:1-4

says requires removal from the Israelite camp'.--Mark 1:40-45, Leprosy; 5:25-34,

abnormal discharge; 5:35-43, corpse impurity. Jesus does not contract the impurity and disease but

heals through physical touch (1:41;5:41;5:27). Jesus is 'supercharged with purity'56 and has

'contagious holiness'. This idea of contagious holiness is found in the OT to describe the garments

of the high priest (Ezekiel 42:14, 44:19, Ex 30:29) which is supported further by Numbers 16:41-50

and Wisdom of Solomon 18. In Numbers 16:41-50 the priest stops the mortal plague which is

befalling the people, a point which is taken up and developed significantly by Wisdom of Solomon

18.

The experience of death touched also the righteous, and a plague came upon the multitude in the desert, but the wrath did not long continue. 21 For a blameless man rushed to be their champion; he brought forward the armour of his ministry, prayer and propitiation by incense; he withstood the anger and put an end to the disaster, showing that he was your servant. 22 He conquered the wrath not by strength of body, nor by force of arms, but by word (or, perhaps, ‘by Logos’) he subdued the avenger, appealing to the oaths and covenants given to our fathers. 23 For when the dead had already fallen on one another in heaps, standing between he drove back the wrath, and cut off its way to the living. 24 For on his foot-length robe the whole world was

54 Ibid. 60.55 “High Priest 2” 64.56 Crispin H.T.[1] Fletcher-Louis, “Jesus as The High Priestly Messiah: Part 2,” Journal for the Study of the

Historical Jesus 5 (January 2007): 66.


depicted, and the glories of the fathers were engraved on the four rows of stones, and your majesty was on the diadem upon his head. 25 To these the destroyer yielded. And these he feared; for merely to test the wrath was enough. (Wisdom of Solomon 18)

Aaron's clothing gives him a sacramental power of death for the 'high priests garments

emanate a cosmic power that overcomes the physical presence of disease and

death.'57 For Mark, Jesus' person, rather than his garments, offer this healing and contagious

holiness. However for Mark the general population believe that his power is found in his clothing

(6:56). This reading is further enhanced by noticing that the people want to touch the 'fringe of his

garment' which may be the tassels (tsitit)_ which the Israelites are commanded to wear on the

corners of their cloaks (Numbers 15:37-41 with the intention of showing that the whole nation are a

nation of priests (ex 19:6).

Thirdly, for Fletcher-Louis, Jesus as the Son of Man has authority to forgive sins (2:10) which

offers a challenge to the role of forgiveness offered by the temple cult. Jesus as a messianic high

priest is able to offer what was previously restricted to the temple cult and its priestly rulers. (Ex

28:36-38. 2 Enoch 64:5).

Fourthly, in Mark 2:23-24 Jesus, in response to the complaint from the Pharisees regarding plucking

grain on the Sabbath, describes the actions of David and his men eating the bread from the temple

in 1 Samuel 21. Jesus concludes by saying 'The son of Man is Lord even of the Sabbath' . Many

commentators suggest that Jesus appeals to 1 Samuel 21 as it highlights the parallel between Jesus

and David. However, the link between Mark 2:23-24 and 1 Samuel 21 is enhanced when it is noted

that 'what the priests do on the Sabbath in the temple, including their

preparation and eating of the bread of the presence, is a work.' 58 Jesus is the

eschatological high priest and the Galilean cornfield 'has the legal status of the Temple.'

He is the one who is able to say that He is Lord of the Sabbath.

The scope of this excurses does not allow us to interact fully with the bold thesis of Fletcher-Louis

that Jesus [or in our case the Markan Jesus] 'believed he was both true king and priest

and that he acted accordingly.'59 However, if he is at all on target then it further develops

the theme that Jesus is in conflict with the temple, and allows the theme of Jesus' clash with the

Temple to be traced throughout the whole of Mark rather than , as Gray does, to the limited task of a

57 “High Priest 2.” 68.58 High Priest 2, 7559 High priest 2, 79


narrative analysis of Mark 12-15.

--------------------------

Gray ends chapter one with the question,

'What is now left in the reader's mind is the question of what if anything, will replace the temple. In other words, where will the 'house of prayer' for God's people be found?'60

The following chapters seek to show that Jesus, and the community which gathers around him, are

the eschatological temple.

Chapter Two

In response to the closing question of his previous chapter 'Where will the house of prayer

for God's people be found?' Gray examines the saying about faith, prayer and forgiveness

(11:22-25) and the question of authority (11:27-33) which offer the first hints in 'Mark's story

that there will be a new temple.'61 After the temple incident Jesus finds that the fig tree,

which he had cursed the previous day, has withered. Peter is surprised and Jesus responds with a

short discourse on prayer, faith and forgiveness (vv 22-25). Commentators have long been baffled

by this seemingly sudden change in focus from the destruction of the temple, which the fig tree

prefigured, to a discussion about prayer. Telford, for instance, calls this a 'destructive

disruption' in the narrative. In contrast Gray argues that this discourse has everything to do with

the temple. The 'mountain' which is to be cast into into the sea (v23) is no other than the temple

mount (73-80), This is followed by a call to faith despite the destruction of the temple, for prayer

and forgiveness will continue.

'Both the withered tree and the mountain cast into the sea represent the rejection of the temple and thereby signal the eschatological judgement of God. The disciples must not despair that the temple, like the barren fig tree is withering away, for there will be a new place for prayer and forgiveness—the Christian community.'62

Gray follows this with a discussion of Mark 11:27-33 where the ἐξουσία of Jesus is called into

question. This must be understood both intra and intertextually. An intratextual link is found with

other Markan passages (1:22,27;2:10;3:15;6:7;11:28;13:34) and Daniel 7 provides the intertextual

backdrop. Gray understands Jesus' condemnation of the temple as the beginning of the

eschatological judgement of Daniel 7.

Gray offers an in-depth discussion of the parable of the wicked tenants which, no doubt, makes use

60 Gray, “Jesus and the Temple,” 69.61 Ibid.70.62 Gray 81


of the story of the vineyard found in Isaiah 563. The 'story of the vineyard is a coded and

condensed form of Mark's story of Jesus' and Gray follows the following allegorical

symbolism.

The owner/Lord = God

Tenants- Temple Leadership

Beloved Son= Jesus

Servants= prophets

Time for fruit= eschatological time

Tower=temple

Vineyard= Jerusalem

This juridical parable is about God's activity in the past (the sending of the prophets), the temple

and its corrupt leadership, the sending and rejection of God's son, and the future judgement which

awaits the leadership. A possible tension, however, is revealed in Gray's interpretation. On the one

hand the passage evokes passages like Jer 7:25-26 and 2 Chron 36:15-16 which are set in the

context of the imminent destruction of the temple64-'The failure of the leading priests to

heed the summons to repentance will lead to judgement and destruction of

Jerusalem's temple'. On the other hand the parable climaxes in the destruction of the

Tenant's/Jerusalem leadership and not the city/temple itself. As Gray notes 'the vineyard is not

destroyed but handed over to new custodians.'65

Gray follows this with a discussion of the 'stone which the builders rejected' (12:10-12)

which 'is the most explicit reference in Mark's narrative to a new temple which

will replace the old.'66 Psalm 118, as a song of pilgrimage, is clearly related to the temple.

'the agricultural imagery in vv.1-9 and the architectural imagery of vv10-11 coalesce, both representing the temple. Thus, the stone quotation has much to do with the vineyard imagery because it advances the temple plot line of Mark's story.'67

63 K. R. Snodgrass, “Recent Research on the Parable of the Wicked Tenants: An Assessment,” Bulletin for Biblical Research 8 (1998): 187-216; Snodgrass has surveyed scholarship on this subject and shows that much there is much discussion as to how this parable should be interpreted and as to what it means. K. Snodgrass, The parable of the wicked tenants: an inquiry into parable interpretation (Mohr Siebeck, 1983).

64 Gray, “Jesus and the Temple,” 99.65 Ibid. 103.66 Ibid. 93.67 Ibid.107.


Gray also notes that both stories refer to a rejecting, a rejecting of the son and a rejection of the

stone. Mark also uses the same word for rejection (ἀπεδοκίμασαν 12:10 ) to describe Jesus'

rejection (ἀποδοκιμασθῆναι ) by the chief priests, scribes and elders. Jesus is therefore to be seen

as the heir of the vineyard and the cornerstone of the temple. The two stories, the vineyard and the

rejected stone, 'become the heuristic tools by which the Markan reader is to

understand the story of Jesus, he is the beloved son rejected by the wicked

tenants but vindicated by the Lord.'68

In the remaining parts of Chapter two Gray discusses the three questions which are posed to Jesus

in Mark 12:13-24. the validity of his interpretation is dependant on whether one accepts that the

temple theme is dominant motif throughout Mark 11-15 as for Gray 'the material of 12:13-34 is

indirectly related to the temple motif.' The discussion concerning the image of Caesar is 'perhaps

a response to the charge that the temple establishment is a den of robbers,

since they are now determined to paint Jesus as the true insurgents against

Rome.'69 The discussion about the greatest commandment 'allows Jesus—while teaching

in the temple—to declare inconsequential all ceremonial sacrifices of the

temple.'70 However, this is not the only reading of this passage for the idea of some laws being

above that of sacrifice is not an idea which is unknown in the Jewish scriptures (Hos 6:6, 1 Sam

15:22)71. It raises again the question as to to the narrative being constrained by the ideological intent

of the author, or whether the Jesus material which he is using refusing to be straightjacketed by his

own literary and theological aims.

Mark 12:35-37

Gray, following the narrative flow of Mark, focuses attention on the enigmatic riddle which Jesus

presents in 12:35-37. Some interpret these verses as a denial by Jesus of a Davidic messiahship.

This does, as Gray notes, makes sense of the riddle but seems to jolt against the larger Markan

portrait in which Jesus is seen both as Christ (8:29,14:62) and the 'Son of David' (10:47,11:10 and

indirectly 2:25). I agree with Gray that Jesus is to be seen as a Davidic Messiah figure, yet it seems

that Gray is contradicting what he said in regard to the triumphal entry. Another interpretation,

which Gray rejects, is that Jesus was redefining Davidic sonship so that Jesus is asserting that (A)72

68 Ibid. 115.69 Ibid. 119.70 Ibid.71 The two corresponding passages in older scripture just cited imply that mercy or kindness, knowledge of God,

and hearing and obeying the voice of the Lord are more important than burnt offerings and sacrifices. That does not mean that cultic sacrifices do not need to be made, or still less that they ought to be abolished.

Adela Yarbro. Collins, Mark : A Commentary on the Gospel of Mark, Hermeneia--a critical and historical commentary on the Bible, 576 (Minneapolis: Fortress Press, 2007).

72 I am of the view that Jesus is to be seen as the warrior king, yet his battle is not with the external forces of Rome but with the demonic realm which is to be found within Israel. See Rikk Watts


he is not a warrior king who will bring about a bloody political revolution or (B)that Jesus is more

than a descendant of the David but Son of Man and/or Son of God.73 In contrast to these views

Gray, following the metalepsis intertextual approach which he outlined in chapter one, offers an

interpretation which makes sense of the larger context of the passage which is cited, Psalm 110.

Psalm 110 is an enthronement Psalm which 'not only promises kingly rule but priestly

authority as well'74--'You are a priest for ever after the order of Melchizedek'

(110:4). Gray argues that from a 1st century canonical perspective this Psalm as a psalm of David

and would have been addressed to his son Solomon. Under what circumstances, Gray asks, 'would

King David address another—albeit his own son-- as King? Gray finds this answer in 1 Kings 1/3

Kingdoms LXX where Solomon 'ascends the throne and is crowned king while his father is still

alive.'75

Gray moves from the enthronement of Solomon to Psalm 110

'Given this backdrop, it is easy to see how Psalm 109LXX would be read as the enthronement of Solomon—which explains why David would call his on Lord. Solomon ascended the throne and began to reign as king over Judah and Israel while his father David was still alive.'76

In citing this Psalm Jesus may be alluding to his own priestly authority, he is a Davidic messiah but,

with Psalm 110, it is role which is seen to have a priestly counterpart. Just as Solomon was the

temple builder, Jesus has authority over any destruction or rebuilding of the Temple.

'the Markan Jesus is employing the psalm to explain his authority over the temple and the priestly leaders. This priestly authority relates not only to judging of the old temple but also to the founding of the new temple.'77

Gray's case would be made significantly stronger if it was found that contemporary second temple

literature supported a reading of Psalm 110 which identified the Davidic-priestly king as

Solomon. As far as I am aware, it does not.78 This does not mean, however, that Jesus' interaction 73 'More likely is the view that Mark's understands the present text as teaching that the Messiah is the Son of David,

but that such an understanding by itself in inadequate. Jesus is far more' Stein. Baker Exegetical Commentary, 569;

74 Gray Jesus and the Temple 125.75 Ibid.127. 6 καὶ ἐκάθισεν Σαλωμων ἐπὶ θρόνον τῆς βασιλείας, 47 καὶ εἰσῆλθον οἱ δοῦλοι τοῦ βασιλέως εὐλογῆσαι

τὸν κύριον ἡμῶν τὸν βασιλέα Δαυιδ λέγοντες Ἀγαθύναι ὁ θεὸς τὸ ὄνομα Σαλωμων τοῦ υἱοῦ σου ὑπὲρ τὸ ὄνομά σου

καὶ μεγαλύναι τὸν θρόνον αὐτοῦ ὑπὲρ τὸν θρόνον σου, καὶ προσεκύνησεν ὁ βασιλεὺς ἐπὶ τὴν κοίτην αὐτοῦ, 48 καί γε οὕτως εἶπεν ὁ βασιλεύς Εὐλογητὸς κύριος ὁ θεὸς Ισραηλ, ὃς ἔδωκεν σήμερον ἐκ τοῦ σπέρματός μου καθήμενον ἐπὶ τοῦ θρόνου μου, καὶ οἱ ὀφθαλμοί μου βλέπουσιν. 3 Kingdoms 1:46-48

76 Ibid.107.77 Ibid. 134.78 Rikk Watts points out that the Tagums identify the rejected stone with David.

'Of particular interest is the Targum’s explicit and thoroughgoing identification of the rejected stone with David (cf. Tg. Zech. 10:4, where this is associated with return from exile; b. Pesaḥ. 119a; Exod. Rab. 37:1). In 118:22 “the stone” becomes “the child” who “was among the sons of Jesse” and who “was worthy to be


with Psalm 110 has nothing to do with the temple for the larger context of the OT quotation clearly

refers to the a priest like Melchizedek.

Chapter 3

In Chapter 3 Timothy Gray discusses the eschatological discourse of Mark 13. My comments on

this section will be brief as Mark 13 and its relation to the temple at Jerusalem has been the topic of

one my previous papers. We may summarise his interpretation as follows,

i) Mark 13 provides a narrative bridge between 11-12 and 14-15

ii) Both Jesus and the temple will go through eschatological tribulation

iii) The judgement oracles in Mark 13 come from prophecies in the OT directed against both

Jerusalem and the temple

iv) 'The eschatological role of the old temple... has been transferred to Jesus and his disciples, the

embodiment of the new temple.'(13:10,27)

v) Mark invests 'historical events with theological significance.'

vi) Mark written around AD70 and inclines towards provenance of Rome

vii) 'To destroy the temple is to signal doom for the world. Conversely, to speak of a new temple is

to speak of a new heavens and earth.'

viii) 'The eschatological tribulation begun in Jesus' passion and death sets in motion the tribulation

that will bring about the temple and the end of the world.

In my previous paper I have provided evidence for i,ii,iii,v. I am not convinced with point vii for

Mark 13, in my opinion, is describing localised destruction rather than cosmic catastrophe. I am

happy to say that Jesus' death and the destruction of the temple bring about the end of the 'age' but

not that it brings about the end of the world. (vii, viii).

Chapter 4:

In the last chapter, Gray examines four key scenes of the passion narrative.

1) The Last Supper,

appointed king and ruler.” Additional references to Jesse, his family, David, and even Samuel and his sacrifice (118:23–29) suggest that the Targum interpreted the second half of the psalm in light of 1 Sam. 16:1–13, where David, although initially rejected, is ultimately appointed king first over the tribes of Judah (2 Sam. 2:1–4 [Tg. Ps. 118:27b]) and then Israel (2 Sam. 5:1–9 [Tg. Ps. 118:29]). Psalm 118 thus becomes a celebration of David’s inexorable accession to the throne, and that with prophetic attestation (cf. the “servants” in Jesus’ parable).''

Beale, G. K., and D. A. Carson. Commentary on the New Testament Use of the Old Testament, p 213.


2) The agony in Gethsemane

3) The Trial Narrative

4) The crucifixion scene

1) Last supper as First Sacrifice of the New Temple

Gray follows a line of scholarship which sees 'Jesus' demonstration of the temple and

his Last supper as mutually interpretative'79 Both events are symbolic actions which are

accompanied by words, 'but also that the first relates to the end of the temple and

the second to the death of Jesus.'80 Gray also notes that both events are preceded by an

account of preparation (Mark 11:2-7, Mark 14:12-16)

For Gray Jesus' words about the bread and wine (this is my body/ poured out for all) clearly show

that 'Jesus' death is more than martyrdom, it is a sacrifice that has saving power

for others.'81 The meal is to be understood as sacrificial

'He simply wanted to replace provisionally the temple cult which had become

obsolete'....The last supper becomes a substitute for the temple cult'....'The last supper is

clearly an alternative cultic action that subverts the need for temple and its sacrifice.' Jesus is

'the new cultic sacrifice for sins.'82

Gray arrives at these conclusions by (i) pointing out that this is a Passover meal. (ii) that 'the link

between Jesus' passion as a ransom in 10:45 and the sacrifice language of the

Last Supper suggests that the two pericopes are mutually interpretative.'83 (iii)

The phrase 'the blood of the covenant' alludes to sacrifice of Exodus 24:8.

Although Gray's reading of the Markan text may sound 'right' particularly for those like myself and

for Gray, who is an active Roman Catholic, who believe in the soteriological significance of Jesus''

death and the significance of sacramental life to the church, in that a word of caution is needed.

Gray's interpretation is disappointing in its lack of detail and in assuming that there is a direct link

not needing any further support between Jesus' last supper and the forgiveness of sins which is

available by way of the temple cult. Caution is needed for the following reasons.

(A) The Passover meal recalls the foundational events recorded in Exodus 12-13 in which God 79 Ibid. 241.80 Ibid. 243.81 Ibid. 246.82 Ibid. 249.83 Ibid. 246.


delivered his people from the bondage of Egypt.84 In order to protect one’s family from the 'angel of

death' it was necessary that a lamb be sacrificed. The blood from the lamb, which was to be painted

on the door posts, functioned as a sign in which God would not wreak destruction on those within

that house.

And when your children say to you, ‘What do you mean by this service?’ 27 you shall say, ‘It is the sacrifice of the LORD’s Passover, for he passed over the houses of the people of Israel in Egypt, when he struck the Egyptians but spared our houses.’ ”85

The language is quite obviously sacrificial. A lamb dies so that liberation can occur, but in and of

itself this sacrifice is not explicitly mentioned as being a sacrifice for sin in providing atonement for

the sins of God's people.

(B) The citation of Ex 24:8 'the blood of the covenant' is not referring to a sacrifice which takes

place within the temple cult for forgiveness of sins. Instead, the sacrifice is part of a ritual of

covenant renewal.

The context of the meal(1) and the explicit words used (2) suggest that the major interpretative

paradigm from which this meal should be interpreted is that of covenant renewal and liberation.

This is not to deny that forgiveness of sins may be linked with Jesus' death but that it is linked with

covenant renewal and liberation. It is true that 'pouring out of blood' has links to sacrificial cult and

atonement (Exod. 29:12; Lev. 4:7, 18, 25, 30, 34; 8:15; cf. Ps. 106:38) but it can also simply refer to

violent and unjust death (Gen. 9:6; Deut. 19:10; 2 Kings 21:16; Ps. 106:38; Isa. 59:7). However,

although Gray has failed to offer detailed support of his bold claim I do think

that the contrasting view of Sharyn Dowd and Elizabeth Malborn is mistaken

for they overstate their case, in their provocative and influential article, when

they suggest that 'Mark's story does not link together Jesus' death with the

forgiveness of sins.'86

(2) Agony in Gethsemane:

As discussed in my previous paper, Jesus' suffering in Gethsemane takes up the language of Mark

13. For Gray 'the script of the eschatological discourse is played out in the passion narrative.'87 In

Gethsemane the time of eschatological tribulation (peirasmos) has arrived. 'For Mark, the

84 For a detailed discussion of how the Pesah was practised in second temple Judaism see “Jesus and His Death,” chap. 12, http://jesusandhisdeath.blogspot.com/.

85 The Holy Bible : English Standard Version., Ex 12:26-27 (Wheaton: Standard Bible Society, 2001).86 Dowd, S., and E. S. Malbon. “The Significance of Jesus' Death in Mark: Narrative Context and Authorial Au-dience.” Journal of Biblical Literature 125, no. 2 (2006): 271-297. Dowd, Sharyn Echols. Reading Mark : a literary and theological commentary on the second Gospel. Macon, Ga.: Smyth & Helwys Publishing, 2000. 87 Gray, “Jesus and the temple,” 286.


passion of Jesus is a 'great trial,' the eschatological tribulation marking a new

Passover night that brings redemption through tribulation and suffering.'88

Gray's argument is further supported by a reconstruction of tribulation beliefs in Second Temple

Judais. Although this moves away from his narrative approach by bringing in factors from outside

the text it does, as Brant Pitre has shown, highlight the importance of tribulation with eschatological

tribulation in second temple Judaism.89

(3) Trial Narrative

In the trial narrative Jesus is accused of saying that he would destroy the temple and raise it in three

days.

58 ὅτι ἡμεῖς ἠκούσαμεν αὐτοῦ λέγοντος ὅτι ἐγὼ καταλύσω τὸν ναὸν τοῦτον τὸν

χειροποίητον καὶ διὰ τριῶν ἡμερῶν ἄλλον ἀχειροποίητον οἰκοδομήσω.(Mark 15:38)

The reader is able to see that this a false charge. For Jesus did not say that he would destroy the

temple, 'he never claimed to be the agent of its destruction.'90 However, their false testimony is not

without some basis or truth to it as 14:59 hints. Gray 'suggests that this invited his reader to read

between the lines.'91

The phrase 'made with hands' χειροποίητος is found 14 times in the LXX and in every case it

describes idols.92 Jesus is saying, if this accusation is anywhere near the mark, that the Temple has

become an idol. The 'handmade' temple is contrasted with the temple 'made without

hands'ἀχειροποίητος (a word which does not appear in the LXX). However it does bear some

resemblance to Daniel 2 in which a stone is cut from a mountain with no human hand (Dan 2:35).

This stone in Daniel is likely to have a cultic association as the 'only uncut stones

mentioned in the OT are those used for cultic practises.'93 It is likely then, according

to Gray, that the accusation against Jesus is designed to get the reader to think, and in thinking he

shall see that the current idolatrous temple will be destroyed and replaced. This rebuilding will take

three days which the reader will no doubt have been expected to understand as a reference to the

resurrection.

4) The Crucifixion:

At the moment of Jesus' death the veil of the temple was torn in two suggesting that Jesus' death and

88 Ibid. 261.89 Brant Pitre, Jesus, the Tribulation, and the End of the Exile: Restoration Eschatology and the Origin of the Atonement (Baker Academic, 2006). 90 Ibid. 267.91 Ibid. 268.92 Ibid. 270.93 Ibid, 273.


the destruction of the temple are linked.

'The fate of Jesus and the temple are once again entwined as the death of one betokens the destruction of the other.'94'Jesus is the destroyer of the temple in a figurative and in an ironic sense its destruction is a result of his death, brought about by those in charge of the temple worship.'95

Gray follows a similar train of thought as Dale Allison in The End of Ages has Come. Jesus'

death as a time of intense eschatological tribulation is the turning point of the ages. A temple

theology must, as Gray suggests, be subsumed under broader categories of eschatology.

'This is the key to deciphering why the Mount of Olives discourse (Mark 13) takes up both the end of the temple and the end of Jesus—the eschatological tribulation that will usher in the end of the temple begins with the tribulation that brings about Jesus' death. In other words, Mark is at pains to show that eschatology is centred and unleashed in Jesus' passion, not the destruction of the temple. The thrust of his narrative, I believe, tears down the idea that eschatology is centred on the Jerusalem temple. Rather, the cross, not Jerusalem's temple, is the ground 'zero' for eschatology. The tribulation and destruction of the temple is, from Mark's perspective, the inevitable 'aftershock' of the real eschatological event—the death of Jesus. This is why Mark is careful to show that it is Jesus' death that inaugurates the temple's destruction.'96

Bibliography (Not complete, see footnotes for other bibliographic references)

Beale, G K, and D A Carson. Commentary on the New Testament Use of the Old Testament. Apollos,

2008.

Bird, Michael F. Are You the One Who Is to Come? Baker Publishing Group, 2009.

Fletcher-Louis, Crispin H.T.[1]. “Jesus as the High Priestly Messiah: Part 1.” Journal for the Study of the His-

torical Jesus 4 (June 2006): 155-175.

---. “Jesus as The High Priestly Messiah: Part 2.” Journal for the Study of the Historical Jesus 5 (January

2007): 57-79.

Gesenius, Wilhelm; Tregelles. Gesenius' Hebrew and Chaldee lexicon to the Old Testament Scrip-

tures. Bellingham, WA: Logos Research Systems, Inc, 2003.

Gray, T. C. “Jesus and the Temple: The Narrative Role of the Temple in the Gospel of Mark.” The Catholic University

of America, 2006.

Hatina, T. R. In Search of a Context: The Function of Scripture in Mark's Narrative. Sheffield Academic

Pr, 2002.

“Jesus and His Death.” http://jesusandhisdeath.blogspot.com/.

Marcus, Joel. The Way of the Lord. T.& T.Clark Ltd, 2004.

McKnight, Scot. Jesus and His Death: Historiography, the Historical Jesus, and Atonement Theory.

Baylor University Press, 2005.

Pietersma, A., and B. G Wright. A New English Translation of the Septuagint. Oxford University Press, USA,

2007.

94 Ibid. 280.95 Ibid. 291.96 Ibid. 300.

http://jesusandhisdeath.blogspot.com/


Rhoads, D. “Narrative Criticism and the Gospel of Mark.” Journal of the American Academy of Religion 50,

no. 3 (1982): 411–434.

Snodgrass, K. The parable of the wicked tenants: an inquiry into parable interpretation. Mohr

Siebeck, 1983.

Snodgrass, K. R. “Recent Research on the Parable of the Wicked Tenants: An Assessment.” Bulletin for Biblical

Research 8 (1998): 187-216.

Watson, Francis. Paul and the Hermeneutics of Faith. Continuum International Publishing Group, 2004.

Watts, R. E. Isaiah's New Exodus and Mark. Mohr Siebeck, 1997.

T. R Hatina, “Intertextuality and Historical Criticism in New Testament Studies: Is There a Relationship? 1,” Biblical

Interpretation: A Journal of Contemporary Approaches 7, no. 1 (1999): 28–43.

book review: jesus and the temple by timothy gray

Documents