SESSION 6
QUESTION 2: CAN WE KNOW WHETHER ISLAM OR CHRISTIANITY IS TRUE? (pages 154-161 and chapters 21-24)
1. Many religious pluralists believe all religions are the same leading us to the true God who is known by different names such as Yahweh, Jesus, Allah, Buddha, Krishna, or Supreme Ground of Being. If this is true, why do Muslims literally risk their lives converting to Christianity by faith in Jesus Christ?
2. How are Islam and Christianity fundamentally different religions when it comes to considering Jesus Christ? What three central claims of Christianity are denied by Islam?
3. What three points constitute the Case for Christianity? How do these points argue for the truth of the Gospel?
4.What two points constitute the Case for Islam? How do these points argue for the truth of Islam?
PART 6: DID JESUS DIE ON THE CROSS?
Chapter 21 "The Positive Case: Unanimous Records"
1. How (and where) does the Quran explicitly deny the crucifixion of Jesus?
2. What surprised Nabeel the most as he considered the conclusions of both Christian and non-Christian scholars (and one Muslim scholar) about the crucifixion of Jesus? Provide some examples.
3. Beyond the Scriptures what are some primary sources about the crucifixion of Jesus?
4. If the death of a"Saviour" by crucifixion was considered ridiculous, shameful, even abhorrent in the first century, why did the Christians make it the centerpiece of their faith? (Scroll down)
Chapter 22 "The Islamic Response: It was Made to Appear So"
1. Describe the Muslim "Theistic Swoon Theory" of Jesus'experience on the cross (based on the Quran) and how does it differ from the atheistic swoon theory?
2. What is the more common Muslim "Substitution View" of Jesus' experience on the cross and how is it supported?
Chapter 23 "Assessing the Islamic Response: The Quran and the Historical Jesus"
1. According to Nabeel, why would an objective observer have a problem with the Theistic Swoon Theory's main point: "Although Jesus might have died on the cross under natural circumstances, he did not die because God miraculously preserved him"?
2. What is the problem with the Theistic Swoon Theory regarding the inception of the church?
3. The Quran speaks of the early life of Jesus. Where did the creator(s) of the Quran most likely get some of their material for writing about Jesus'early life (for example, Jesus creating living birds out of clay)?
4. Where does the Quran get its information about Jesus? Are those sources historically reliable? Why or why not?
Chapter 24 "Conclusion: Jesus Died on the Cross"
1. Nabeel offers two reasons why the Theistic Swoon Theory and the Substitution View were not plausible to him. What are those reasons?
Chapter 21 , Q 4. If the death of a"Saviour" by crucifixion was considered ridiculous, shameful, even abhorrent in the first century, why did the Christians make it the centerpiece of their faith?
The death of Jesus for human sins: the historical basis for a theological concept
Introduction
The early church was involved from its very beginning in the question of how to interpret the death of Jesus. This was not an easy matter since the crucifixion of Jesus formed a stumbling block to Gentiles as well as to Jews. This is clearly indicated by Paul in 1 Corinthians 1:23 { but we preach Christ crucified, a stumbling block to Jews and folly to Gentiles,} and its immediate context. To the Gentiles, the cross of Jesus was regarded as shameful (cf. Hebrews 12:2) {looking to Jesus, the founder and perfecter of our faith, who for the joy that was set before him endured the cross, despising the shame, and is seated at the right hand of the throne of God.} . Proclaiming a crucified Saviour was not in keeping with the heroic ideals of Greco-Roman antiquity. They considered it foolishness. Justin Martyr describes well how the message of a crucified Saviour appeared to the ancient world: ‘They say that our madness consists in the fact that we put a crucified man in second place after the unchangeable and eternal God, the Creator of the world’ (1. Apology 13:4). This message was no more acceptable to the Jews. They considered the death of Jesus a sign of God’s punishment upon a deceiver. Scriptural proof was provided by Deuteronomy 21:23 {his body shall not remain all night on the tree, but you shall bury him the same day, for a hanged man is cursed by God. You shall not defile your land that the LORD your God is giving you for an inheritance.} : ‘a hanged man is accursed by God’ (cf. Galatians 3:13) {Christ redeemed us from the curse of the law by becoming a curse for us—for it is written, “Cursed is everyone who is hanged on a tree”—} . [1. In Qumran this text is transferred to the person executed by crucifixion (11QTemple 64:3–13). Without explicitly quoting this text, Trypho the Jew says that Jesus’ crucifixion was a sign that the curse contained in the Law of God fell on him (Dial. 32). For a general reference to crucifixion in antiquity, see Martin Hengel, Crucifixion In the Ancient World and the Folly of the Message of the Cross (Philadelphia: Fortress Press, 1977).]
In this situation, the early church made known how they saw Jesus’ death. The New Testament itself witnesses that they had a number of options, or models, to bring out the meaning and significance of this event: the Passover Lamb; the dying and rising servant of Isaiah 53 { Isaiah 53:1 Who has believed what he has heard from us?
And to whom has the arm of the LORD been revealed?
2 For he grew up before him like a young plant,
and like a root out of dry ground;
he had no form or majesty that we should look at him,
and no beauty that we should desire him.
3 He was despised and rejected by men,
a man of sorrows and acquainted with grief;
and as one from whom men hide their faces
he was despised, and we esteemed him not.
4 Surely he has borne our griefs
and carried our sorrows;
yet we esteemed him stricken,
smitten by God, and afflicted.
5 But he was pierced for our transgressions;
he was crushed for our iniquities;
upon him was the chastisement that brought us peace,
and with his wounds we are healed.
6 All we like sheep have gone astray;
we have turned—every one—to his own way;
and the LORD has laid on him
the iniquity of us all.
7 He was oppressed, and he was afflicted,
yet he opened not his mouth;
like a lamb that is led to the slaughter,
and like a sheep that before its shearers is silent,
so he opened not his mouth.
8 By oppression and judgment he was taken away;
and as for his generation, who considered
that he was cut off out of the land of the living,
stricken for the transgression of my people?
9 And they made his grave with the wicked
and with a rich man in his death,
although he had done no violence,
and there was no deceit in his mouth.
10 Yet it was the will of the LORD to crush him;
he has put him to grief;
when his soul makes an offering for guilt,
he shall see his offspring; he shall prolong his days;
the will of the LORD shall prosper in his hand.
11 Out of the anguish of his soul he shall see and be satisfied;
by his knowledge shall the righteous one, my servant,
make many to be accounted righteous,
and he shall bear their iniquities.
12 Therefore I will divide him a portion with the many,
and he shall divide the spoil with the strong,
because he poured out his soul to death
and was numbered with the transgressors;
yet he bore the sin of many,
and makes intercession for the transgressors.} ; the suffering righteous one (Psalms. 22; 69) { Psalm 22:1 My God, my God, why have you forsaken me?
Why are you so far from saving me, from the words of my groaning?
2 O my God, I cry by day, but you do not answer,
and by night, but I find no rest.
3 Yet you are holy,
enthroned on the praises of Israel.
4 In you our fathers trusted;
they trusted, and you delivered them.
5 To you they cried and were rescued;
in you they trusted and were not put to shame.
6 But I am a worm and not a man,
scorned by mankind and despised by the people.
7 All who see me mock me;
they make mouths at me; they wag their heads;
8 “He trusts in the LORD; let him deliver him;
let him rescue him, for he delights in him!”
9 Yet you are he who took me from the womb;
you made me trust you at my mother’s breasts.
10 On you was I cast from my birth,
and from my mother’s womb you have been my God.
11 Be not far from me,
for trouble is near,
and there is none to help.
12 Many bulls encompass me;
strong bulls of Bashan surround me;
13 they open wide their mouths at me,
like a ravening and roaring lion.
14 I am poured out like water,
and all my bones are out of joint;
my heart is like wax;
it is melted within my breast;
15 my strength is dried up like a potsherd,
and my tongue sticks to my jaws;
you lay me in the dust of death.
16 For dogs encompass me;
a company of evildoers encircles me;
they have pierced my hands and feet—
17 I can count all my bones—
they stare and gloat over me;
18 they divide my garments among them,
and for my clothing they cast lots.
19 But you, O LORD, do not be far off!
O you my help, come quickly to my aid!
20 Deliver my soul from the sword,
my precious life from the power of the dog!
21 Save me from the mouth of the lion!
You have rescued me from the horns of the wild oxen!
22 I will tell of your name to my brothers;
in the midst of the congregation I will praise you:
23 You who fear the LORD, praise him!
All you offspring of Jacob, glorify him,
and stand in awe of him, all you offspring of Israel!
24 For he has not despised or abhorred
the affliction of the afflicted,
and he has not hidden his face from him,
but has heard, when he cried to him.
25 From you comes my praise in the great congregation;
my vows I will perform before those who fear him.
26 The afflicted shall eat and be satisfied;
those who seek him shall praise the LORD!
May your hearts live forever!
27 All the ends of the earth shall remember
and turn to the LORD,
and all the families of the nations
shall worship before you.
28 For kingship belongs to the LORD,
and he rules over the nations.
29 All the prosperous of the earth eat and worship;
before him shall bow all who go down to the dust,
even the one who could not keep himself alive.
30 Posterity shall serve him;
it shall be told of the Lord to the coming generation;
31 they shall come and proclaim his righteousness to a people yet unborn,
that he has done it.
Psalm 69:1 Save me, O God!
For the waters have come up to my neck.
2 I sink in deep mire,
where there is no foothold;
I have come into deep waters,
and the flood sweeps over me.
3 I am weary with my crying out;
my throat is parched.
My eyes grow dim
with waiting for my God.
4 More in number than the hairs of my head
are those who hate me without cause;
mighty are those who would destroy me,
those who attack me with lies.
What I did not steal
must I now restore?
5 O God, you know my folly;
the wrongs I have done are not hidden from you.
6 Let not those who hope in you be put to shame through me,
O Lord GOD of hosts;
let not those who seek you be brought to dishonor through me,
O God of Israel.
7 For it is for your sake that I have borne reproach,
that dishonor has covered my face.
8 I have become a stranger to my brothers,
an alien to my mother’s sons.
9 For zeal for your house has consumed me,
and the reproaches of those who reproach you have fallen on me.
10 When I wept and humbled my soul with fasting,
it became my reproach.
11 When I made sackcloth my clothing,
I became a byword to them.
12 I am the talk of those who sit in the gate,
and the drunkards make songs about me.
13 But as for me, my prayer is to you, O LORD.
At an acceptable time, O God,
in the abundance of your steadfast love answer me in your saving faithfulness.
14 Deliver me
from sinking in the mire;
let me be delivered from my enemies
and from the deep waters.
15 Let not the flood sweep over me,
or the deep swallow me up,
or the pit close its mouth over me.
16 Answer me, O LORD, for your steadfast love is good;
according to your abundant mercy, turn to me.
17 Hide not your face from your servant,
for I am in distress; make haste to answer me.
18 Draw near to my soul, redeem me;
ransom me because of my enemies!
19 You know my reproach,
and my shame and my dishonor;
my foes are all known to you.
20 Reproaches have broken my heart,
so that I am in despair.
I looked for pity, but there was none,
and for comforters, but I found none.
21 They gave me poison for food,
and for my thirst they gave me sour wine to drink.
22 Let their own table before them become a snare;
and when they are at peace, let it become a trap.
23 Let their eyes be darkened, so that they cannot see,
and make their loins tremble continually.
24 Pour out your indignation upon them,
and let your burning anger overtake them.
25 May their camp be a desolation;
let no one dwell in their tents.
26 For they persecute him whom you have struck down,
and they recount the pain of those you have wounded.
27 Add to them punishment upon punishment;
may they have no acquittal from you.
28 Let them be blotted out of the book of the living;
let them not be enrolled among the righteous.
29 But I am afflicted and in pain;
let your salvation, O God, set me on high!
30 I will praise the name of God with a song;
I will magnify him with thanksgiving.
31 This will please the LORD more than an ox
or a bull with horns and hoofs.
32 When the humble see it they will be glad;
you who seek God, let your hearts revive.
33 For the LORD hears the needy
and does not despise his own people who are prisoners.
34 Let heaven and earth praise him,
the seas and everything that moves in them.
35 For God will save Zion
and build up the cities of Judah,
and people shall dwell there and possess it;
36 the offspring of his servants shall inherit it,
and those who love his name shall dwell in it. }; the Temple cult; prophets suffering by the hand of the people even to the point of death (the deuteronomistic pattern of the prophetic ministry); Abraham sacrificing his son Isaac (the so-called ‘Akedah’, the binding of Isaac); releasing of slaves (ransom); the Greco-Roman ideal of friendship (philia). Jesus’ willingness to die for the good of others represents an example of a man laying down his life for his friends (cf. John. 15:13 {Greater love has no one than this, that someone lay down his life for his friends.} ; Philippians 2:4–8) {4 Let each of you look not only to his own interests, but also to the interests of others. 5 Have this mind among yourselves, which is yours in Christ Jesus, 6 who, though he was in the form of God, did not count equality with God a thing to be grasped, 7 but emptied himself, by taking the form of a servant, being born in the likeness of men. 8 And being found in human form, he humbled himself by becoming obedient to the point of death, even death on a cross.}.
The presence of all these models fully demonstrates that the meaning and significance of Jesus’ death was not easily formulated. Although these models all have their place within the early Christian project of unfolding the meaning and significance of Jesus’ death, they were not all of equal importance. Speaking from a general New Testament perspective, some of these models were, if taken alone, unable to give an adequate description of the theological aspects involved in Jesus’ death. The models which stand out in the New Testament are those which interpret Jesus’ death as in some way righting the wrongs of human sins. It here suffices to evoke texts like Matthew 26:68 { saying, “Prophesy to us, you Christ! Who is it that struck you?”}; 1 Corinthians 15:3 { For I delivered to you as of first importance what I also received: that Christ died for our sins in accordance with the Scriptures,} ; 1 Peter 3:18 {For Christ also suffered once for sins, the righteous for the unrighteous, that he might bring us to God, being put to death in the flesh but made alive in the spirit,} ; Revelation 7:14 {I said to him, “Sir, you know.” And he said to me, “These are the ones coming out of the great tribulation. They have washed their robes and made them white in the blood of the Lamb.}. All these texts are pieces of old liturgical material, and should therefore be given weight.
How did the early church come to think of Jesus’ death in terms of the expiation of sins? This is the question addressed by this article. Three observations will be suggested as forming the basis and point of departure for this theological enterprise. Two of them are taken from the ministry of Jesus, while the last concerns his meeting with his disciples after the resurrection
Jesus must have expected an unhappy end for himself. He could not escape the conclusion that the way ordained for him was death. He found himself involved in conflicts with all the influential Jewish groups: conflicts over crucial issues such as Sabbath observance, purity rules and the Temple. Certainly after what happened to John the Baptist, his own fate must have become quite clear to him. Jesus’ death did not come as a surprise to him, but was a result of his mission and his messianic activity. Wrestling with this threatening possibility was painful indeed, and he hoped till the very end that another way would be found. As Jesus prepared himself for this painful end of his life, the disciples were hardly left uninformed about the issue, although they only came to understand it fully later.
Jesus exercising forgiveness of sins outside the cult
The soteriology {the doctrine of salvation} of Jesus is very much dependent upon how he saw himself, and the role of Jesus himself is a key issue in any presentation of his thoughts about salvation. In all the Gospels, the basis for his ministry is the key role Jesus assigns to himself in questions of salvation: ‘… everyone who acknowledges me before others, the Son of Man will acknowledge before the angels of God; but whoever denies me before others will be denied before the angels of God’ (Luke 12:8–9 = Matthew 10:32–33 {So everyone who acknowledges me before men, I also will acknowledge before my Father who is in heaven, 33 but whoever denies me before men, I also will deny before my Father who is in heaven.}; cf. Mark 8:38 {For whoever is ashamed of me and of my words in this adulterous and sinful generation, of him will the Son of Man also be ashamed when he comes in the glory of his Father with the holy angels.”}). Jesus further announces a blessing upon anyone who takes no offence at him (Matthew 11:6 {And blessed is the one who is not offended by me.”} ; Luke 7:23 {And blessed is the one who is not offended by me.”}), and he prepares his followers for sufferings to come for the sake of him and his name (Matthew 5:11{ “Blessed are you when others revile you and persecute you and utter all kinds of evil against you falsely on my account.}). In choosing 12 disciples, he assigns to himself a key role in the restoration of God’s people. These texts make the question of salvation entirely dependent upon people’s relationship to Jesus himself. It is not necessary to discuss the authenticity of each individual saying referred to above. They witness to the historical role of Jesus which makes his ministry as well as his death intelligible. If Jesus thought of himself in highly exalted and important terms, he is also likely to have redefined salvation with reference to his own person. This forms an adequate starting point for considering the historical basis for the New Testament’s attempts to define the meaning of Jesus’ death and, in particular, sheds light on the forgiveness offered by Jesus in his ministry; in other words, the basis for the atonement theology found in the New Testament.
The Gospels have preserved a variety of indications that forgiveness of sins was an essential part of Jesus’ ministry. His name is explained in terms of forgiveness (Matthew 1:21 {She will bear a son, and you shall call his name Jesus, for he will save his people from their sins.”}), he is depicted as associating with sinners (Mark 2:13–17 {13 He went out again beside the sea, and all the crowd was coming to him, and he was teaching them. 14 And as he passed by, he saw Levi the son of Alphaeus sitting at the tax booth, and he said to him, “Follow me.” And he rose and followed him.15 And as he reclined at table in his house, many tax collectors and sinners were reclining with Jesus and his disciples, for there were many who followed him. 16 And the scribes of the Pharisees, when they saw that he was eating with sinners and tax collectors, said to his disciples, “Why does he eat with tax collectors and sinners?” 17 And when Jesus heard it, he said to them, “Those who are well have no need of a physician, but those who are sick. I came not to call the righteous, but sinners.”} par.; Luke 15 {:1 Now the tax collectors and sinners were all drawing near to hear him. 2 And the Pharisees and the scribes grumbled, saying, “This man receives sinners and eats with them.” 3 So he told them this parable: 4 “What man of you, having a hundred sheep, if he has lost one of them, does not leave the ninety-nine in the open country, and go after the one that is lost, until he finds it? 5 And when he has found it, he lays it on his shoulders, rejoicing. 6 And when he comes home, he calls together his friends and his neighbors, saying to them, ‘Rejoice with me, for I have found my sheep that was lost.’ 7 Just so, I tell you, there will be more joy in heaven over one sinner who repents than over ninety-nine righteous persons who need no repentance. 8 “Or what woman, having ten silver coins, if she loses one coin, does not light a lamp and sweep the house and seek diligently until she finds it? 9 And when she has found it, she calls together her friends and neighbors, saying, ‘Rejoice with me, for I have found the coin that I had lost.’ 10 Just so, I tell you, there is joy before the angels of God over one sinner who repents.” 11 And he said, “There was a man who had two sons. 12 And the younger of them said to his father, ‘Father, give me the share of property that is coming to me.’ And he divided his property between them. 13 Not many days later, the younger son gathered all he had and took a journey into a far country, and there he squandered his property in reckless living. 14 And when he had spent everything, a severe famine arose in that country, and he began to be in need. 15 So he went and hired himself out to one of the citizens of that country, who sent him into his fields to feed pigs. 16 And he was longing to be fed with the pods that the pigs ate, and no one gave him anything. 17 “But when he came to himself, he said, ‘How many of my father’s hired servants have more than enough bread, but I perish here with hunger! 18 I will arise and go to my father, and I will say to him, “Father, I have sinned against heaven and before you. 19 I am no longer worthy to be called your son. Treat me as one of your hired servants.”’ 20 And he arose and came to his father. But while he was still a long way off, his father saw him and felt compassion, and ran and embraced him and kissed him. 21 And the son said to him, ‘Father, I have sinned against heaven and before you. I am no longer worthy to be called your son.’ 22 But the father said to his servants, ‘Bring quickly the best robe, and put it on him, and put a ring on his hand, and shoes on his feet. 23 And bring the fattened calf and kill it, and let us eat and celebrate. 24 For this my son was dead, and is alive again; he was lost, and is found.’ And they began to celebrate. 25 “Now his older son was in the field, and as he came and drew near to the house, he heard music and dancing. 26 And he called one of the servants and asked what these things meant. 27 And he said to him, ‘Your brother has come, and your father has killed the fattened calf, because he has received him back safe and sound.’ 28 But he was angry and refused to go in. His father came out and entreated him, 29 but he answered his father, ‘Look, these many years I have served you, and I never disobeyed your command, yet you never gave me a young goat, that I might celebrate with my friends. 30 But when this son of yours came, who has devoured your property with prostitutes, you killed the fattened calf for him!’ 31 And he said to him, ‘Son, you are always with me, and all that is mine is yours. 32 It was fitting to celebrate and be glad, for this your brother was dead, and is alive; he was lost, and is found.’”}), and also as exercising forgiveness of sins (Mark 2:1–12 {1 And when he returned to Capernaum after some days, it was reported that he was at home. 2 And many were gathered together, so that there was no more room, not even at the door. And he was preaching the word to them. 3 And they came, bringing to him a paralytic carried by four men. 4 And when they could not get near him because of the crowd, they removed the roof above him, and when they had made an opening, they let down the bed on which the paralytic lay. 5 And when Jesus saw their faith, he said to the paralytic, “Son, your sins are forgiven.” 6 Now some of the scribes were sitting there, questioning in their hearts, 7 “Why does this man speak like that? He is blaspheming! Who can forgive sins but God alone?” 8 And immediately Jesus, perceiving in his spirit that they thus questioned within themselves, said to them, “Why do you question these things in your hearts? 9 Which is easier, to say to the paralytic, ‘Your sins are forgiven,’ or to say, ‘Rise, take up your bed and walk’? 10 But that you may know that the Son of Man has authority on earth to forgive sins”—he said to the paralytic—11 “I say to you, rise, pick up your bed, and go home.” 12 And he rose and immediately picked up his bed and went out before them all, so that they were all amazed and glorified God, saying, “We never saw anything like this!”}; Luke 7:36–50 { 36 One of the Pharisees asked him to eat with him, and he went into the Pharisee’s house and reclined at table. 37 And behold, a woman of the city, who was a sinner, when she learned that he was reclining at table in the Pharisee’s house, brought an alabaster flask of ointment, 38 and standing behind him at his feet, weeping, she began to wet his feet with her tears and wiped them with the hair of her head and kissed his feet and anointed them with the ointment. 39 Now when the Pharisee who had invited him saw this, he said to himself, “If this man were a prophet, he would have known who and what sort of woman this is who is touching him, for she is a sinner.” 40 And Jesus answering said to him, “Simon, I have something to say to you.” And he answered, “Say it, Teacher.” 41 “A certain moneylender had two debtors. One owed five hundred denarii, and the other fifty. 42 When they could not pay, he cancelled the debt of both. Now which of them will love him more?” 43 Simon answered, “The one, I suppose, for whom he cancelled the larger debt.” And he said to him, “You have judged rightly.” 44 Then turning toward the woman he said to Simon, “Do you see this woman? I entered your house; you gave me no water for my feet, but she has wet my feet with her tears and wiped them with her hair. 45 You gave me no kiss, but from the time I came in she has not ceased to kiss my feet. 46 You did not anoint my head with oil, but she has anointed my feet with ointment. 47 Therefore I tell you, her sins, which are many, are forgiven—for she loved much. But he who is forgiven little, loves little.” 48 And he said to her, “Your sins are forgiven.” 49 Then those who were at table with him began to say among themselves, “Who is this, who even forgives sins?” 50 And he said to the woman, “Your faith has saved you; go in peace.”}; Luke 19:1–10 { He entered Jericho and was passing through. 2 And behold, there was a man named Zacchaeus. He was a chief tax collector and was rich. 3 And he was seeking to see who Jesus was, but on account of the crowd he could not, because he was small in stature. 4 So he ran on ahead and climbed up into a sycamore tree to see him, for he was about to pass that way. 5 And when Jesus came to the place, he looked up and said to him, “Zacchaeus, hurry and come down, for I must stay at your house today.” 6 So he hurried and came down and received him joyfully. 7 And when they saw it, they all grumbled, “He has gone in to be the guest of a man who is a sinner.” 8 And Zacchaeus stood and said to the Lord, “Behold, Lord, the half of my goods I give to the poor. And if I have defrauded anyone of anything, I restore it fourfold.” 9 And Jesus said to him, “Today salvation has come to this house, since he also is a son of Abraham. 10 For the Son of Man came to seek and to save the lost.”}; In other words, this element of his ministry is found in material of different genres, thus suggesting its authenticity. Of special interest are Mark 2:5–7, 10 {5 And when Jesus saw their faith, he said to the paralytic, “Son, your sins are forgiven.” 6 Now some of the scribes were sitting there, questioning in their hearts, 7 “Why does this man speak like that? He is blaspheming! Who can forgive sins but God alone?”10 But that you may know that the Son of Man has authority on earth to forgive sins”—he said to the paralytic— } and Luke 7:48{And he said to her, “Your sins are forgiven.”}, which speak of Jesus as, not proclaiming, but exercising forgiveness of sins. Sin is an offence against God, therefore H e alone can give acquittal. In a biblical context, the exercising of forgiveness is due either to a direct message from God ministered by an angel or a prophet ({2 Samuel 12:13 David said to Nathan, “I have sinned against the LORD.” And Nathan said to David, “The LORD also has put away your sin; you shall not die.}; {Zechariah 3:3 Now Joshua was standing before the angel, clothed with filthy garments..}; Isaiah 6:13{Wail, for the day of the LORD is at hand! It will come as destruction from the Almighty (All Sufficient One—Invincible God)! } (the last-mentioned text is related to the cult)), or it is transmitted by sacrifices performed within the cult. At the time of Jesus, emphasis should be given to the cult and the role of the priest. In Jesus’ words in Mark 2:5 { And when Jesus saw their faith, he said to the paralytic, “Son, your sins are forgiven.” } and Luke 7:48 {And he said to her, “Your sins are forgiven.” }, ‘your sins are forgiven’, the perfect tense expresses completed action, while the passive voice is indicative of God’s action. Jesus speaks as though he knows God’s disposition at this point of time, and as though he has been given the right to make this come true now. What Jesus actually says is something that the priest could say in the Temple to those who brought a sin offering, or what could be accomplished in a ritual washing (cf. Mark. 1:4–5 { John appeared, baptizing in the wilderness and proclaiming a baptism of repentance for the forgiveness of sins. 5 And all the country of Judea and all Jerusalem were going out to him and were being baptized by him in the river Jordan, confessing their sins.}). The priest had the right to forgive sins, but within the sacrificial ritual prescribed by God Himself. Jesus exercises this right outside the prescribed rituals. His forgiving words are based neither on cult nor on ritual washing, but on his own presence and powerful words. By his words Jesus was, by implication, identifying his role with that of the sacrificial system of atonement for sins. He embodied in himself the function of the cult for the expiation of sins. His Christology and his soteriology are closely connected.
The so-called cleansing of the Temple (Mark 11:15–19)
The significance of the Temple in Jesus’ time—in religious, national and political terms—can hardly be overestimated. This is seen in the fact that the Temple moved the Jews to take up war even against the Roman Empire. The presence of God was intimately connected with the Temple as the place where sins were put right. Josephus says that it was impossible for any Jew to forgo the offerings, and that they would rather give up their lives than this worship (Ant. 15:248).
In all probability we have in the Temple act a scene in the life of Jesus. The incident is told both by the synoptic gospels and by John, as well as in Oxyrhynchus Papyrus fragment 840. Furthermore, the Temple act should not be considered a large and far-reaching incident. Jesus was hardly involved with all the merchants in the place. It was most likely a prophetic symbolic action, allowing a small-scale act to be given a large-scale meaning. Finally, it is very unlikely that primitive Christianity would invent a text about Jesus taking any sort of violent action in the Temple. Desecrating a temple was regarded as very serious in antiquity.
The traditional interpretation of the Temple act is that Jesus intended to purify the Temple. The act is then understood in terms of restoration. Jesus wanted to purify the place of defiling trade—hence the common name of this event as ‘the cleansing of the Temple’. This is supported by a number of reasons, of which the most important are the following:
1. ‘Den of robbers’ suggests that the trade and not the cult as such was the target of Jesus’ criticism.
Scriptural expectations that the Messiah would restore the Temple: e.g. Zechariah 6:12 {And say to him, ‘Thus says the LORD of hosts, “Behold, the man whose name is the Branch: for he shall branch out from his place, and he shall build the temple of the LORD.}; 2 Samuel 7:13 {He shall build a house for my name, and I will establish the throne of his kingdom forever. }; Psalm of Solomon 17:30–32 {Psalms of Solomon 17:30–32 describes the establishment of a future Davidic messianic king who will rule with divine wisdom and purity. Verse 30 states that the Lord will mercifully restore the dispersed of Israel, gathering them from the ends of the earth. Verse 31 declares that this king will purge Jerusalem, making it holy again, while nations bring gifts and witness God's glory. Verse 32 identifies the ruler as a righteous king taught by God, under whom there will be no unrighteousness, as all people will be holy and their king will be the Lord Messiah (Christos Kyrios).}. This restoration involved a prior destruction before rebuilding, as can be seen in most of the texts telling about reforms of the cult (1 Ki. 18/2 Chr. 29; 2 Ki. 23; 1 Macc. 4:36–61; 2 Macc. 10; Ant. 12:316–322; cf. Ne. 13:6–9). A ‘two-step programme’ emerges: the Temple is criticized even to the point of destruction, and is then reformed or rebuilt. The destruction is then part of the restoration programme. Zion is being made ready for its eschatological function, to display the glory of God not only to the Jewish nation but to the Gentiles also: ‘And he [the royal Messiah] shall purify Jerusalem, making it holy as of old; so that nations shall come from the ends of the earth to see his glory’ (PsSol 17:30). This hope is clearly expressed in Jesus’ Temple act (Mk. 11:17) by quoting Isaiah 56:7.
Traditions such as those found in Matthew 5:23–24; Acts 2:46 and 21:26–30 argue that the disciples continued to attend the Temple services even after the Temple act, which then suggests that Jesus’ intention was not judgment but cleansing.6
Before I make my own position clear, I will advance some comments:
General OT and Jewish expectations about the Messiah are not necessarily proper guides for interpreting Jesus’ deeds. He frequently, sometimes decisively, broke with expectations laid down in the tradition. If Jesus intended a restoration of the Temple, that has to be suggested not only by expectations in the OT and Judaism, but by analysis of the text itself as well as by being indicated by his ministry in general. This can be exemplified by the mentioning of the Gentiles in the Temple act. No doubt this is an element of expectations commonly found in Judaism. But in the light of Jesus’ ministry these expectations have been reshaped and redefined. The Gentiles will come in large numbers not to Jerusalem and the Temple, but to the kingdom proclaimed by Jesus himself (Mt. 8:11 par.). This way of re-reading the scriptural expectations should make us cautious about thinking that Jesus just copied given expectations.
Most of the texts usually referred to as suggesting a cleansing interpretation speak of purifying the Temple from pagan rites and practices taking place within the precincts of the Temple. 2 Maccabees 10:1 may serve as an example: ‘Now Maccabaeus and his followers, under the leadership of the Lord, recaptured the Temple and the city, and pulled down the altar erected by the aliens in the market-place, as well as the sacred enclosures.’ The cult is purified from pagan practices. Whether this is a relevant background for Jesus expelling the money-changers and dove-sellers is to be questioned. Furthermore, the texts usually mention both steps, criticism/destroying and some kind of rebuilding. In Jesus’ Temple act, the second step is not easily found, if at all.
As for the relationship to Jewish practices and the Temple, this was a much-disputed issue in the early church. Primitive Christianity was not a harmonious movement in every aspect, in particular concerning these issues. An ambivalent attitude towards Jewish practices clearly emerges in the NT. In fact, the Jesus tradition leaves traces of both continuity and discontinuity. The reluctant attitude, generally speaking, that is found concerning the Temple cult is in itself surprising within a Jewish context, and demands some explanation. Concerning the Temple, the Christians seem mainly to have taken the attitude that it was a house of prayer and preaching (e.g. Acts 3:1; 4:1; 5:20), not a place providing the necessary offerings for sin.
These observations now lead me to present an alternative interpretation. The context in which Mark has embedded Jesus’ Temple act represents the first written interpretation of it. The story of the Temple act is framed by the story of the fig tree. Thus Mark signals some connection between the fate of the Temple and that of the cursed fig tree which will no longer bear any fruit. The evangelist clearly intends his readers to see in the doomed and dead fig tree a picture of the Temple. This is certainly a picture of judgment and destruction. The most appropriate model for interpreting Jesus’ Temple act seems to be symbolic actions usually performed by prophets. These actions were dramatic embodiments of the prophetic message, Symbolic actions usually consist of two elements, the action itself followed by its oral interpretation:
Jeremiah 13:6–9: Symbolic action
Jeremiah is asked to dig a place for a loincloth, and hide it there. Later he is asked to dig it up. It was then destroyed and was of no use.
Interpretation
God will make an end of Judah and Jerusalem.
Jeremiah 27:2–8: Symbolic action
Jeremiah is instructed to lay upon his neck thongs and a yoke.
Interpretation
The people will be slaves of the Babylonian king.
Jeremiah 28:10–11: Symbolic action
Hananiah takes the yoke and breaks it.
Interpretation
The people will be released from their captivity.
Isaiah 20:3–6: Symbolic action
lsaiah is instructed to walk naked and barefoot in the town.
Interpretation
The Egyptians and the Ethiopians will be led into captivity naked and barefoot.
Acts 21:11: Symbolic action
Agabus binds Paul’s feet with a girdle.
Interpretation
Paul will be arrested.
This list (cf. 1 Ki. 11:29–36; 2 Ki. 22:11) suggests a close relationship between the symbol and its interpretation. The symbolism of the prophetic action speaks almost for itself. The action chosen as a symbol already indicates and suggests the verbal interpretation. In particular, this is clear in Hosea 1 and 3 in the names given to the prophet’s children. There the symbolic action (i.e. the names) in itself embodies the interpretation.
The action chosen as symbol in the Temple act is that of driving out (ekballein) and turning over(katastrephein). In the light of the material presented above, this action should by itself suggest the proper interpretation. According to a ‘two steps restoration model’, a cleansing interpretation cannot be ruled out; but it is not likely. Keeping to the observation that the interpretation is embodied in the action itself, that questions the traditional cleansing interpretation. The act of overturning and driving out can hardly be seen as referring to more than the first step. In fact nothing suggests the second step. Cleansing is not a very likely interpretation of the action performed by Jesus. The action itself carries the entire message, and in this action I can hardly see a reference to the second step. The positive, constructive side of a cleansing might in a biblical context have been symbolized in an additional way, e.g. by water or fire (Ezk. 36:25; Zech. 13:1–2, 9; 2 Ki. 23:4, 6). In short, if we keep to the principle that the action itself embodies the appropriate interpretation, then this action of Jesus primarily signals the disqualification of the Temple.7 Some scholars say that overturning some tables is not self-evidently a symbol of destruction. This act should, however, be taken together with Jesus driving people out of the Temple.8 Particular emphasis should be paid to whom he is driving out, and to their role within the Temple precincts.
The presence of the money-changers and the pigeon-sellers was intimately connected to the main function of the Temple, as the place where sacrifices were offered. Both groups were required for the sacrifices to go on. The money-changers made it possible to change foreign currency with forbidden images (cf. Ex. 20:4) into the coinage accepted by the Temple, and the pigeon-sellers provided poor people with the offering demanded in the OT (Lv. 5:7; 12:8; Nu. 6:10; Lk. 2:24). The business arrangements represented by the people Jesus was driving out were essential and necessary if the commandments about sacrifices were to be obeyed. Jesus actually expels the necessary apparatus of the sacrifices. This is why I have questioned the relevance of texts speaking about reforming and purifying the Temple from pagan practices. Here something quite different is going on. The target of Jesus’ action is the means necessary for the divine institution of expiation of sins to continue. Jacob Neusner refers to relevant Jewish texts (Mishna Sheqalim 1:3 and Tosephta Sheqalim 1:6) showing that the money-changers not only provided the so-called half-shekel demanded in the Temple. For doing this they charged a sum which served through the coming year to provide the public daily whole offerings in the Temple. They thus served for the atonement of Israel’s sin. Neusner says that Jesus’ action ‘will have provoked astonishment, since it will have called into question the very simple fact that the daily whole offering effected atonement and brought about expiation for sin, and God had so instructed Moses in the Torah’.9 Jesus’ action makes the claim that there is a means of atonement other than the sacrifices in the Temple. This suggests that Jesus’ Temple action was based upon the conviction of replacing the atoning function of the Temple, making it available to all nations, as emphasized in the first part of the scriptural quotation.
I have argued on the basis of the immediate context given to Jesus’ Temple action by Mark as well as by taking the very action itself to carry the entire message of the episode. It seems correct therefore to say that Jesus attacked the sacrificial system and indicated a replacement of its atoning function. Now this interpretation has to be confronted with the oral interpretation laid down in Mark 11:17. Of particular relevance is the last part, the citation of Jeremiah 7:11. My interpretation is challenged by this quotation, since it is not quite obvious that it continues the attack on the sacrificial system; rather it seems to point to some moral deficiency. Craig E. Evans takes the expression ‘den of robbers’ to indicate an attack on the priesthood, and advances the following question: Why is an attack on the sacrificial system followed by a reference to the greed of the priests? Evans correctly expects a continuation here. Since this apparently fails to appear, Evans favours the view that Jesus was concerned about moral deficiency. But ‘den of robbers’ is not an obvious reference to a prophetic critique of the priests. In Jeremiah 7:11 it clearly refers to the people in general.
I would like to take another approach to understand ‘den of robbers’. Jesus’ vocabulary brings to mind the words of Jeremiah about the impending judgment upon the Temple. It was a common feature in contemporary prophecy, Jewish as well as Christian, to use conventional biblical phrases as part of the prophetic rhetoric. Jesus Son of Hananiah did this (Jewish War 6:300–309). This prophet entered the Temple in ad 62 and proclaimed the impending judgment on the place. For seven years and five months he continually uttered his message against the city and its holy place. In his message he also used the phrase ‘a voice against bride and groom’, which surely is reminiscent of Jeremiah’s prophecies about the destruction of the city and the Temple (Je. 7:34; cf. 16:9; 25:10). The prophet deliberately used conventional phrases from the OT as his rhetoric style. This may be a satisfactory explanation of Jesus’ words in Mark 11:17 as well. Jesus acts and speaks like a prophet; Matthew’s version actually says so (Mt. 21:11). Where could Jesus find a more appropriate language than in Jeremiah’s speech against the Temple and its worshippers? This means that the reference to ‘den of robbers’ (v. 17) is rhetorical rather than a description of the Temple of Jesus’ own day.
That Jesus’ Temple act involved more than a traditional restoration programme is finally suggested by the claim of Jesus that ‘something greater than the Temple is here’ (Mt. 12:6), as well as by his sayings about the destruction of the Temple (Mk. 13:1–2; 14:57–58; 15:29; Acts 6:14; Jn. 2:18–22). In these sayings, an element of rebuilding is clearly found, but that refers not to the actual Temple but to another. The concept of rebuilding the Temple is here redefined in terms of a replacement. By the principle of multiple attestation this saying should be considered authentic. Furthermore, these sayings of Jesus then correspond to his action in the Temple. A correspondence between sayings and action indicates that the interpretation of the Temple act presented here is correct. This saying about destroying the Temple played a major role in the trial of Jesus. Obviously, Jesus’ Temple act had provoked the anger particularly of the priesthood and Temple authorities (cf.Mk. 11:18).
The disciples’ post-Easter meeting with Jesus
Jesus’ unconditional forgiveness of sins as well as his symbolic act of replacing the cultic institution formed a starting point for interpreting his death as a means of righting the wrongs of human sins. The NT emphasizes, however, a close link between the salvific effect of Jesus’ death and his being raised from the dead. The resurrection was a divine manifestation of his death as valid and effective. Thus the resurrection meant an intensification and assurance as to how Jesus’ death was to be interpreted. This close link between a soteriological interpretation of his death and his being raised is clearly stated by Paul: ‘If Christ has not been raised, your faith is futile and you are still in your sins’ (1 Cor. 15:17; cf. vv. 3–4; Rom. 4:25). Special attention should here be paid to the disciples’ meetings with Jesus after his resurrection. These post-Easter encounters were a decisive factor in assuring them of the result of his death being one of atonement for sins.10
All the Gospels give an unfavourable picture of the disciples during the passion. In Gethsemane they fell asleep, leaving their Master alone in his agony. When he was arrested, they left him behind. The climax of their failure was Peter’s threefold denial which strongly contrasts with his words in Mark 14:29, ‘Even though all become deserters, I will not’. This information is certainly historical, not only on the basis of multiple attestation, but also because it was a constant reminder of the failure of the leaders of the church. It is impossible to imagine that this embarrassing piece of tradition was invented by anyone in the church.
When Jesus met his disciples after the resurrection, their unfaithful attitude must have been a painful obstacle for them to full rejoicing. The Gospels only hint at this aspect of their meeting. But in the major and special role assigned to Peter in these traditions (Mk. 16:7; Lk. 24:12, 34; Jn. 20:21; 21:15–19), it can clearly be seen that Jesus offered the disciples, and Peter in particular, a new beginning based upon forgiveness. This can be substantiated by means of one of the oldest texts in the NT. In the creed quoted in 1 Corinthians 15:3–5, Paul mentions the witnesses of the risen Lord. Verse 5 distinguishes between the appearance of Jesus to Peter and to the other disciples: ‘He appeared to Cephas, then to the twelve.’ This is a clear reminder of the role of Peter in the passion and resurrection story. The saying refers to Peter’s sin and his being restored by forgiveness. Without this narrative background the special mentioning of Peter in this creed becomes meaningless. The creed here calls upon the passion story for further information. Peter’s role in the creed can be substantiated by taking the context into consideration. Paul’s use of the creed is due to his strategy of gaining a basis for his apostolic ministry. He counts his Damascus revelation as equal to the Easter appearances to the disciples. The stereotype ôpthê (‘he appeared’ + dative) which he keeps even in verse 9 underlines this. Paul leaves his readers in no doubt as to the essential nature of this event: it was a meeting of forgiveness. The persecutor became the apostle by means of God’s grace (cf. Gal. 1:15–16). Paul compares his Damascus experience to the twelve’s Easter appearances. Paul’s logic in the text allows a related line of comparison to be drawn. Jesus appeared with forgiveness to Paul as well as to Peter and the disciples. That Jesus died for sins, which is the first part of the creed, is exemplified by Peter. The mentioning of Peter separate from the twelve thus substantiates what it means to say that Jesus died for sins. Paul adds himself as another related example, This experience of the leaders of the church should not be underestimated; it played an important role in reaffirming the interpretation of Jesus’ death as providing expiation for sins.
Summary
This article has emphasized that an adequate understanding of Jesus’ death is dependent upon the role Jesus assigned to himself in questions of salvation, He exercised forgiveness of sins outside the sacrificial system, and thus embodied in himself the function of the sacrifices. This perspective naturally sheds light upon Jesus’ Temple act, in which he was driving out those who were essential and necessary for the prescribed cult to go on. Mark, representing the oldest written interpretation of the Temple act, clearly understood it as a judgment scene. The aspect of rebuilding the Temple I found to be absent in the scene. It was, however, found in Jesus’ sayings of destroying the Temple; but there it is redefined into a disqualification and replacement of the present Temple. To the disciples who were naturally confined to the traditions, the re-definitions presented by Jesus must have appeared more suggestive than obvious. They were, however, finally convinced and assured in their post-Easter meetings with Jesus, in which he gave them his forgiveness of their unfaithfulness and offered them a new beginning.
