In the
context of this mockery, the temple veil is rent from top to bottom. Since God
alone can do this, it constitutes God’s participation in the deadly game of
claim, challenge, and riposte. Minimally, it communicates that what Jesus said
about the temple is not offensive to God, neither the remarks in 21:12-17 and
24:1-2 nor what is charged against him at the Jewish trial in 26:60-61 and about
which he is mocked on the cross (27:40). The words of Jesus concerning the
national shrine, then, proves true. If the high priests tore their robes in
judging Jesus to be a charlatan and false prophet (26:65; see Daube
1973:23-24), God tears the temple veil in judgment of those who judged Jesus. Moreover,
the tearing of the veil by God, since it occurs as a divine riposte to Jesus’
adversaries, contributes to the defense of the role and status of Jesus. God
responds on behalf of the one who is “Son of God” (27:40, 43) and “King of
Israel” (27:42), thus vindicating the honor of Jesus. The rending of the temple
veil itself does not carry the full defense of Jesus’ claims, but must be seen
in combination with the earthquake and the raising of the dead. But, as a
communication, it confirms the truth of Jesus’ words, vindicates his role and
status, and in part responds to the mockery, “Let God deliver him.”
The significance
of the rending of the temple veil requires us to look back in the narrative to
the actions and sayings of Jesus in regard to the national shrine. Telescoping
the materials in Matthew 21-22 in the light of challenge and riposte, we
discern an important pattern. Claims: Jesus’ “demonstration” in the temple
presumes a claim to an ascribed role which authorizes him to act and speak as a
critic of the current administration of the national shrine (21:12-13). His claim,
moreover, contains the special Matthean comment about his healing of the “blind
and lame” in the temple (21:14), which casts him in the role of mediator of God’s
benefaction in contrast to the temple priest. Although many in the temple
acknowledges his claims, crying out, “Hosanna to the Son of David!”
(21:15), those most directly affected by Jesus’ increasing in prestige challenge
his claims in “indignation”: “Do you hear what these are saying?” (21:16).
Jesus immediately responds to their challenge by justifying the public
praise accorded him by his citation of Ps. 8:2, which predicted “perfect praise”
for him (21:16b).
The
challenge-riposte dynamic surfaces immediately upon Jesus’ next entrance into
the temple. The temple personnel, whose prestige diminishes in proportion to
the rise of Jesus’ honor, challenge him by demanding to know the source
of his authorization: “By what authority are you doing these things, and who gave
you this authority?” (21:23). To this Jesus delivers the classic riposte by
asking them a counterquestion about the authorization of John, but conducted
rituals of purification. Matthew’ audience would know that the answer to both
questions is the same—namely, God, who sent John as prophet to prepare the way
of Jesus and who ascribed to Jesus at his baptism the exalted role and status
of “beloved son.” When the temple personnel refuse to respond, Jesus has
successfully defended his claims and delivered a shameful riposte to his
challengers. (Jerome H. Neyrey, Honor and Shame in the Gospel of Matthew
[Louisville, Ky.: Westminster John Knox Press, 1998], 142-43, emphasis in
italics added)
