The Kingdom Movement

A Literary & Pastoral Study Guide to the Gospel of Matthew

The Inspiration of Matthew,

by Caravaggio

On the King's Errand

Devotional Reflections on Matthew's Gospel

Matthew's Anti-Temple Narrative and the Abolition of the Sacred:  Mt.9:1 – 13

^9:6 …the Son of Man has authority on earth to forgive sins…¹³ But go and learn what this means: ‘I desire compassion, and not sacrifice,’ for I did not come to call the righteous, but sinners.’

Matthew is sometimes accused of being anti-Semitic because he records many examples of Jesus and his disciples having conflicts with the Jewish leaders.  Matthew includes the statement misapplied to all Jewish generations by Gentile Christians in the Middle Ages, ‘His blood shall be on us and on our children!’ (Mt.27:25)  Is this evidence that Matthew was anti-Semitic?  Some Christians, eager to come to Matthew’s defense, say that Matthew was not being anti-Semitic, but only anti-Judaic.  That is, he was not against Jewish people as an ethnicity, but against Jewishness as a faith.  For various reasons, I find this somewhat problematic.  On the one hand, Jewishness in Scripture was never an ethnicity but a faith, and unfortunately, redefining Jewishness as merely an ethnicity leads us to read the Old Testament as if God wanted a ‘pure race’ – which in the late medieval period and the Enlightenment, reinforced ideas of European ‘blood purity’ that came back to harm Jews for being biologically ‘impure.’  So it is with great caution that I would speak of Jewishness as an ethnicity.  On the other hand, Matthew makes a number of very positive statements about traditional Jewish observance of the Law which laid the foundation for an expression of early Christianity that was culturally Jewish which persisted for centuries; Jesus tells his audience that they should continue to observe ‘the weightier provisions of the law: justice and mercy and faithfulness; but these are the things you should have done without neglecting the others’ (Mt.23:23).  So is it fair to say that Matthew was anti-Judaic?  What exactly was Matthew for and against?

I find it much more accurate to say that Matthew, with the other Gospel writers, was anti-Temple.  There is no doubt that Matthew was firmly against the Temple in Jerusalem on Mount Zion.  He alone preserves Jesus’ statement about himself, ‘Something greater than the Temple is here’ (Mt.12:6).  This is substantiated by Jesus’ claim to forgive sins (Mt.9:6), which previously happened at the Temple.  As a corollary, Jesus declared an end to the animal sacrifices at the Temple as well (Mt.9:13) because he was providing himself as the ultimate sacrifice.  Unlike Mark and Luke, Matthew omits the story of the widow who gave her two mites in the Temple (Mk.12:41 – 44; Lk.21:1 – 4), perhaps because he declines to dignify the Temple in its temporariness.  Unlike Luke, Matthew does not preserve the stories of Jesus appearing in the Temple in his infancy or childhood.  Hence he omits positive things Mark and Luke say about the Temple, as well as incidents where the Temple might be seen as an honored place.  Matthew alone preserves Jesus’ saying where the disciples are ‘a city on a hill’ and ‘light of the world’ (Mt.5:13 – 16), which were ways of indicating that Jesus and his disciples would replace the Temple.  The Temple was the foundational expression for what the remarkable French Christian sociologist Jacques Ellul (in his books The New Demons and The Subversion of Christianity) called ‘the sacred’ in the Jewish tradition.  When Jesus rendered the Temple irrelevant and spoke of its doom at the hands of the Romans (Mt.24), he implicitly challenged everything that was ‘sacred’ everywhere else.

Now I come to the broad practical application of this theological theme.  When I say ‘sacred,’ I mean the things in our life we do not question, which we use to give order and coherence to our lives and our society.  In older societies, the sacred meant special places (ground where only particular individuals could walk), special times (feasts at new moons), and special activities (gestures and involvements).  These are the things that gave those societies structure and order.  They were things that were simply accepted.  They limited and directed people.  They assigned people roles to play.  They were essential for a framework upon which the rest of life could be built.  All places are not alike.  All times are not alike.  All activities are not alike.  Some are more significant than others.  Sacred elements arrange societies.  For fearful people facing an uncertain and menacing world, the sacred provides psychological reassurance that things are under control.  The world will look about the same tomorrow as it does today. 

Sociologically, the sacred serves a clear function:  to provide a guidepost for an individual to assimilate into a group.  It is the common ground on which individuals stand together.  Bowing down to a representation of the family or the state is a prime example.  Such sacred activities, done in sacred places, subtly organize society by gently restraining individuals from certain behaviors and pushing them towards others.  This is why a nation’s sacred elements are so important.  Human nature seems to need them.  If a sacred element is contested, then it is no longer sacred, and it is overthrown.  Yet if the sacred disintegrates, another form of the sacred soon arises to take its place.  Such has always been the case in historical societies.  The new sacred elements may not be identical in character, but it serves the same functions. 

An example of the sacred might be a certain area of land considered by a tribe to be special.  Initiation rites happen there.  The ceremony is marked by some formal event not repeated at any other time.  Young men and women are perhaps given a new name when they reach a special age.  Such beliefs in the sacred elements of that society keep that society together and provide it with continuity.  In American society, most people would deny that such elements exist.  Much to the contrary, certain things are unanimously pronounced the most important of all things.  Every young person is encouraged to go through a ritual (schooling).  Certain mythical beliefs prevail (the entitlement of the individual to pursue happiness, the importance of progress, the divine significance of democracy, etc.) which make certain actions more special than others.  Political involvement in all forms, for example, is a special action.  These are all typical attitudes toward sacred activities, ceremonies, and rites that characterize our Enlightenment-influenced culture.  People attach unquestioned importance to them.

In the Old Testament, we see in Israel not only a certain aversion to the sacred and the religious, but an active commitment to destroy such things.  God never permitted a physical representation of Himself to be made.  His people were to destroy cultic shrines, idols, and symbols whenever they came across them.  There was not just a disregard for the sacred, and at times an active distaste for them.  They refused to bow to idols forced upon them, as we see with Daniel and his three friends in Babylon (Dan.3, 7).  They were ‘anti-religious.’  This may be a surprise.  Surely one can point to the many ordinances, sacrifices, the sacred times of the year that the Jews held.  All of it revolved around the Tabernacle, initially, and then its more durable form, the Temple in Jerusalem.  But we find that all the things that the Jews held as special, holy, or sacred, were all things that pointed to Christ and were fulfilled in him.  The Sabbath, a special time, was fulfilled in him.  The feasts – Passover, Firstfruits, Pentecost, and Day of Atonement – were fulfilled in him.  All the Levitical sacrifices were fulfilled in him.  With Jesus as high priest, there was no longer any need for a formal priesthood in Israel, so the priesthood was fulfilled.  And Jesus himself was the new dwelling place of God anyway, making the physical Temple building in Jerusalem no longer relevant.  God’s last use of the Temple was to tear the thick veil partitioning the Holy of Holies top to bottom, symbolizing the meaning of Jesus’ death and resurrection, that access to God’s presence was flung wide open through Jesus and in Jesus.  There were no longer any sacred sites.  All has been fulfilled in Christ, who has stripped those visible things of meaning because the truth and antitype of all these things is found only in the union of his divinity and humanity.  This is the point of the Epistle to the Hebrews, with its own extraordinary critique of the Temple.

Thus, in early Christianity, we find that the charge leveled against the believers by everyone was the accusation of being ‘anti-religious.’  The Christians had no respect for the symbols of religion – that is, the sacred – in the world.  They did not view the Emperor as a god or the state as supreme and refused to bow down to representations or images of Caesar.  They did not acknowledge the Greek and Roman gods like Artemis or Apollo, but at best considered them demons.  They argued against the worship of fountains, buildings, or gardens.  Hence, ironically, they were called ‘atheists.’  They clung to one God who is an invisible spirit, who became incarnate in Jesus of Nazareth, who died, rose again, disappeared to be seated on a heavenly throne, and sent his invisible spirit to indwell believers. 

The first Christians had no preference for where they met, where they preached, or where they celebrated the sacraments.  Often they did all these things in cemeteries and catacombs.  After all, God was not more present in some places than in others.  There were no special holy sites.  Pilgrimages were unnecessary.  There was not a special class of priests.  Jesus had abolished titles and the veneration of certain people:  ‘But do not be called Rabbi; for One is your Teacher, and you are all brothers.  Do not call anyone on earth your father; for One is your Father, He who is in heaven.  Do not be called leaders; for One is your Leader, that is, Christ.  But the greatest among you shall be your servant.  Whoever exalts himself shall be humbled; and whoever humbles himself shall be exalted.’ (Mt.23:8 – 12)  Jesus radically equalized people and desacralized leaders of all kinds.  Moreover, God is wholly separate from His creation.  He is not enclosed in anything.  There is nothing mysterious God used to bring creation into being.  He spoke His word.  That is all.  He makes Himself known in Jesus Christ and not in other places.  The incarnation, Jesus Christ, is the only person and event bridging the gap between God and His creation.  And there is no use in making images of Jesus because he is risen and alive, and because he lives in his people by his Spirit.  Jesus disarmed demonic powers.  Paul tells us not to treat certain foods, new moons, festivals, or Sabbath days as special.  Thus, there is no way to manipulate creation through sacrifice or sorcery, and even prayer that seeks to manipulate creation is highly dubious.  There is no division between this time and that.  There is no difference between this place and that.  There is no fear in what lurks behind and within.  The Christian world is one that is wholly desacralized.  Moreover, those actions that are the most special are ones which cannot be organized:  loving one’s neighbors and enemies, extending grace and blessing, showing mercy and forgiveness.  These actions cannot possibly be used to guarantee that tomorrow will look the same as today.

We are all aware, of course, of how Christian faith throughout the Middle Ages began to reverse this pattern and reestablish sacred places, people, things, and ceremonies.  I will comment on that below.  But first, the question is very important to ask:  Who would invent a system of belief and action that strips the sacred from the world like this?  Jesus is sacred, and each person is sacred because of the love of God manifested in Jesus Christ’s saving action on behalf of each person.  But otherwise, Christian faith stripped the entire world of its ubiquitous sacred myths and patterns.  Political, economic, and religious images and ideologies – which were thoroughly intertwined in the classical world – were completely threatened and overturned by Christians.  Consider the reaction of the angry Ephesians in Acts 19, who rioted against Christians for political, economic, and religious reasons.  This historical and sociological uniqueness of the biblical tradition in general, and Christian faith in particular, is part of the overall argument that it is true. 

What about the reversal?  Sad as it is, there is much we can learn from it.  When Constantine made Christianity the official state religion, Christians started to concern themselves with social conformity.  Their troubles became political and imperial, not just spiritual.  The Empire had to be kept peaceful.  People had to respect the state.  Harmony had to reign.  Thus, the church reintroduced the sacred into society.  The first thing we notice is the renewed importance of sacred spaces in Christianity.  Cathedrals and buildings were invested with the belief that God was more present there than in other places.  At times, pagan temples were simply turned into Christian buildings, giving a peculiar stability to the religious atmosphere despite the other changes.  This was an early precursor to the later Spanish conquests of the Americas: each wave of conquerors built their sacred sites and temples on top of the preexisting ones.  Christian art was put in these places reinforcing this appearance.  A formal priest class appeared, and the visible portion of the building they used was where God was especially present.  To reinforce the notion that God was indeed more present in these places, people were encouraged to fold their hands, cover their heads, or sprinkle themselves with holy water whenever they entered these places.  The sacred proliferated when the Empire expanded to include foreigners like the Celts or the Germanic Northern Europeans.  On the one hand, patron heroes and deities were absorbed into Western Latin Christian practices.  These sacred symbols could not be overturned without risking serious social disorder.  On the other, the church maintained its own liturgical practices while incorporating these new sacred ideas and icons.  Whenever the church spread, it absorbed the sacred elements of a native culture and synthesized them with the church’s own established worship practices.  Sacred spaces reappeared and, to the great relief of the church, were useful for keeping the masses in order.  All this was reminiscent of the formal rituals of pagan temples.

The second element of the reintroduction of the sacred concerned the differentiation of people, times, and ceremonies.  Salvation had to be controlled and administered by the hands of a special priesthood, who, naturally, were thought to be closer to God than anybody else.  Paul, describing his relationship to other Christians, used the analogy of ‘priests in the Temple’ (1 Cor.9:13), making the Christian community as a whole greater than even the apostles, signifying ‘ministers = lesser’ and ‘congregation = greater.’  But Tertullian and Hippolytus around 200 AD started to use the analogy of ‘priesthood versus laity’ from the Old Testament, signifying ‘ministers = greater’ and ‘congregation = lesser,’ precisely the reverse of Paul.  Then in Cyprian’s writings, we find the idea of the priesthood making sacrifices and offering the body and blood of Jesus, which eventually resulted in the thirteenth century in the full doctrine of a priesthood offering transubstantiated bread and wine.  Furthermore, water baptism and participating in communion became necessary sacred acts for salvation.  In some cases, the water and the elements themselves become efficacious.  At times, salvation did not depend on the faith of the person; it depended on the element or the action.  Certain days of the year were more appropriate than others for drawing near to God.  Advent and Lent were times when people could especially turn to God and become pure.  They were to do this in preparation for Christmas and Easter, sacred occasions, of course.  Canadian philosopher and social theorist Charles Taylor (in his book A Secular Age) explains how medieval European Christians viewed time as compressed and somewhat repetitious around sacred moments rather than strictly linear.  The tombs of the martyrs, the sites of miracles, biblical places all became the sacred focus of zealous pilgrimages.  They were all special, sacred acts.  All these formalities, precautions, and gestures had a sacred character to them.  In large measure, the sacred is what the Magisterial Reformation argued against in the Roman Catholic Church, and what the Radical Reformation Anabaptists argued against in the Magisterial Reformation, mostly concerning the sacraments and the relation between church and state.

What do I take away from this on a personal and practical level?  From Jesus’ rejection of the Temple flows the conviction that no place is more sacred than another, including the place Christians worship on Sunday.  No person is more sacred than another, including Christian leaders or other people in high places.  No times are more sacred than others, especially not Sundays, Lent, and Advent.  All space and time and people are claimed by Jesus the risen and enthroned king of the world.  Our actions and relationships are only eternally significant if they are joined to him by love.  Christ is present in his people by his Spirit, yes, but he is manifested to the world not by our buildings or meetings but by the loving obedience of his people in word and deed.

Let me say something to Christians on the political right in the United States.  It seems to me that, on many issues, Christians on the political right in the U.S. have taken ‘the nation’ as the sacred thing in their practical theology rather than allow true Christian theology to critique ‘the nation.’  They take the nation as sacred and then build all kinds of myths to support it, like:  God inspired the Declaration of Independence and the Constitution; God fought for the American Revolution; God led the founding fathers; God had a worldwide destiny for this ‘Christian nation.’  Then when those things are challenged, as they can and should be, the Christian right becomes very defensive.  Yet do we need prayer in school, or the Ten Commandments hung on a placard in courtrooms?  No, but to some it is a sacred action that represents a sacred view of the U.S.  Do we need to print ‘in God we trust’ on our money, or say ‘one nation under God’ in our pledge of allegiance?  No, in fact the leading thinkers and statesmen at the time of the Constitution were deists, not orthodox Christians.  But to some it just makes our economics and nationalism more sacred.  Do we need to hide the viral legacy of racism, genocide, and sheer greed involved in the founding of the U.S.?  No, but to some it is unpatriotic and denigrating to sense of ‘sacred national history.’  We are confronted every day with opportunities to build up or tear down the sacred in the hearts and minds of people.  We must be true to the biblical record:  Nothing is sacred except Christ alone and our lived obedience to him.

Let me also say something to Christians and secularists on the political left in the U.S.  It seems to me that, despite many areas of agreement that I have with Christians on the left, there is a very specific ‘sacred’ idea that many buy into.  And that is the idea that a person’s ‘individual freedom’ must never be constrained, even by Jesus.  Many on the left take ‘individual freedom’ as sacred and then build all kinds of myths to support it, like:  God simply upholds individual freedoms; God does not have a creation order into which humanity takes its role; relationships are therefore social constructs; we can arrange our relationships however we choose, so long as we don’t hurt someone else or impede their own choices.  So to remember that Jesus places constraints on his followers’ sexuality, to recall that God does indeed have a vision for all human relationships which we must not tamper with and into which we must take our place, to argue that we need revelation because our internal moral intuition is not enough to guide us, to say that our human nature is corrupt and not completely reliable, to put tangible limits on our ability to work for and accumulate and pass down privilege to our children, and to insist that Jesus’ internal transformation and practical guidance is necessary for every human being – all this violates the sacredness of human autonomy defined by secular liberals.  Yet that is because ‘individual freedom’ in this sense has also become a sacred thing.  It too must be torn down in the hearts and minds of people.

Sometimes we simply take ‘the church’ itself as the sacred thing, including its meeting structures and centrifugal pull.  During the summer of 1992, I went home and received a phone call.  The younger sister ‘Y’ of a classmate of mine had become a Christian after her freshman year at college.  Her unbelieving parents forbade her to go to church or to any fellowship.  She called me because she didn’t know what to do.  I asked her when she might be able to leave the house and meet somewhere in a way that wasn’t lying to her parents, but also where she didn’t have to tell them exactly what she was doing, either.  She said, ‘Every Saturday morning at 8am, I go rollerblading in the park next to my house.’  I groaned, thinking, ‘Saturdays at 8am?!?’  I made a few phone calls, hoping to gather a group of people to support her.  All of my Christian friends groaned and gave me the same response I initially had.  I only found one other person, an enthusiastic rising senior in our old high school ‘H.’  I led a bible study for the three of us in that on Saturday mornings at 8am.  We studied Ephesians.  The next summer, the same thing happened.  We met every Saturday at 8am once again.  We studied the Sermon on the Mount (Mt.5 – 7).  And several young men at my old high school learned about this and asked me to meet with them regularly also!  I got a chance to visit my high school, see my old teachers, and when they asked me what I was doing there, I explained that I was a Christian and I was helping this group of young men study the Bible.  I got a chance to share my faith to my former teachers!  I learned that ministry must happen at the periphery as well as at the center.  Christians tend to assume that people can come to centralized fellowship or church meetings in order to grow – this is the result of the idea of ‘the church as sacred’ setting into the Christian mind.  Christian leaders get a lot of affirmation from other fellow Christians but sometimes we need to be creative and go far afield where only our heavenly Father sees, and rewards.