See Shake The Dust From Your Feet - P2.
In Yeshua’s case, he was taking the concept of Temple and placing it upon himself. This meant, for instance, that divine healing and forgiveness would now come to Israel through him instead of through the Temple and its priesthood. Instead of going to the Temple to be cleansed, Yeshua pronounced people clean. Instead of accepting the blood the covenant in the sacrifice of the Jerusalem temple,[12] Yeshua invited people to the blood of the covenant at his table and in his sacrifice.[13] Of course, there cannot be two temples. If Yeshua is now equating himself with the temple of YHWH, then what of the Jerusalem one? He pronounced divine judgment on it physically when he drove the people out and declared it the habitation of terrorists,[14] symbolically when he cursed it via the method of enacted parable,[15] and prophetically when he said not one stone would not be left upon another.[16] In place of this corrupt and soon-to-be-destroyed Temple would be an incorruptible and indestructible one—himself:
Jesus answered them, Destroy this temple and in three days I will raise it up.
The Jews then said, It has taken forty-six years to build this temple, and will you raise it up in three days?
But he was speaking about the temple of his body.
John 2:19-21
Jesus said: I will des[troy this] house, and none shall able to build it [again].
Gospel of Thomas, 71
Since the Pax Romana could be threated by a violent uprising against the Temple, but not by someone reinterpreting what it meant to be God’s chosen people, when men were found to bring false charges against Yeshua that might move Herod’s hand, they used Yeshua’s words to paint him in the first manner—like another Judas Maccabeus who wanted to drive foreign occupiers out of the Temple by the edge of his sword:[17]
We heard him say, ‘I will destroy this temple that is made with hands and in three days I will build another not made with hands.’
Mark 14:58
This man said, ‘I am able to destroy the temple of God, and to rebuild it in three days.’
Matthew 26:61
In reality, of course, Yeshua meant only that he, a temple even greater than the Jerusalem Temple,[18] would be proven true when the Jerusalem Temple fell without being raised again, whereas he would be raised in three days.
If Temple now had meaning in terms of Yeshua, anyone who participated in Yeshua’s work would be participating in the true Temple service. In this new situation then, following Yeshua meant the same as acts of holiness and separation from defilement. And therefore it was not only acceptable, but appropriate that traditions which symbolized this might be incorporated into Yeshua’s or his disciples’ activity. By sending out his disciples with regulations befitting those going to the Temple Mount, Yeshua was providing them with a powerful reminder that in doing his work, they were doing so by the same Spirit, with the same dedication, and in the same manner as those going to participate in Temple activity. Since shaking the dust from one’s feet was an act of separation from the defiled or unclean, for Yeshua’s disciples to do so whenever they or their message were denied became a powerful polemic. It meant that such people had taken on the status of lepers. They were unclean and unfit for the way of the Holy One. While this may sound like a harsh judgment, its primary purpose was to keep the disciples on task and to foster the holiness and righteousness of God’s kingdom. If the gospel did not result in cleansing people from their defilement in one place, then the disciples should move on to where it might benefit others. We see this same concept in Yeshua’s admonition to protect what is valuable by not handing it over to unreasoning and unclean creatures who will only trample it underfoot.[19]
[12] – The blood of the covenant
comes from Exodus 24:8.
[13] – Matthew 26:28; Mark 14:24.
[14] – When Yeshua calls the Temple a den of thieves,
he is not making an ethical judgment of their monetary practices. This refers to violent bands of brigands who would rape, plunder, kill, and destroy. Usually they formed around a leader who combined political and religious overtones with their criminal activity. They hid in the rocky terrain of the wilderness like David in Old Testament times in order to evade capture and death. In modern times, they would be compared with Al-Qaeda or other militants who blow up civilians and then retreat to hidden dens on the edge of the territory.
[15] – The cursing of the fig tree. Mark 11:12-14, 20-22; Matthew 21:18-20. Mark specifically bookends this event around Yeshua’s temple rousing in order to show a link between them. But the fact that this is a Temple judgment is made even more clearly when Yeshua, on his way up to the Temple, explains the cursing of the tree by saying that that very mountain will be removed and cast into the sea (Mark 11:23; Matthew 21:21).
[16] – Luke 21:5-6; Mark 13:1-2; Matthew 24:1-2. One of Yeshua’s first oracles of doom against the Temple occurs in Matthew 7:24-27 and Luke 6:46-49 where he says in parable fashion, the rain fell, and the floods came, and the wind blew and beat against that house, and it fell; and great was the fall of it.
[17] – 1st Maccabees 1-4. The story of Judas’ forceful retaking of Jerusalem and the Temple from unclean pagan rulers and rededicating the sanctuary to YHWH is celebrated annually by the festival of Hanukkah.
[18] – Matthew 12:6
[19] – Matthew 7:6
See Shake The Dust From Your Feet - P1.
Turning back to the prerogatives enumerated in the Synoptic Gospels, we see that they align very closely with the specific ordinances required of those who would go up to the Temple Mount. Setting aside possible exceptions introduced in Mark, we see that both instruct against taking staves, donning any kind of shoe, carrying vestments for the storage of money (and probably other items), and wearing an additional outer garment. Both also require the removal of dust from one’s feet. These prohibitions were probably meant to remind people of the sanctity of the Temple and the service they were performing. This was a sacred enterprise. Just as they should not think to disregard the Temple and use it as a shortcut if they are engaged in common activity, so when they are engaged in sacrosanct activity, they should not bring things with them that might pollute their course. For instance, those who carried a staff, which was often used for journeys, might be tempted to do a bit of extra traveling on their way to the Temple and those who carried bags of money might be tempted to engage in commerce. Removing dust from one’s feet symbolized separation from the unclean and removing one’s sandals or shoes symbolized the willingness to be holy.[5]
The significant difference seems to be one of location. The Rabbis state that one is not to spit on the Temple Mount or use it as a shortcut, which is not incorporated into Yeshua’s directives. However, Yeshua’s disciples won’t be on the Temple Mount to spit there or to use as a shortcut. That could explain why those two were left out of Yeshua’s commands (of course, there’s no reason why Yeshua should include all of these Rabbinic ordnances), but we still don’t know why Yeshua would apply the others to his disciples when they are also not specifically journeying to the Temple Mount. They are going out into the world. Perhaps even away from the Temple Mount. I believe the answer can be found in an understanding of Yeshua’s mission and message.
Yeshua was reforming Israel around himself and was therefore redefining what it meant to be the children of YHWH.[6] In doing so, he subverted established and authoritative systems, traditions, and symbols. That does not mean he was doing away with Judaism for something else or critiquing it from the outside, only that he was using Jewish elements in different and (so he believed) divinely authorized ways. One of those elements was the status and concept of Temple. According to ancient tradition, the Temple was already itself a subversion and redefinition of a former concept: Tabernacle. After the tribes of Israel had settled in the land, but before Solomon’s Temple was constructed, the Hebrew scripture seems to indicate that the house of God
may have been established at Shiloh. It probably would have taken another redefinition or subversion of the way of things in order to relocate it to Jerusalem. If some scholars are to be believed, it was thanks to one or more scribes at the time of King Josiah that Deuteronomy or the core of it was discovered
[7] (i.e., purposely written or assembled) in order to legitimate political and/or religious reforms by the nation’s Sovereign (specifically to eliminate the practice in Israel of any religion other than that of YHWH and to centrally localize that religion in the Jerusalem city and temple).[8] Using religious texts or even finding religious texts in order to support legislative or governmental projects is a practice common both to modern and ancient times.[9] Once the Temple along with hope of its restoration had been totally destroyed, the Rabbis further reformed and redefined things so that a Temple was entirely superfluous. The Shekinah now dwelled in them as it once had within the Temple: If ten men sit together and occupy themselves in Torah, the Shekinah rests among them.
[10] Indeed, they argued the divine presence that used to fill the Temple would come into even a single person and defended it with Exodus 20:24: in every place where I record my name, I will come into you.
[11]
See Shake The Dust From Your Feet - P3.
[5] – We are reminded of YHWH’s command to Moses in Exodus 3:5: Take your sandals off your feet, for the place on which you are standing is holy ground.
[6] – Reforming and redefining Israel
was a very Jewish thing to do. At some point, various Semitic tribes with only a common, distant ancestry came under the same covenant and legislation. Moses is attributed with this major reform. Another great reformer would be the king who took those tribes with their own political sovereignties and united them into a national entity—commonly identified in scripture as David. In Greco-Roman times, we see people like the Essenes, who considered themselves Sons of Light and everyone else either Sons of Darkness or followers of Belial, the Samaritans, who believed themselves to be the true people of God preserving his true commands at Mount Gerizim, and countless others.
[7] – The discovery of the Scroll of Torah
and Josiah’s Reform is found in 2 Kings 22-23.
[8] – See the theory of The Deuteronomistic History. A short book that looks at the ideas and arguments while trying to pave a way forward through the many difficulties is Thomas Romer’s The So-Called Deuteronomistic History. K.L. Noll recently challenged the entire hypothesis in a ground-breaking article in the Journal for the Study of the Old Testament, Deuteronomistic History or Deuteronomic Debate? (A Thought Experiment).
[9] – Many ancient Near Eastern kings claimed to have discovered religious texts in their god’s temple in order to support religious, political, or social actions and reforms that, in reality, were probably not actually inspired by those texts.
[10] – Mishnah, Tractate Aboth 3:6
[11] – בכל המקום אשר אזכיר את שמי אבוא אליך - The Hebrew for you
is singular.
In the Synoptic Gospels, there is a puzzling series of commands given by Yeshua to those disciples he is sending out to proclaim the good news.
Acquire no gold nor silver nor copper for your belts, no bag for your journey, nor two tunics, nor sandals, nor a staff . . . And if anyone will not receive you or listen to your words, shake off the dust from your feet when you leave.
Matthew 10:9-10, 14
He charged them to take nothing for their journey except a staff—no bread, no bag, no money in their belts—but to wear sandals and not put on two tunics. . . . And if any place will not receive you and they will not listen to you, when you leave, shake off the dust that is on your feet.
Mark 6:8-9, 11
And he said to them, Take nothing for your journey, no staff, nor bag, nor bread, nor money; and do not have two tunics. . . . And wherever they do not receive you, when you leave that town, shake off the dust from your feet.
Luke 9:3, 5
Many words have been spilled explicating the reasons, intentions, or purpose of these commands. And not a few have devoted themselves to untangling the confusing and seemingly contradictory nature of what is or isn’t allowed.[1] What virtually every discussion lacks, however, is a comparison of Yeshua’s ordinances with the halacha of ancient Jewish tradition and Oral Law.
He may not enter into the Temple Mount with his staff or his sandal or his wallet, or with the dust upon his feet, nor may he make of it a short by-path; still less may he spit there.
Mishnah, Tractate Berakot 9:5
It has been taught . . . a man must not go up to the hill of the Temple neither with shoes, nor with dust on his feet, nor with money wrapped in a cloth, nor with a girdle[2] on. . . . Nor may a man make use of it as a shortcut, and less still may he spit there.
Palestinian Gemara, Tractate Berakot 9:5 (8)
As it has been taught: ’A man should not enter the Temple Mount either with his staff in his hand, or his shoe on his foot, or with his money tied up in his cloth, or with his money bag slung over his shoulder, and he should not make it a short cut, and spitting [there is forbidden].
Babylonian Gemara, Tractate Berakot 62:b
These are authoritative traditions which prohibited or discouraged certain articles and items from being worn or carried as well as certain actions and activities from taking place when going to the Temple. Even more prohibitions were enjoined as one drew further and further toward the Oracle—from the Outer Court to the Inner Court to the Holy and then Holiest Place. There is no doubt that the number and type of regulations one followed depended on one’s specific inclination and religious affiliation. As we’ve already seen in No Sex In The City, the Essenes (perhaps the strictest of them all), would have disallowed intercourse and defecation for those even going into Jerusalem. Even members of the same sect, such as the Pharisees, might disagree on specifics or take on the ideas of a certain faction against the other (perhaps the school of Hillel against the school of Shammai). It may be the case that the Way sect[3] or certain members therein treated many such regulations according to the principle Yeshua taught that if one was cleansed inwardly, then the outside would be clean and that defilement was an inner matter, not on outer one.[4] Thus, for instance, we have the account preserved only in papyrus Oxyrhynchus 840 in which Yeshua takes his disciples on a tour of the Temple and where a chief priest rebukes him and his disciples for being in the Inner Court without having bathed or washed their feet. Yeshua replies:
Art thou then, being here in the temple, clean?
He [the chief priest] saith unto him, I am clean; for I washed in the pool of David, and having descended by one staircase I ascended by another, and I put on white and clean garments, and then I came and looked upon these holy vessels.
The Saviour answered and said unto him, Woe ye blind, who see not. Thou hast washed in these running waters wherein dogs and swine have been cast night and day, and hast cleansed and wiped the outside skin which also the harlots and flute-girls anoint and wash and wipe and beautify for the lust of men; but within they are full of scorpions and all wickedness. But I and my disciples, who thou sayest have not bathed, have been dipped in the waters of eternal life.
See Shake The Dust From Your Feet - P2.
[1] – For instance, is Yeshua allowing a staff (Mark) or not allowing a staff (Matthew, Luke)? Is he allowing sandals (Mark) or not allowing sandals (Matthew)?
[2] – Most scholars describe this word as a type of outer garment worn over the clothes—perhaps a cloak or tunic.
[3] – By which is meant any Hebrew or Torah-observant follower of Yeshua. See Acts 9:2; 19:9, 23; 22:4; 24:14, 22.
[4] – Matthew 23:25-26 and Mark 7:15. See also Luke 11:37-41 where Yeshua dines without washing. Similarly, Titus 1:15 states that to those who are pure, all things are pure.
Gentile nations benefited from having Israel offer sacrifices and supplication for them in ancient days. It was not uncommon for the priests to intercede daily with the Lord of Hosts even on the behalf of foreign nationals who claimed dominion over them.
Said R. Johanan: Woe be to the nations, they have lost, and they do not know even what they have lost! When the Temple was in existence, the altar atoned for their sins, but now who shall atone for their sins?
Babylonian Gemara, Sukkah 4
The author of Hebrews has an answer:
The former priests, on the one hand, existed in greater numbers because they were prevented by death from continuing, but Jesus, on the other hand, because He continues forever [resurrected from the dead], holds His priesthood permanently. Therefore He is able also to save forever those who draw near to God through Him, since He always lives to make intercession for them. For it was fitting for us to have such a high priest, holy, innocent, undefiled, separated from sinners and exalted above the heavens; who does not need daily, like those high priests, to offer up sacrifices, first for His own sins and then for the sins of the people, because this He did once for all when He offered up Himself. For the Law appoints men as high priests who are weak, but the word of the oath, which came after the Law, appoints a Son, made perfect forever.
Hebrews 7:23-28
The oath that the author of Hebrews speaks of which came after the Law is thus:
YHWH has sworn and will not change his mind, you are a priest forever according to the order of Melchizadek.
Psalm 110:4
The author of Hebrews interprets this to mean that YHWH prepared for a new and better priesthood in place of the Levites and a new and better High Priest in place of Aaron.
For when the priesthood is changed, of necessity there takes place a change of law also.
Hebrews 7:12
Of course, this Hebraic perspective also gels nicely with the concept of a change of covenant (from temporal to eternal). So the nations have lost nothing by the loss of the temple. In fact, they have gained atonement despite it.
Was the Gospel of Matthew originally written in Hebrew or Aramaic instead of Greek? Some say yes, others no. There are, surprisingly, quite a few fathers of the early church that believed it was. Here is a short selection.
Matthew collected the oracles in the Hebrew language, and each interpreted them as best he could.
Papias (Eusebius, H.E. 3.39.16)
Matthew also issued a written Gospel among the Hebrews in their own dialect while Peter and Paul were preaching at Rome and laying the foundations of the church.
Irenaeus, Adv. Haer. 3.1.1
As having learned by tradition concerning the four Gospels, which alone are unquestionable in the Church of God under heaven, that first was written according to Matthew, who was once a tax collector but afterwards an apostle of Jesus Christ, who published it for those who from Judaism came to believe, composed as it was in the Hebrew language.
Origen (Eusebius, H.E. 6.25.4)
Matthew had first preached to Hebrews, and when he was on the point of going to others he transmitted in writing in his native language the Gospel according to himself, and thus supplied by writing the lack of his own presence to those from whom he was sent.
Eusebius, H.E. 3.24.6
I have not done enough research on the matter to take either position. However, it is nice to know that at least one of those Hebrew texts, the Shem Tov Manuscript, is now available to all and sundry online. There is also a fascinating article discussing the manuscript that I hope to read in the near future: Some Observations on a Recent Edition of and Introduction to Shem-Tob’s Hebrew Matthew
by William L. Petersen.
UPDATE: Another Hebrew Matthew Manuscript, the DuTillet, is also available online at the DuTillet Matthew Page.
Let us pray: For the victims of war
Have mercy
For the maimed and the crippled
Have mercy
For the abandoned and the homeless
Have mercy
For the imprisoned and the tortured
Have mercy
For the widowed and the orphaned
Have mercy
For those fleeing in terror
Have mercy
From the arrogance of power
Deliver us
From the poverty of violence
Deliver us
From the tyranny of greed
Deliver us
From the ugliness of racism
Deliver us
From the hysteria of nationalism
Deliver us
From the seduction of wealth
Deliver us
From the blasphemy and madness of war
Deliver us
With the waging of war
We will not comply
With the forces of fear
We will not comply
With the bombing of civilians
We will not comply
With governments that are blind to the sanctity of life
We will not comply
With economic structures that impoverish and dehumanize
We will not comply
With the help of God’s grace
We will struggle for justice
With the compassion of Christ
We will stand for what is true
In the end there are three things that last
Faith, hope, and love; and the greats of these is love
Thanks be to God
By Jim Loney (CPT Reservist), Toronto, Ontario
Wow. What a monumental, historical day! It is moments like this that I am proud to be part of the United States of America! It is moments like this that I suddenly believe everything the founding fathers set out to do can actually be accomplished! First, the State of California stops unjustly oppressing homosexuals and denying their right of union, and now the Supreme Court finally acknowledges and decrees what we have known since the Second Amendment was first established: that all people have a right to bear arms for their defense. As a Libertarian, I had only dreamed that government would accept and abide by such natural, inalienable rights. But to live to see such a dream come true is almost beyond expression! Because I follow Christ, and because violence and deadly force is anathema to the kingdom of God established by Yeshua, I have absolutely no reason to bear a firearm. I would sooner be killed than possibly take the life of another person. However, I rejoice that government has finally, officially agreed with part of the Constitution and I will continue to look for and fight for (nonviolently of course) the day when government is fully accountable to the Constitution and where there is liberty and justice for all.
When I approached my car this morning and found a small book protruding from my windshield wipers, I knew immediately that I was headed for some absurd, fundamentalist Christian hilarity. And I was not disappointed.
The book is called National Sunday Law. The basic premise is that the Papacy is the first beast of Revelation, the United States government is the second beast of Revelation, and the mark or image of the beast is Sunday worship, which will be enforced in the U.S. on pain of death by federal legislation and constitutional amendment.
Now if that did not make you laugh so hard you shit yourself, I have no idea what would.
As for the Sabbath and what that means in terms of Christianity, see my essay entitled Yeshua and Torah: What Do We Make of Them?
I just finished reading The Temple Scroll by Jacob Milgrom and want to take this moment to say, Holy crap!
Okay, now that I got that out of my system, I need to reverse my saying because some Jews who got that out of their system in the past did not consider it holy. Defecation was a defiling activity in terms of Essene purity strictures. So was sexual intercourse, by the way.
Anyway, back to the Temple Scroll… This document is what is known as rewritten Torah.
That means it takes a bunch of scriptural texts (Exodus, Leviticus, Numbers, and Deuteronomy in this case) and has its artistically licensed and/or divinely inspired way with them. Other examples include Chronicles and Jubilees. It basically sets out to portray the way the Temple and everything that takes place inside or around it ought to be like according to the perspective of the Essenes. Two of the Temple Scroll’s departures from Rabbinic and (I would assume) normative Judaism’s tradition which really amazed me concern its purity regulations in terms of defecation and sex (two things that obviously should never have anything to do with each other).
The Essenes, in contradistinction with other sects like the Pharisees, believed that the city in which the Temple resided was under the same purity regulations as the temple itself. So if the Essenes took over, no one who was impure could enter or be in Jerusalem. And that means no sex in the city (I’m sure Sarah Jessica Parker doesn’t count). If you called Jerusalem home, you’d have to remain celibate. Even treating yourself to a little one-on-one time would be prohibited. If you wanted or needed a bit of loving, you’d have to leave the city. But then you couldn’t get back in for three days post coitus.
And a man who lies with his wife and has an ejaculation, for three days shall not enter the whole city of the temple in which I shall cause my name to dwell.
11Q19, Col. XLV, line 11-12
In this day and age, very few people give a shit. So maybe they’d fit in fine in Essene Jerusalem, because nobody would be able to poop therein. And on Sabbaths, you’re really out of luck, because the Temple Scroll placed the community toilets 4500 cubits outside Jerusalem, which was 1000 cubits further than an Essense was allowed to walk on the Sabbath (11Q19 46.15). Six days a week, you may release your bowels. But on the seventh, which is holy to YHWH, if you live in Jerusalem, you cannot. Sundays would really be crappy days.
Or should I say enslaved?
California has now become the second state in the confederacy to stop interfering with people’s liberties and choices when it comes to adult consented union. Hurrah! It is bad enough that government has been denying people liberty of union, but it is worse that it has arbitrarily prejudiced its injustice against certain people—homosexuals. Finally the bigoted individuals who use power for oppression are being overthrown. It wasn’t all that long ago that a black person DARED to sit in a white person’s seat. And now homosexuals have DARED to step into a room of heterosexual marital vow. Thank God for their holy defiance. But there is still a long way to go! There are a lot more tyrannical, anti-Constitutional decrees to throw down before there will ever be liberty and justice for all.
As psyched as I am about this event, I have to wonder exactly WHY so many homosexuals are clamoring for marriage. Is it simply because it has been denied them? Do they see it as a ritual of the privileged or elite to which they no longer want to be segregated? Are they hoping the fight will eventually enable them to come full circle so they can turn the tables on their oppressors in retribution? Is it simply symbolic to them of a goal achieved and a tyrant overthrown? If the last—what a price! To gain one’s freedom and liberty of union from someone who doesn’t and shouldn’t have any authority or say in the matter and then to willingly and even intently seek to surrender that freedom and liberty back is ludicrous! Marriage pales in comparison with domestic union (or partnership), which all homosexuals have been able to do without prejudice and without governmental encroachment. Why turn down such a great thing? Why turn your back on a union that allows you and your spouse to decide for yourselves exactly what is and isn’t appropriate for you, decide exactly what you do and don’t want for yourselves in that union and (if worse comes to worse) its dissolve? Why instead let someone else tell you what your marriage is and what it is not and decide for you how it will be and how things will be if worse comes to worse? Why should anyone else have authority over you and your union with someone else? Isn’t that the whole point of fighting against a government that denies you the ability to make your own choices of union?
Well, if injustice is being overthrown, I am glad. And if someone chooses to embrace marriage, then I say so be it. Do as you will—that is your liberty and right. I support you in making a choice out of your liberty and right. But don’t think I won’t also hold you responsible for the consequences of your choice just as strictly and without prejudice as I do heterosexuals who have put themselves into that situation, reneged on it, and ruined families and lives cruelly and unnecessarily because they were not able to sustain and prosper an institution that they signed up for.
