Jesus' Pilgrimage to Jerusalem and Encounter in the Temple ... · final journey of Jesus and his...

BRILL is collaborating with JSTOR to digitize, preserve and extend access to Novum Testamentum.

http://www.jstor.org

Jesus' Pilgrimage to Jerusalem and Encounter in the Temple: A Geographical Motif inMatthew's Gospel Author(s): Donald J. Verseput Source: Novum Testamentum, Vol. 36, Fasc. 2 (Apr., 1994), pp. 105-121Published by: BRILLStable URL: http://www.jstor.org/stable/1561529Accessed: 25-03-2015 23:35 UTC

Your use of the JSTOR archive indicates your acceptance of the Terms & Conditions of Use, available at http://www.jstor.org/page/info/about/policies/terms.jsp

JSTOR is a not-for-profit service that helps scholars, researchers, and students discover, use, and build upon a wide range of contentin a trusted digital archive. We use information technology and tools to increase productivity and facilitate new forms of scholarship.For more information about JSTOR, please contact [email protected].

This content downloaded from 149.105.169.222 on Wed, 25 Mar 2015 23:35:56 UTCAll use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions

http://www.jstor.org

http://www.jstor.org/action/showPublisher?publisherCode=bap

http://www.jstor.org/stable/1561529

http://www.jstor.org/page/info/about/policies/terms.jsp


Novum Testamentum XXXVI, 2 (1994), ? E.J. Brill, Leiden

JESUS' PILGRIMAGE TO JERUSALEM AND ENCOUNTER IN THE TEMPLE:

A GEOGRAPHICAL MOTIF IN MATTHEW'S GOSPEL

by

DONALD J. VERSEPUT

Langg6ns, Germany

Luke's literary protraction of Jesus' final journey to Jerusalem is a phenomenon well known to the Synoptic exegete, offering generations of scholars the opportunity to test their acumen against one of the more challenging enigmas of biblical research. Relatively little attention has been given, however, to the peculiarities of the Matthean version of Jesus' last pilgrimage, due perhaps to the unreflected assumption that since the order of events in the First

Gospel largely parallels the Markan narrative, Matthew cannot have intended to offer the reader any significantly new perspective on the subject. Yet this assumption is totally unwarranted, for recent research has convincingly demonstrated that Matthew is indeed capable of creatively controlling his material in such a manner so as to leave his own imprint upon the story he unfolds. It is the thesis of this brief essay that Matthew does, in fact, present the final journey of Jesus and his sojourn in Jerusalem in a unique way. By employing the pilgrimage motif to organize his material beginning already with the announcement of the upcoming journey in

16:21, the Evangelist dramatically heightens Jesus' decisive encounter with the inhabitants of the Jewish capital who serve as the keepers of the nation's institutions and the epitome of "this

generation's" opposition to the messianic ministry. The recognition of this organizing principle affords the interpreter valuable

insight into the narrative strategy of the Evangelist and further contributes toward unraveling the tangled skein of Matthew's complex reaction to his Jewish roots.

I. The Markan Parallel

A sideways glance at Mark's story ofJesus provides a good start-

ing point for our study. It is nearly universally recognized that



DONALD J. VERSEPUT

Peter's confession of Jesus as the Messiah forms a decisive turning point in the narrative of the Second Gospel (8:27-30). Immediately thereafter Mark introduces the first of three passion predictions which ring out "wie dumpfe Glockenschlage"1 through the subse-

quent narrative (8:31; 9:31; 10:32-34), setting the tone for the entire succeeding segment. In this section of the Gospel (8:27- 10:52), Jesus is depicted as being steadily underway, moving from the villages of Caesarea Philippi (8:27), through Galilee (9:30) to "the region of Judea and beyond the Jordan" (10:1), the sense of motion being repeatedly strengthened by the use of the phrases Iv -c 6o8 (8:27; 9:33, 34; 10:32, 52), tq 6b6v (10:17) or xp&a Tlv 686v

(10:46). Securely joined to this travel motif is the exacting lesson of discipleship under the looming shadow of the cross, for those who accompany Jesus "on the way" are those who follow him to his rejection and death (e.g. 8:27 cf. 8:34; 10:17 cf. 10:21). And

yet, despite this firm connection between the travel motif and the demand for discipleship unto death, Mark is curiously unconcerned to identifyJesus' actual departure forJerusalem until 10:32, where we suddenly read, iaov 8b 8v j 6O8 v0c avaa.ivovTeg e 'Iepoa6oXulta. For Mark, it is apparently less the geographical goal of Jesus' journey than the journey itself which serves his literary purposes.

Following Jesus' approach to the holy city in 1 1:1, the events of the next two chapters are divided by the Evangelist into a sequence of three days, topographically related by their common association with the temple.2 On the first day (11:1-11) Jesus draws near to

Jerusalem accompanied by the messianic acclaim of the people along the road. Upon entering the temple, however, he merely inspects the premises and then departs for Bethany, where he stays the night (v. 11). Not until the following day does the dramatic act of driving out those who are buying and selling in the temple occur

(11:15-19), whereupon Jesus publicly teaches the multitudes con-

cerning the temple's proper function (v. 17), and thereby awakens

1 J. Weit, "Das Markus-Evangelium," Die Schriften des Neuen Testaments (G6t-

tingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht, 1917) 1.145. 2 It is indeed somewhat unclear if Mark really intends to portray the events of

11:27-13:37 as belonging to the period of a single day, since the end of the third

day is not explicitly noted (cf. 11:11 and 19). An unmistakable break occurs, however, at 14:1, where the chronological notation begins to count backwards from the Passover feast, suggesting that Mark did, in fact, intend 11:27-12:44 and 13:1- 37 as a single scene divided only by the change of location in 13:1.

106



A GEOGRAPHICAL MOTIF IN MATTHEW

the apprehension of the temple authorities (v. 18). The third day is, consequently, dedicated to a lengthy discussion between Jesus and the Jerusalem leadership regarding the source of Jesus' authority (11:27-12:37). The mounting climax of this confrontation comes as Jesus attests to the validity of a lone scribe's declaration that the love of God and man is more important than temple service

(12:28-34), and then, after alluding to the exalted authority of the Messiah (12:35-37), points out the exemplary virtue of a poor widow's commitment to God in contrast to the typical behavior of the scribes (12:38-44). Having uttered these words, Jesus departs from the temple and exhorts his disciples to steadfastness in the face of the temple's impending destruction (13:1-37). The common thread running through the entire temple section of the Second

Gospel is thus the teaching of Jesus regarding the true service of God delivered against the backdrop of the failure of the Jewish leadership3-a motif fully continuous with the discipleship theme of the preceding section (cf. e.g. 12:44 with 10:21).

II. Matthew's Version of Jesus' Pilgrimage to Jerusalem

In turning to the First Gospel, it is readily apparent that Mat- thew does not disdain the emphasis upon Jesus' instruction in "the

things of God" as expressed in Mark, for the two Gospels run

largely parallel throughout most of the section we have

investigated. Nonetheless, the First Evangelist does place his own

particular stamp upon the material in a manner reflecting his often

recognized conflict with non-Christian Judaism.4 The result is a

3 Cf. the summary of K. Stock ("Gliederung und Zusammenhang in Mk 11- 12," Bib 59 [1978] 509): "Jesus der geliebte Sohn Gottes verlangt die Umkehr zur rechten Sicht Gottes und zum rechten Verhailtnis zum Mitmenschen. Wer ihn und seine Lehre annimmt, gehort zur Herrschaft Gottes."

4 Older works examining Matthew's attitude towards Judaism from a redaction critical perspective are indeed numerous: e.g. W. Trilling, Das wahre Israel: Studien zur Theologie des Matthidus-Evangeliums (SANT 10; Munich: K6sel, 1964); R. Hum- mel, Die A useinandersetzung zwischen Kirche undJudentum im Matthdusevangelium (BEvT 33; Munich: Kaiser, 1963); R. Walker, Die Heilsgeschichte im ersten Evangelium (FRLANT 91; Gottingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht, 1967). More recently, however, attention has focused upon the sociological dimension of Matthew's strident attacks on the Jewish authorities: e.g. J. A. Overman, Matthew's Gospel and For- mative Judaism: The Social World of the Matthean Community (Minneapolis: Fortress, 1990); A. J. Saldarini, "The Gospel of Matthew and Jewish-Christian Conflict," Social History of the Matthean Community: Cross Disciplinary Approaches (ed. D. L. Balch; Minneapolis: Fortress, 1991) 38-61; G. N. Stanton, A Gospelfor a New People: Studies in Matthew (Edinburgh: T & T Clark, 1992) 85-107.

107



DONALD J. VERSEPUT

carefully plotted pilgrimage journey from Galilee to the Jerusalem temple, where Jesus, the Nazarene, dramatically confronts the obdurate inhabitants of the holy city. The journey and subsequent encounter can, for the purpose of simplicity, be outlined in four stages.

Matthew 16:21

The movement of Jesus towards Jerusalem, which Mark only makes evident from 10:32 onwards, is in Matthew's Gospel already explicitly announced in 16:21. Unlike Mark, Matthew does not join Jesus' first passion prediction to Peter's confession by means of a simple xat, but rather inaugurates a major new direction in his Gospel with the words, "From that time on Jesus began ('Aro6 ToT

piopTxo 6 'IrCOUi5)..." (16:21)-a formula corresponding exactly to the commencement of Jesus' Galilean ministry in 4:17.5 At this

5 Although not without predecessors, J. D. Kingsbury (Matthew: Structure, Christology, Kingdom [Philadelphia: Fortress, 1975] 7-11) is certainly the most influential proponent for viewing this phrase as pivotal for the structure of Mat- thew's Gospel, a suggestion which has been-with some modifications- frequently accepted (e.g. W. G. Kiimmel, Einleitung in das Neue Testament [20 ed.; Heidelberg: Quelle & Meyer, 1980] 74-7; A. Sand, Das Evangelium nach Matthdus [RNT; Regensburg: Pustet, 1986] 36-7; J. Gnilka, Das Matthausevangelium [HTKNT 1/1-2; Freiburg: Herder, 1986/88] 2.523; D. R. Bauer, The Structure of Matthew's Gospel [JSNTSup 31; Sheffield: Almond, 1988] 73-108). A recognition of the significance of 4:17 and 16:21 in the general outline of the Gospel does not, however, imply that Matthew presents us with a neatly constructed pattern of closed literary units rather than with a continuous dynamic plot. One must indeed grant F. Neirynck his insistence that Matt 4:17 is "intimately connected with 4:12-16" ("AIO TOTE HPHATO and the Structure of Matthew," ETL 64 [1988] 46). By positioning 4:12-16 immediately before the opening summary of Jesus' message in 4:17, the entire succeeding period of Jesus' public ministry in 4:18-16:20 is deliberately placed under the heading of the Messiah's imposed Galilean exile, underscored by the use of the construction axo6awg...&vXWp71aEv (4:12 cf. 2:22). Note the consistency of Matthew's presentation as seen in the remark of Matt 9:1 (RE0ev dE; tlV [isiOav Lo6XLv) which is without parallel in the other Synoptic Gospels where Jesus is seemingly no more tied to Capernaum than he is to Nazareth. The withdrawals of Matt 12:15; 14:13; 15:21; and 16:4 appear to be-despite the fact that Jesus does leave Galilee briefly in 15:21 and 16:4 (cf. 16:13)-primarily literary in character, indicating no permanent geographical shift in the narrative (see D. Verseput, "The Faith of the Reader and the Nar- rative of Matthew 13.53-16.20,"JSNT 46 [1992] 3-24). It is not until 16:21 that a major new geographical movement is introduced with the announcement that Jesus must "go to Jerusalem". That is not to imply, however, that the introduction of this latter movement at 16:21 may be portrayed as an absolute caesura with no connection to the preceding, for there certainly is a dramatic relationship

108




new juncture in the story, Matthew plainly emphasizes the

geographical dimension to Jesus' announcement by having Jesus specifically inform his disciples that "he must go to Jerusalem (8et ajcuov st 'Iupoo6u,ua &arteXOsv) and suffer many things..." Thus, the entire subsequent narrative is deliberately placed under the rubric of Jesus' impending journey to the Jewish capital.

Matthew 17.22-27

After having thus clearly signaled his intention, Matthew

apparently expects the reader to be able to make proper sense out of a brief textual clue in chap. 17, which otherwise might have caused considerable confusion.6 Following a series of events which are both chronologically and topographically bound to the first passion prediction (17:1, 9, 14), the Evanglist suddenly introduces a new sequence in 17:22 by means of the participial construction, CUaTpeq0o,v&ov7 8i aUoriFv ev i Fralatia. When used in association

with groups of people, the sense of the verb auaTrpEcpaOat is com-

pletely unambiguous, i.e. "to gather together, assemble". The

major difficulty derives from the context, for following on the heels of 17:19 it can scarcely be supposed that Matthew envisioned the

disciples to have been previously scattered or separated and, therefore, in need of regrouping. Moreover, the often quoted suggestion of Zahn, "sie draingten sich zusammen, etwa dichter als

gew6hnlich an Jesus heran" is in no way elicited by the context and

between the confession of Peter in 16:13-20 and the announcement of the fate of the Messiah in 16:21-28, as is confirmed not only by the centrality of Peter in both scenes, but also by the unmistakable use of the transfiguration (17:5: "This is my beloved Son, with whom I am well pleased; hear him!") to confirm the truth of Peter's confession in the face of Jesus' first passion prediction. Nonetheless, Mat- thew's expression orcob TOrE jptao 6 'I7TaouS in 16:21 does draw attention to a new

phase of the Gospel story, much as it does in 4:17, and for that reason deserves special attention-the more so, since both 4:17, following 4:12-16, and 16:21 reflect a certain geographical symmetry.

6 It has become customary for literary critics in the realm of biblical studies to describe the "reader" of the Gospels with various epithets-e.g. the "implied" reader, the "ideal" reader, or the "actual" reader. As valid as these distinctions may be, we will refer simply to the "reader" as a figure posited by the text, the author's vision of the ideal recipient, who appears to share the author's Jewish- Christian background.

7 B R. The variant reading, &avoape.op.ivcov (C D W e etc.), appears to be a later correction of the more difficult original text.

109



DONALD J. VERSEPUT

is, in fact, inconsistent with the spatial emphasis of Iv xr ratXlata.8 The only suitable explanation for this otherwise curious remark lies, consequently, in the assumption of a specific "gathering" for a special purpose. Having already cued the reader to expect an imminent departure for Jerusalem, Matthew presumably refers to a "gathering together" of Jesus and the disciples with the intention of a common pilgrimage southward to the holy city-a probability strongly suggested by the immediate context, as we now shall see.

In a significant work on the subject of the pilgrimage feasts, S. Safrai has convincingly demonstrated that pilgrimages to the

Jewish festivals typically proceeded in an orderly fashion in

groups.9 The evidence from the Diaspora is substantial. Josephus informs us, for example, that the Babylonian cities of Nearda and Nisibis brought their temple tax contributions to Jerusalem accom-

panied by many thousands of Jews, doubtless in a pilgrimage procession since according to the Mishna the sacred tribute from

Babylon was due shortly before the Feast of Tabernacles.10 Philo confirms that the half-shekel, collected in the Diaspora com-

munities, was sent at appointed times by sacred envoys from every city to the temple, again presumably a reference to organized caravans." In a letter to Ephesus written by the proconsul Julius Antonius, the Jews of Asia are not only granted the right to collect the temple tax, but also "to traval together" unimpeded to

Jerusalem (&vaxotLb8is oua copeuop.dvouS tiotev aveuTro8itawX).12 Nor was this picture of an orderly procession to the pilgrimage feasts from the lands outside Palestine peculiar to the Diaspora situation; on the contrary, it corresponds essentially to the evidence from within Eretz Israel. As Safrai maintains, the pattern of the

8 T. Zahn, Das Evangelium des Matthdus (KNT 1; Leipzig: Deichert, 1903) 569 n. 17. The idea expressed in the phrase "dichter als gew6hnlich" is at best only an incidental component of the verb aouappetEaoti in association with groups and must therefore be marked by the context (e.g. Josephus, Ant. 5 ?163; Thucydides 7 ?30; cf. Polybius 2.64.6; 1.33.4). A gathering "to" Jesus would have been most readily expressed by cpob auro6v (cf. Josephus, Ant. 12 ?391). Moreover, the most natural antecedent of auxiov includes Jesus as well as the disciples, cf. e.g. the parallel construction in 17:9.

9 S. Safrai, Die Wallfahrt im Zeitalter des Zweiten Tempels (Forschungen zum jiidisch-christlichen Dialog 3; Neukirchen Vluyn: Neukirchener Verlag, 1981) 121-7.

10 Josephus, Ant. 18 ?310-13, cf. m. Seqal. 3:1, 4. Spec. leg. 1 ?76-8; Gaium ?156.

12 Josephus, Ant. 16 ?172.

110




pilgrimages to the Jewish festivals conforms at least along general lines to the description given in the early rabbinic literature of the

offering of the first-fruits, particularly in respect to the organized and festive character of the procession.13 Thus, t. Bik. 2.8 testifies to the fact that "they did not go up one at a time, but rather accord-

ing to districts" and m. Bik. 3:2 further describes the scene as follows: "all the smaller towns that belonged to the priestly course assembled (niPto.?) in the main town of the priestly course and

spent the night in the street of the town...early in the morning the leader would say, Arise and let us go up unto Zion unto the House of the Lord our God." Moreover, the New Testament itself provides adequate confirmation of the practice of ascending to the holy city in organized groups, specifically in the ev Tx7 ouvo&S of Luke 2:44 but, perhaps, also in the ou cpavep&S a&XX' v xpuxitcr of John 7: 10. While this custom of a collective procession to Jerusalem most

certainly did not prevent individuals or families from going up to the temple at the time of the feasts by themselves, its prevalence suf-

ficiently accounts for the peculiar language of Matt 17:22. With the

suggestive participial construction, auaTpscpoiiEvov 8 oc auTxciv ev -:

FaXLX0ata, the First Evangelist thus apparently indicates to his readers the necessary preparations forJesus' pilgrimage procession towards Jerusalem. Hence, as Jesus and the disciples gather together in Galilee to begin the journey, he once again instructs his followers regarding his fate.

Our conclusion that Matthew does, in fact, represent the second

passion prediction as coinciding with the initial arrangements for

Jesus' pilgrimage journey is supported by the immediately follow-

ing temple tax pericope in 17:24-27, an account unique to the First

Gospel. According to Mishnaic evidence, the half-shekel, levied on all Jewish males from age twenty, was collected in the provinces of Palestine on the 15th of Adar and forwarded from there to

Jerusalem in connection with the Passover feast.'4 On the very same day the collection was to begin, the call went forth to prepare the roads and broadways for the advent of the pilgrimage season.15 Thus, the placement of the temple tax pericope in the storyline of

13 S. Safrai, Wallfahrt, 121-3. Note especially Safrai's comparison of m. Bik. 3:2- 4 to Lam. Rab. 1:17 ?52.

14 m. Seqal. 3:1: nriD D1nD1. 15 m. Seqal. 1:1; t. Seqal. 1:1-5.

1ll



DONALD J. VERSEPUT

Matthew's Gospel is seemingly due to temporal as well as to thematic considerations, effectively confirming our reading of the Matthean pilgrimage sequence. Whereas the participial construction in 17:22 (aua(xpcpo0LEvov 8e octu'v iv T7 FrXtlXata) can be seen as a general superscription introducing a new departure in the

story, 17:24-27 must, therefore, be understood to depict a specific scene (XO06vxcov 8i OcTCov st Kayxcppvao6L...) which typically occur- red in close connection with the pilgrimage preparations.16

The recognition of the setting in which Matthew has placed the

temple tax pericope contributes not a little to the understanding of this unusual episode. Any interpretation of the story which sees the immediate issue to be the payment of civil taxes or even of the post- 70 tax to the fiscus Iudaicus already stumbles over the implied analogy between the "kings of the earth" and the divine king.17 According to vv. 25-26, the "sons" are exempt from the king's taxes because of their special relationship to the king-a privilege inconceivable except against the backdrop of the half-shekel temple tax, levied in the name of God, in the period before 70 CE.18 Fur-

16 As noted by W. D. Davies and D. C. Allison (A Critical and Exegetical Commen- tary on the Gospel According to Matthew [ICC; Edinburgh: T & T Clark, 1988-1991] 2.738 n. 6) in response to a similar proposal from R. Bauckham ("The Coin in the Fish's Mouth," The Miracles of Jesus [ed. D. Wenham and C. Blomberg; Gospel Perspectives 6; Sheffield: JSOT Press, 1986] 226): "This suggestion presupposes Matthew's knowledge of the Jewish calendar." But is that not indeed a probable assumption in the case of a Jewish Christian living in the later decades of the first century?

17 The former option is advocated by R. J. Cassidy ("Matthew 17:24-7-A Word on Civil Taxes," CBQ 41 [1979] 571-80), the latter by e.g. W. D. Davies (The Setting of the Sermon on the Mount [Cambridge: Cambridge Univ., 1963] 390- 91). After 70 CE the half-shekel was converted by Vespasian into a tax to support the temple ofJupiter Capitolinus, administered by thefiscus ludaicus (see Josephus, J. W. 7 ?218; Dio Cassius, Rom. Hist. 66.7.2; Sueton, Dom. 12.2).

18 Note Josephus' description of the two-drachma tax as a contribution "to God" (Ant. 18 ?312). Moreover, that the obligation of the temple tax was not quickly forgotten in the Jewish community in the period after 70 CE, despite the introduction of the humiliatingfiscus Iudaicus, is evident in the detailed regulations of the Mishna tractate Seqalim, especially in 8:8, where according to the rabbis the half-shekel, but not the first-fruits, could be voluntarily dedicated even though the temple no longer existed and the requirement to contribute no longer applied. Indeed, it is unlikely that the Jews themselves perceived the "Jewish tax" imposed by the Romans (designated ttIrl 8rtvtaptov 86o 'Iouaitcov in the ostraca from Edfu until ca. 89 CE, thereafter, 'Iou8axC6v rTeXEaxa: CPJ II nos. 160-229) to have replaced their obligation to God in the manner which Vespasian presumably intended. On the other hand, the tradition of Gen. Rab. 64:8 cited by J. Gnilka (Matthausevangelium, 2.116 n. 12), in which the two brothers, Pappus and Julianus,

112




thermore, the Evangelist most certainly did not take the "sons" of vv. 25-26 to be Israel in general, as W. Horbury has suggested,19 for it is extremely doubtful that Matthew would have intended the ao3to6U of 17:27 to refer only to the collectors of the didrachma, and not to the &XXo6ptot of 17:25-26 as well. The relevant issue addressed by the story is, rather, the relationship of Jesus and his

disciples to the Jewish temple cultus and, consequently, to the

Jewish community.20 At the outset of Jesus' fateful journey to

Jerusalem in which he presents himself to the people in the temple and then climactically proclaims its destruction, Matthew plainly intends to make a statement regarding the "freedom" of the tiny messianic party. The "sons" were under no obligation to the tem-

ple, but they did not for that reason turn their backs upon it, so long as it stood. On the contrary, they were at that moment pilgrims to

set up money-changing tables during Hadrian's time, although consistent with the Jewish consciousness of their tax obligation and the close association of this obligation with the existence of the temple, is of dubious historical value. In any case, it is not to be supposed that Matthew's intended readership-assuming a predominately Jewish heritage-would have had undue difficulty recalling the natute of Ta& BipaXy.a in the later decades of the first century.

19 W. Horbury, "The Temple Tax," Jesus and the Politics of His Day (ed. E. Bammel and C. D. F. Moule; Cambridge: Cambridge Univ., 1984) 283; so also, R. Bauckham, "Coin," 223; W. D. Davies and D. C. Allison, Matthew, 2.745; and U. Luz, Das Evangelium nach Matthdus (EKK I/1-2; Zurich: Benziger/Neukir- chener, 1985/90) 2.533-4. The result of this rather recent suggestion is to reduce the relevance of the temple tax pericope solely to that of a concrete example in the general matter of avoiding offense-a precarious peg on which to hang the ensuing discourse in chap. 18, since a) the discourse actually begins with the question of rank in the kingdom of heaven (vv. 1-4) and only secondarily approaches the subject of giving offense, and b) when the matter of giving offense does arise, it is specifically related to offense against "one of these little ones who believe in me" (v. 6).

20 W. Stenger ("Gebt dem Kaiser, was des Kaisers ist...!": Eine sozialgeschichtliche Untersuchung zur Besteuerung Paldstinas in neutestamentlicher Zeit [BBB 68; Frankfurt a.M.: Athenaum, 1988] 151-8) convincingly suggests that the temple tax was perceived by the Jews of the post-Hasmonean, pre-70 period as a symbol of national unity, particularly in the Diaspora (cf. also P. R. Trebilco, Jewish Com- munities in Asia Minor [SNTSMS 69; Cambridge: Cambridge University, 1991] 13- 16). If Matthew indeed expected his Jewish Christian readership to make any sense out of the "two-drachma tax", might he have not also expected them to recall this emotive significance? The possible objections of various groups such as the Sadducees (b. Menah. 65a), priests (m. Seqal. 1:4) and the Qumran sect (4Q159 2:6-8) to the tax would constitute exceptions to the general rule that every adult male Jew in the world paid the tax, but were apparently based upon hermeneutical differences and, therefore, of a qualitatively different order than the rationale offered by the Matthean narrative, which serves to lift Jesus and his disciples above their Jewish contemporaries in their relationship to the Father.

113



DONALD J. VERSEPUT

the house of God, in spite of the fact that their privileged relation-

ship to the heavenly Father was not the same as that of the

"strangers". The significance of the temple tax episode thus lies

firmly embedded in the story-world of the Gospel, providing the Matthean readership with a discriminating answer to inevitable

questions which might otherwise have been raised by Jesus' pilgrimage journey to the temple precincts: Jesus' loyalty to the cultic duties of the temple service was motivated by the legitimate desire to avoid offense, rather than by a consciousness of being an

integral part of the Jewish community whose relationship to the

heavenly King was, for the Evangelist, of a fundamentally different sort than that of the Christian congregation.

Matthew 19.1

Immediately following the Community Discourse in chap. 18, Matthew portrays the actual commencement of Jesus' journey with the pointed remark of 19:1: "And it came about when Jesus had finished these words, he departed from Galilee and came into the

region of Judea beyond the Jordan (WXe0v sg TO& opta Trq 'IouBaxaI 7tipav toU 'Iop8svou)." While the precise geography of this statement is far from clear, it is nonetheless significant that Matthew appears to be depicting a linear movement to a single location en route to

Jerusalem in contrast to Mark's vague description of a broader shift in activity to "the region of Judea and beyond the Jordan" (Mark 10:1).21 What was for Mark a transition to a new field of ministry preceding the final ascent to Jerusalem, becomes thus for Matthew a stop along the way on a pilgrimage journey which had departed already from Galilee. In this light, Matthew's third passion prediction in 20:17-19 no longer occurs at the first mention of Jesus' travel destination as in Mark, but at the last stage of a journey

21 H. D. Slingerland ("The Transjordanian Origin of St. Matthew's Gospel," JSNT 3 [19791 18-28) desires to understand the Matthean phrase s cra& optoa vrJg 'Iouoactia tppaXv -o5 'Iop8avou as referring to the commonly understood province of Judea, described from an eastern perspective, i.e. from Perea or the Decapolis, looking westward. Yet, although Matthew apparently distinguishes the territory iipaov ToU 'IopGovou from Judea in 4:25, the fluidity of the word "Judea" as used injosephus, illustrated e.g. inJ. W. 2 ?252 cf. ?247, may indeed be sufficient to explain the present construction without recourse to Slingerland's solution. At Mark 10:1 xalt is read in N B C* LT, but absent in C2 D W A e, presumably due to assimilation to Matthew.

114




which was previously announced in 16:21, prepared in 17:22, and commenced at 19:1. The end result is a more conscious attention to the final goal of Jesus' journey, i.e. Jerusalem, the city where the fate of the Messiah and that of "this generation" will be decided.

Matthew 21:1-23:39

The narrative ofJesus' entrance into Jerusalem effectively begins already in 20:29-34 with the healing of two blind men. After appealing to Jesus as the "Son of David" and receiving their sight, they join the great multitude following him. Unlike Mark, who uses the story of Bartimaeus as "a prototype of a true disciple",22 Mat- thew's interest in the two men lies primarily in their value as witnesses who accompany Jesus towards the capital city.23 By this means, the Evangelist includes living verification of the Galilean prophet's Davidic messiahship in the ranks of Jesus' entourage during the final approach to Jerusalem, thus effectively setting the tone for the scenes that follow.

The account of Jesus' arrival in Jerusalem (21:1-11) is deliberately divided by Matthew into two parts: the events before the gates of the city (vv. 1-9), and the reaction of the city's inhabitants (vv. 10-11). The first scene depicts the entrance procession, a story which is unmistakably dominated by symbols of Davidic kingship. As Jesus draws near to the holy city, the multitudes who accompany him-being clearly distinguished by the Evangelist from the residents of Jerusalem24-take up a cry of acclamation derived from the Hallel-Psalm 118:25a, 26a: "Hosanna to the Son of David; Blessed is he who comes in the

22 E. J. Johnson, "Mark 10:46-52: Blind Bartimaeus," CBQ 40 (1978) 201, expressing a broad consensus in Markan scholarship: cf. e.g. J. Gnilka, Das Evangelium nach Markus (EKK 2/1-2; Zurich: Benziger/Neukirchener Verlag, 1978- 1979) 2.112; E. Best, Following Jesus: Discipleship in the Gospel of Mark (JSNTSup 4; Sheffield: JSOT Press, 1981) 139-43.

23 For the significance of the Matthean incident, note, especially, 1) the cor- respondence between v. 29 (pxoXou70qaEV aurax) 0xXo;o itoX6u,) and v. 34 (xca 1xoXou0vnaa0v aurcx), framing the pericope of 10:29-34; 2) the continuity with the

following scene in a) the O6Xoq/O'XXoL in vv. 8-9 (cf. 20:29) and b) the "Son of David" acclamation in v. 9; as well as 3) the legitimizing role which Jesus' heal- ings play in the Jerusalem journey (19:1; 20:29-34; 21:14).

24 Note the sharp distinction between ol 6`X0ot in 21:9 and 11 and ri 7toXotL in v. 10.

115



DONALD J. VERSEPUT

name of the Lord (eUXr,oyfriFvo; 6 SPX6AsEvo{ Ev O6v6oJaT xuptou); Hosanna in the highest!" In so doing, they loudly proclaim to the inhabitants of the holy city the ascent of its kingly Messiah in keep- ing with Matthew's carefully reformulated fulfillment quotation of 21:5: "Say to the daughter of Zion, Behold your King is coming to you..."25 It is left, then, for the city of Jerusalem to react. And that it does in the second scene, vv. 10-11, a passage wholly peculiar to the First Gospel. As Matthew depicts the event, the entire city is "stirred" (aia(aOrl) and inquires regarding the identity of the heralded "Son of David".26 Yet, as N. Lohfink has aptly pointed out, a welcoming confession corresponding to the cry of the multitudes at the gates remains conspicuously absent.27

Upon enteringJerusalem, Jesus proceeds to the temple where his

provocative actions and the cries of the children-once again echo-

ing Psalm 118 with the words, "Hosanna to the Son of David" (v. 15 cf. 21:9)-incite the uncompromising opposition of the city's leadership. The ensuing controversy extends through chap. 23 where Matthew draws the entire temple encounter to a fitting close with a poignant lament over the fate of the holy city in 23:37-39.

Alluding to the continuous acts of violence directed against God's

messengers (cf. 23:29-35), Jesus cries out, "O Jerusalem, Jerusalem, who kills the prophets and stones those who are sent to her..." (v. 37). Then he solemnly pronounces, "Behold, your house is being left to you desolate!" (v. 38). Whatever the inter-

pretation of olxoS in this latter saying-referring either to the tem-

ple or to the city itself-the point is nonetheless clear; the protective presence of God is being withdrawn from Jerusalem.28 The reason

25 The first line of the quotation is appropriately drawn from Isa 62:11, calling upon a third party (i.e. the multitudes) to proclaim the advent of the king to the inhabitants of Zion, rather than from Zech 9:9, which reads, "Rejoice greatly, daughter of Zion...", cf. e.g. W. Rothfuchs (Die Erfiillungszitate des Matthius- Evangeliums: Eine biblisch-theologische Untersuchung [BWANT 88; Stuttgart: Kohlhammer, 1969] 83).

26 The echo of Matt 2:3 (&xo6aaq S 6 paaotXu,i 'Hp irg n( &xapaXOl xoal rcaa 'IEpoaoXuFa JLUE' auxrou) in the reaction of 21:10 appears intentional.

27 N. Lohfink, "Der Messiaskonig und seine Armen kommen zum Zion: Beobachtungen zu Mt 21:1-17," Studien zum Matthdusevangelium: FSfiir W. Pesch (SBS; ed. L. Schenke; Stuttgart: Verlag Katholisches Bibelwerk, 1988) 189-90.

28 See e.g. H. van der Kwaak, "Die Klage fiberJerusalem (Matth. XXIII, 37- 39);" NT 8 (1966) 163. The argument given by P. Billerbeck (Str-B 1.943-44), that rnv = temple never occurs with a plural suffix is well taken, but in view of 24:2 it appears possible that, as J. Gnilka notes, the meanings oixos = temple and oixog =Jerusalem "gehen ineinander iiber" (Matthiusevangelium, 2.304).

116




for this tragic judgment is explained in the culminating remark of v. 39: "For (yap) I say to you, from now on (&7r' apt) you shall not see Me until you say, Blessed is he who comes in the name of the Lord (Eu,XoT71t&vo; 6 EpX6xAEvoS ev Ov6OLOCt xuptou-cf. 21:9)." With these words, Jerusalem's culpable refusal to join in the welcoming cries of the multitudes at the city gates (21:9-11) is emphatically singled out as the decisive act of rejection, and the city's future confession of the Messiah, reflected in the words of Psalm 118, is made the ultimate condition for its eschatological redemption.29 Having pronounced divine judgment, Jesus then dramatically departs, leaving the temple behind (24:1).30 The entire segment, 21:1- 23:39, is thus uniquely framed by pointed references to the obdurate refusal of the inhabitants of Jerusalem to greet their

kingly Messiah. The continuity with the pilgrimage motif in the

preceding chapters is manifestly evident: from 16:21 on, the holy city has been a major figure in the Matthean narrative.

III. The Function of the Jerusalem Journey Motif Within the Broader Context of Matthew's Gospel

As we have just seen, Matthew has assigned the holy city of

Jerusalem a dominant role in the plot of 16:21-25:46. Not only does the carefully drafted geographical progression from Galilee to

29 On the conditional character of toS in 23:39, note especially: D. C. Allison, "Matt. 23:39 = Luke 13:35b as a Conditional Prophecy,"JSNT 18 (1983) 75-84. As Allison and others have effectively pointed out, eu,XoTrlyEvo does not indicate an apprehensive or mournful greeting from those for whom judgment has become an inevitability; it is an expression of joy, and corresponds unmistakably to the cries of Matt 21:9,15. It is certainly true that, based on the two-source hypothesis, both 21:9 (= Mark 11:9) and 23:39 (= Luke 13:35) are drawn from traditional material, but the guilty silence of the city in 21:10-11 as well as the additional contrast between the cry of the children in 21:15 and the opposition of the city's leadership in 21:16 are indeed Matthean innovations, indicating unmistakably the significance which the Evangelist found in his material.

30 That Matthew's "omission" of the section about the widow's mite (Mark 12:41-44) has resulted in a close thematic connection between the announced desolation of Jerusalem (23:37-39) and the demonstrative withdrawal of Jesus from the temple (24:1-2) has been widely recognized, cf. e.g. J. Lambrecht, "The Parousia Discourse: Composition and Content in Mt., XXIV-XXV," L'Evangile selon Matthieu: Ridaction et theologie (ed. M. Didier; BETL 29; Gembloux: Duculot, 1972) 314. In this context, Jesus' departure from the temple takes on the character of an act of judgment. The immediately following prediction of the temple's destruction (24:2) becomes, accordingly, the natural result of divine abandonment (cf. the traditions in 2 Bar. 8:2 and Josephus J. W. 6 ?300).

117



DONALD J. VERSEPUT

Jerusalem impose the only observable structural development upon the narrative of 16:21-20:28, but the subsequent events of 20:29- 23:39 pit Jesus against the inhabitants of the Jewish capital in a manner unique to Matthew's Gospel. It remains for us, then, to

inquire briefly into the pragmatic function of this extended

pilgrimage motif within the larger context of Matthew's narrative. In order to grasp the full significance of the peculiarly Matthean

enhancement of Jerusalem's pivotal role in the final drama ofJesus' life, it is necessary to recall the broad geographical framework of the Gospel narrative. For Matthew, Jesus is a Judean by birth. At the outset of the story, in chaps. 1-2, the Evangelist introduces the child Jesus as the Son of David, the messianic king from

Bethlehem, engrafted at God's behest into the royal lineage of Israel but driven out of his native homeland by the jealous hostility of Herod and-at least in sentiment-"all Jerusalem with him"

(2:3). As a result of this villainous opposition, the messianic family is forced to wander, coming at last to rest at Nazareth in Galilee in accordance with the words of the prophets (2:23).31 But, then, immediately following Peter's climactic confession of "the Christ, the Son of God" in 16:16, the narrative takes a new turn when

Jesus suddenly announces that he will proceed to Jerusalem. Arriv-

ing at the goal of his journey, he approaches the city gates with the

royal "Son of David" acclamation once more on prominent display. The thematic unity between the Gospel's opening chapters and the Jerusalem journey of Jesus is thus unmistakable. It is, therefore, no unexpected coincidence when in 21:11 Matthew

(alone among the Gospel writers) allows the multitudes assembled at the city gates to introduce the heralded Messiah to the inhabitants of Jerusalem as "the prophet Jesus, from Nazareth in Galilee".32 By means of this unsubtle reminder of Jesus' early experience, Matthew underscores the literary connection between the narrative "prologue" and the final episode in Jerusalem. The

31 K. Stendahl ("Quis et Unde? An Analysis of Matthew 1-2," Judentum, Urchristentum, Kirche: FS FiirJoachimJeremias [ed. W. Eltester; Berlin: T6pelmann, 1960] 98) rightly notes, "the whole second chapter of Matthew has its climax in its last verse... 'that he should be called Nazoraios' ('Nazarene')."

32 The primary significance of v. 11 does not lie in the "prophet" appellation as inadequate confession (contra e.g. J. Kingsbury, Matthew as Story [2d ed.; Philadelphia: Fortress, 1988] 80-1), but, rather, in the geographical tension created by the narrative "prologue": the "Son of David" at the city gates is the king whom Jerusalem has sent into exile.

118




entire story of 16:21-23:39 may be thus appropriately described as the return of the exiled king to confront the city of his forefather's throne. Matthew's elevation of the Jerusalem journey motif to the

primary structuring device controlling the latter half of his Gospel consequently serves in the light of the anterior plot-particularly in view of the crucial orientation of the reader in the early chapters- to intensify the royal Davidic and, hence, the salvation-historical dimension of the narrative.33 Moreover, by singling out the inimical reaction of the holy city, the Evangelist has heightened the scandalous nature of Israel's response: the inhabitants of the capital city, who might otherwise have been expected to rejoice most at the arrival of the king, coldly spurn his claim.

Nor does the theme of Jerusalem's obduracy end with Jesus' words of judgment and dramatic departure from the temple. At the close of the Gospel, Matthew completes the geographical framework of the narrative with a complex series of related scenes, juxtaposing Galilee as the place of departure for the worldwide Christian mission with Jerusalem as the source of a grievous deception "widely spread among the Jews to this day" (28:15).34 Having utilized the women "who had followed Jesus from Galilee" to fur- nish an apologetic continuity as witnesses of Jesus' death (27:55- 56), burial (27:61) and empty tomb (28:1-10), the Evangelist places them in conspicuous contrast to the guards sent by the chief priest and Pharisees to make the grave secure. The women are instructed

by Jesus to "go, take word to my brethren to leave for Galilee"

(28:10) where, at the final climax of the narrative, the "eleven" will be commissioned to "make disciples of all nations" (28:16-20). But intercalated neatly between the words of Jesus to the women in v. 10 and the arrival of the disciples at the mountain which Jesus had designated, lies the uniquely Matthean story of the guards who had likewise been present at the tomb (28:11-15). Set over against

33 On the significance of the Davidic messiahship for Matthew's narrative and his dispute with Judaism, see D. Verseput, "The Role and Meaning of the 'Son of God' Title in Matthew's Gospel," NTS 33 (1987) 532-56; U. Luz, "Eine thetische Skizze der matthaischen Christologie," Anfange der Christologie: FSfur F. Hahn (ed. C. Breytenbach and H. Paulsen; Gottingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht, 1991) 221-35; G. Stanton, New People, 169-91.

34 The contrast between Galilee and Jerusalem in the closing chapter of Mat- thew's Gospel has been noted e.g. by J. P. Heil (The Death and Resurrection ofJesus. A Narrative-Critical Reading of Matthew 26-28 [Philadelphia: Fortress, 1991] 12-14, 102-3).

119



DONALD J. VERSEPUT

the Galilean women of the previous scene, the guards are said to "go into the city" and "report" (&d7ri'y[tlaXv, cf. &actryff att in 28:8 and a&tWy'r Xare in 28:10) to the chief priests all that had happened, whereupon they are exhorted by the Jewish leadership to allege that

Jesus' disciples had stolen his body from the tomb. This fraudulent "word" (6 X6yTo: v. 15) which is spread abroad from Jerusalem to the Jews is thus represented by the Evangelist as a "counter-

gospel" which stands in direct opposition to the Christian message proceeding from Galilee to all nations at the command of Jesus.35 Within the plot development of the First Gospel, Jerusalem is no

longer the city of salvation; it has become a place of deception, the

consequences of which extend beyond the world of the narrative down to the Evangelist's own day.

IV. Conclusion

We have thus attempted to demonstrate the form and contextual

significance of Matthew's usage of the pilgrimage theme, beginning with the announcement of the Jerusalem journey and leading into the confrontation with the inhabitants of the holy city in 21:1- 23:39. Given a probable Jewish Christian "authorial audience" for the First Gospel, Matthew's somewhat irreverent manipulation of the powerfully emotive symbol of Jerusalem can hardly be con- sidered an inconsequential rhetorical move.36 It is difficult to believe that the Evangelist did not intend to provoke the inevitable recoil of the Gospel's first recipients to the figure of Jerusalem as depicted in the narrative. Although Matthew neither compels the

Jewish capital to bear the sole responsibility of having rejected the Messiah-his quarrel actually encompasses the whole of "this

generation"-nor does he close the door on the city's future blessing (23:39), he also does not uphold the traditional Jewish piety towards the political and religious center of Israel.37 The prophetic

35 J. Gnilka writes in this connection of a "parody" of the Christian missionary terminology (Matthdusevangelium, 2.498).

36 The term "authorial audience" used by M. Tolbert (Sowing the Gospel: Mark's World in Literary-Historical Perspective [Minneapolis: Fortress, 1989] 52-5) conve- niently avoids the need to posit a specific, individualized community as the intended recipients of the First Gospel. Cf. the recent remarks of G. Stanton (New People, 50-1).

37 On the significance of Jerusalem as the focal point of piety in early postbiblical Judaism, see e.g. W. D. Davies, The Gospel and the Land. Early Chris-

120




ideal that the nations will assemble at Zion to learn the ways of the Lord has been replaced by the soiled image ofJerusalem as the city of rebellion and deceit. The disciples are called to turn their backs

upon the holy city and proceed to Galilee. From there they are sent forth to the world. While Matthew's delegitimizing the spiritual centrality of Jerusalem may not have had direct sociological implications in the post-70 period, it is nonetheless a profound indication that the Evangelist's emotional ties to Judaism were

seriously frayed.

tianity andJewish Territorial Doctrine (Berkeley: University of California Press, 1974) 131-50. Despite the legitimate recognition that the Judaism of the first century consisted of a plurality of different factions and interest groups, J. D. G. Dunn has justifiably identified the centrality of Zion as one of four unifying "pillars" of early Judaism (The Partings of the Ways Between Christianity andJudaism and their Significance for the Character of Christianity [London: SCM, 1991] 18-36). Superficial analogies to Matthew's disaffection with the inhabitants of Jerusalem do indeed exist in the Jewish literature of the period, particularly in the wake of Gentile humiliation of the city (e.g. Pss.Sol. 1; 2:3-14; 8:4-13; 17:15; 4 Ezra 3:23-27; by contrast, the critique of the Qumran sectarians is for the most part more selectively directed against the "priests of Jerusalem" [1QpHab 9:4; 4QpNah 3-4 i 11], the "scoffers who are in Jerusalem" [4QpIsaa 2:6] or the "seekers after smooth things who are in Jerusalem" [4QpIsac 23 ii 10]). Yet in none of the above cases is the negative perspective on Jerusalem set in a context which emphasizes the transfer of the divine blessing to a new people as found in Matthew.

121



Jesus' Pilgrimage to Jerusalem and Encounter in the Temple ... · final journey of Jesus and his...

Documents

Transcript of Jesus' Pilgrimage to Jerusalem and Encounter in the Temple ... · final journey of Jesus and his...