So I had always kind of assumed that Jesus came at the time He did relative to the Temple because finally things were back in shape enough ritually and cultically speaking that people would understand the Paschal dimensions of what He was doing. Yes and no, it seems, and more no than yes. On the one hand yes, I suppose it wouldn't have been nearly so evident if the Passover rites had been lost for time out of mind. But on the other hand, I didn't have a clear mental timeline of what was going on with the second Temple.
The Temple in Jerusalem in Jesus' time, you know, was the third time a temple had been built on that spot. The Temple was built by Solomon. Then came the Babylonian Exile and the Temple was destroyed. After the Babylonian Exile the Temple was rebuilt by Zerubbabel (remember the part with Cyrus?). Even if you've read Chronicles a few times, if you're like me, you're knowledge of this era is a bit shadowy. I went and looked this up today, and it seems that the second Temple stood for something like 500 years before it was destroyed in 68 BC by Pompey. If Jesus wanted to come while the Temple was in good working order, it seems he had plenty of chances.
Even when there was a temple standing there again, it seems that people still felt like they hadn't really ever returned from the Exile. The second Temple wasn't quite as nice as Solomon's, but more problematically there was still this problem with domination by pagans. Antiochus Epiphanes defiled the temple, and even after the Maccabean revolt led to its cleansing and rededication, Israel still had to submit to domination by Rome. A temple was built, more splendid than ever, but it was Herod's temple.
I always wondered about this, because it didn't seem quite kosher, so to speak. The Temple is supposed to be built by David's son. Solomon was the prototype. Zerubbabel was a legitimate candidate because he was a son of David. Herod, though, wasn't even a Jew. A lot of the Jews had a problem with this. The Essenes went so far as to refuse to have anything to do with this temple.
Wright points out that King of the Jews, Temple Builder, and Messiah, are all intimately bound up with one another. Not that I had never heard these mentioned together before, but I hadn't really put it together in my mind. Remember that in Israel kings aren't crowned, they're anointed. When Jesus is crucified - for saying that he is the Messiah and acting like it, the placard above the cross says that He is the King of the Jews, which means about the same thing. He is a threat because he is 'in the way' of Herod, who wanted to be the King of the Jews. Remember that when Jesus was born Herod heard that the king of the Jews had been born and immediately tried to eliminate the competition. Herod tried to legitimate himself by building the Temple, but not everyone was buying it. The true king and builder of the Temple would free Israel from pagan domination, but Herod actually is the agent of pagan domination. The priests who are ministering in the Temple maybe are trying to obey the prescribed rites and make sure they happen as the Lord commanded, but they are only there because they have cooperated with the pagan rulers, so they are problematic as well.
It isn't so simple as I thought. There's a temple there, but it's not totally legitimate. Mary and Joseph go there, so they can't have regarded it as totally illegitimate. Most of the Jews go there. But something's still wrong.
Comments