Homan, Michael M.  “The Divine Warrior in His Tent: A Military Model for Yahweh’s Tabernacle.”  Bible Review 16, no. 6 (2000): 22-33, 55. [Israel/Tabernacle/Canaan]

The Old Testament depicts God as dwelling in a Tent/Tabernacle from the Sinai through the desert wanderings, the conquest and settlement of Israel and through the reigns of the first two of Israel’s kings–from Exodus to 1 Kings 8.  Even when David proposed building a permanent house for his God, Yahweh seemed to be content with the portable structure.  Interestingly, the Tabernacle is described in more detail than any other structure in the Bible, including the temple.  Continue reading →

Ricks, Stephen D.  “Dexiosis and Dextrarum Iunctio: The Sacred Handclasp in the Classical and Early Christian World.”  The Farms Review 18, no. 1 (2006): 431-36. [Christian/Ritual/Liturgy/Worship]

This is a brief article opens with an account of a visit to the Getty Museum in southern California where Ricks and his wife saw a stele of Philoxenos and his wife, Philoumene, facing each other holding right hands.  It dated about 400 B.C.  A description explained it could represent a simple farewell, a reunion, or the “continuing connection between the deceased and the living.”  This prompted Ricks to do further research.  He found such depictions were common in both Greek and Roman art.  In Greek the handclasp was called dexiosis and in Latin dextratum iunctio.  The Greeks commonly udepicted it on grave stelai.  In Roman art it was found on coins and sarcophagi reliefs and in Christian mosaics and on sarcophagi.

The article describes a number of examples of these hand gestures the author found from the Classical world, many of which pertained to marriage.  Thus he concludes that early Christians in the Roman world were depicted this way “in part because they agreed with the non-Christian Romans that ‘fidelity and harmony are demanded in the longest-lasting and most intimate human relationship, marriage.’  But they also did so because they accepted, perhaps, the ancient Israelite view that marriage was a sacred covenant, and further, because they understood ‘marriage,’ in the words of the Protestant scholar Philip Schaff, ‘as a spiritual union of two souls for time and eternity.’” (pp. 435-36).  A final footnote also adds this interesting information:  “Meyendorff notes that ‘the most striking difference between the Byzantine theology of marriage and its medieval Latin counterpart is that the Byzantines strongly emphasized the unicity of Christian marriage and the eternity of the marriage bond; … the West seemed to ignore the idea that marriage, if it is a sacrament, has to be projected as an eternal bond into the Kingdom of God.’” (p. 436, n. 14.)

Magness-Gardiner, Bonnie S.  “Seals, Mesopotamian,” The Anchor Bible Dictionary, 6 vols., New York: Doubleday, 1992, 5:1062-1064.

This is a two-page article on the stamp and cylinder seals of Mesopotamia.  The article reviews their manufacture and the history of the development and use of seals throughout the Mesopotamian culture from 4000 to about 900 B.C.  I was at first disappointed to discover that this was the only article in this highly acclaimed work on the subject of “seal” or “seals.”  There is however an article on “binding and loosing” and a section on jewelry that discusses the signet ring.

Moule, C. F. D.  “Sanctuary and Sacrifice in the Church of the New Testament.”  Journal of Theological Studies 1 (1950): 29-41. [Christian/Sacrifice/Offerings]

Not knowing Greek, this article was more difficult than usual, because the author seldom puts the English equivalent with the Greek word or phrase being used.  In general, the essay seeks to discern in the New Testament a pattern of Christian response to the Jewish and pagan charges that Christianity does not have a temple or sacrifice, thus no genuine worship.  The author works through the statements alleging that Jesus said if the temple was destroyed, he would rebuild it in three days.  Both Stephen and Paul were likewise questioned about their view of the temple.  The answers, especially of Paul and the book of Hebrews is generally that those things were symbols for spiritual realities.  The sacrifice is Christ.  The temple is the resurrected body of Christ and the body of the Church.  Genuine worship becomes faith in Christ.  The author postulates that the entire book of Hebrews was written as an apologetic against such criticisms.  Thus, for Moule, the rending of the veil was a symbol of the abolition of old barriers of access to God found in Judaism:  “He is our great High Priest; and we are a kingdom of priests; we all have access, in Christ, into the holy place.” (p. 39)

Regev, Eyal.  “Moral Impurity and the Temple in Early Christianity in Light of Ancient Greek Practice and Qumranic Ideology.”  Harvard Theological Review 97 (October 2004): 383-411. [Israel/Greek/Qumran/Christian/Ritual/Liturgy/Worship]

This essay contains a somewhat confused and confusing discussion of ritual and moral purity in the Greco-Roman culture, the Bible and the Qumran community.  The intent here is “to recover some of the social and religious implications of the concept of moral purity as they may be reflected in early Christian traditions.” (p. 386).  The author attempts to apply these concepts to solving two issues in the conduct of Jesus, i.e., the cleansing of the temple and eating with sinners.  His intent is to “demonstrate that the stress on moral purity in early Christian traditions does not necessarily imply a rejection of either the traditional Jewish Temple cult or the ritual purity laws….”(p. 385) It appears from several instances that the author is insufficiently acquainted with the New Testament which leads to a number of oversights and/or oversimplifications.  For example, when discussing Jesus’ attitude toward the laws of purification as raised in the hand washing episode of Mark 7, virtually no reference is made concerning the point Mark repeatedly makes that Jesus was distinguishing between the traditions of the Jews which he asserted were the “commandments of men” and the laws given by God.  This led them to make the law of God “of none effect” in the case of the Corban.  Similar problems plague the discussion about baptism and purity, although here, the problem is heightened by lack of information in the text and an understanding of the purpose of baptism and the sacrament which effect all Bible students.(p. 394)   Neither is there mention of Jesus fulfilling the law of sacrifice in the discussion about early Christian involvement and reaction to the Temple.  The “new theory” proposed to explain the cleansing of the temple is flimsy, which the author admits is not supported by evidence but came almost entirely from his own logic.(See p. 401.)  The discussion did add a helpful insight that Jeremiah 7:11 is set in the context of the moral corruption of temple officials.(p. 401.)  The final treatment about why Jesus ate with sinners is surfeited with redundancies (as is the article generally), and seeks to make the point that Jesus was trying to bring about a moral reformation within people.

Davies, G. I.  “The Presence of God in the Second Temple and Rabbinic Doctrine.”  In Templum Amicitiae: Essays on the Second Temple Presented to Ernst Bammel, edited by William Horbury, 32-36.  Sheffield: JSOT Press, 1991. [Israel/Second Temple/Presence/Theology]

This is a brief paper with a simple thesis.  Based on a statement in the Mishnah that five things, including the Shekinah, were missing from the Second Temple that were in Solomon’s Temple, the generally accepted belief is that the divine presence was not as strong in the Second Temple period.  He says R. E. Clement first questioned this on the basis of Joel 4:17.  Davies gives five passages from various times and backgrounds which show a rather consistent belief in the divine presence in the Second Temple.  They are: 1) Psalm 135:21; 2) Temple Scroll, 29:7-10; 3) Mt. 23:21; 4) Josephus, War 6:299, Tacitus Hist 5:13; 5) Mishnah, Sukkah 5:4.  He concludes with the interesting note that there are five passages in the Mishnah which speak of five things missing from the Second temple, but only one mentions the Shekinah.  So, perhaps this passage represents the exceptional view and deserves further consideration.

Charlesworth, James H.  “Jesus and the Temple.”  In Jesus and Temple: Textual and Archaeological Explorations, edited by James H. Charlesworth, 145-81.  Minneapolis: Fortress, 2014. [Israel/Herod/Christian/Theology/New Temple]

In December 2011, a symposium designed to investigate commonly held assumptions about Jesus and the Temple was held in Boca Raton, Florida under the direction of James Charlesworth.  This paper was one of nine from that conference which are now published in a recent book, also edited by Charlesworth. Continue reading →

Moffitt, David M.  “Righteous Bloodshed, Matthew’s Passion Narrative, and the Temple’s Destruction: Lamentations as a Matthean Intertext.” Journal of Biblical Literature 125, no. 2 (2006): 299-320. [Israel/Herod/Sacrifice/Offering/Destruction]

The simple thesis of this articles is that not only does Mt. 27:39 allude to Lamentations 2:15, but that Matthew explicitly draws on Lamentation in his account of events leading up to the crucifixion “in order to portray Jesus’ death as the primary act of righteous bloodshed by the hands of the religious authorities in Jerusalem that results in the destruction of Jerusalem and the temple.” (p. 300) The strength of this argument is based on 1) lexical and formal agreement of passages in Lamentations and Matthew, 2) thematic agreement, and 3) both texts are connected to the death of Zechariah at the temple.  The thematic agreement is the most interesting and persuasive argument.  The contact between the two texts is on three themes: 1) both condemn the religious leaders of Jerusalem, 2) both accuse the religious authorities of shedding righteous blood, and 3) both connect the shedding of that blood with the destruction of Jerusalem and the temple.  The use of Lamentations in Mt. 23-24 constitutes Jesus warning of such a destruction based on the religious leaders shedding “righteous blood” (rather than “innocent blood”), and then returning to these themes in the passion narrative in Mt. 27.

And interesting item was the note that in Mt. 23:38 the Lord tells them “your house is left unto you desolate” and in 24:1 Matthew reports that Jesus “went out, and departed from the temple…”  Moffitt observes that Jesus thus “embodies the departure of the Shekinah from “that house” by walking out of the temple….”  (p. 306.)   Another useful insight is that when the veil is ripped in Mt. 27:51, it is in the context of the condemnation of Jesus, a righteous man, by the Jewish leaders, and the resonances of Mt. 27:19 (“this just man”) and 27:24 (“I am innocent of the blood of this just person”) and 27:25 (“his blood be on us…”), and the warnings which were given in chapters 23 and 24 which parallel the themes in Lamentations.  Thus Moffit says, “The point is driven home, when in what in this context must prefigure the coming judgment, the temple veil is ripped in two when Jesus dies (Matt 27:51).” (p. 309).  The author continues to argue extensively and technically for Matthew’s use of Lamentation in allusions in Mt. 27:4, and 24.  (See pp. 313-319.)  The author concludes that this is not necessarily an anti-Jewish polemic on the part of Matthew.  Rather, his focus is on the Jewish leadership and their role in the destruction of Jerusalem and the temple.

De Vries, Simon J.  “Moses and David as Cult Founders in Chronicles.”  Journal of Biblical Literature 107 (December 1988): 619-39. [Israel/Tabernacle/Solomon]

At the outset De Vries notes that two great corpuses of literature came out of post-exilic Judaism–the Pentateuch and Chronicles.  The former portrays Moses as the great founder of the Temple “cult” and its legislation.  Whereas Chronicles gives little attention to Moses but strongly portrays David as founder of the temple and its ritual alongside of Moses.  The purpose of this study is to determine why Chronicles places this emphasis on David.

Perceptively De Vries discerns two different approaches in the use of the authority of Moses and David in Chronicles–indeed throughout the Pentateuch and the Histories.  The first he calls the Authorization Formula, in which the authority of Moses is invoked for the formulation of the temple ritual and laws, matters considered essential.  The second is the Regulation Formula which looks to the authority of David and Davidic kings in regulating specific matters of ritual and clerical assignment in the temple.  To aid the reader in determining the validity of his theory, De Vries produces lists of passages in which each of these “formulas” may be found, and discusses specific ones at length.  In specific instances both formulas are combined together.  Each formula is characterized by its own language to invoke the authority of either Moses or David.

De Vries also shows the extensive involvement David had in relationship to the temple, all of which highlight his authority.  He caused the ark of the covenant to be brought to his tent shrine.  He charges the Levites with the responsibility of carrying it.  He appoints singers and gatekeepers to do service at the sanctuary.  He employs his wealth to provide materials for the temple and prepares workmen to build it.  He then enjoins Solomon for the eventual task of building a temple to take the place of the tent-shrine.  He purchased  the new shrine site and dedicated the altar for the future Temple.  He organized the personnel for eventual duty at the temple.  Finally, he oversaw the installation of Solomon, and at that event as recorded in 1 Chron. 28:1-8, David’s emphasis is upon Solomon’s role as temple builder more than as king.

According to De Vries, the priorities in Chronicles are David, the Temple, festivals, the Levites and the priesthood.  The chronicler stresses the authority of David as a founder of the temple cult, because that is precisely the authority which needs bolstering.  The Deuteronomists have succeeded in setting up Moses as the archetype Prophet and law-giver and his authority is not questioned, but now the authority of the Davidic monarchy is highlighted and one way this is achieved is in reference to David’s authority in relationship to the Temple.

Dunn, James D. G.  “Jesus and Purity: An Ongoing Debate.”  New Testament Studies 48, no. 4 (October 2002): 449-67. [Christian/Ritual/Liturgy/Worship]

This article reviews some of the major passages and Gospel stories that concern Jewish law regarding purity as they figure in the life and teachings of Jesus.  An understanding of the diversity of the religious environment of the period is helpful in understanding Jesus’ actions and teachings.  Purity was a major issue for the factions in his time including especially the Qumran Community.  The Temple was the focal point and reason for purity.  “Strictly speaking, purification was only necessary for those who wished to attend the Temple.” (p. 452.)  This raises the question about the relevance of the purity laws for those living away from the Temple.  Archaeological evidence yields four strong indicators that confirm that purity laws were important and observed in Galilee.  Raised as a Jew, Jesus would have been taught the laws of purity.

When dealing with specifics, some interesting insights and questions emerge in this study.  John’s baptism, for example, was unique or different from purification rites in three ways.  (1) It was only done once; (2) John baptized others, in ritual washings they immersed themselves; (3) it was for repentance from sin.  John acted as a priest and baptism appeared to replace the sin offering in sacrifices.  As for Jesus and his teachings the article examines the: cleansing of the leper, (Mk. 1:40-41), p. 461; washing of hands (Mk. 7:1-23), pp. 461-2; table-fellowship, p. 465; cleansing the Temple (Mk. 11:15-17), pp. 466-467.  It is possible that in Mk. 7:15, 19, Jesus revoked the purity laws, however, scholars find as many problems with this interpretation as not. Dunn concludes that the evidence is ambiguous about purity and Jesus, and so are his conclusions about Jesus’ view of ritual purity.  In many cases it is because of the limited data.  Nevertheless, it is evident that  Jesus regarded internal purity of heart of higher importance than external ritual purity.