Sunday, March 5, 2023

Jerome H. Neyrey on the Rending of the Temple Veil in Matthew 27

  

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)