Chapter 255 of 404

Provoking Martyrdom

Given the large amount of theological controversy in first-century Palestinian Judaism, it was most likely not mere debates with the Pharisees, but rather Jesus’ acts that could be interpreted politically, or as confrontation with the elite, that led to his execution.⁷⁴ Against some scholars who have questioned whether Jesus could have predicted his impending death, it seems nearly impossible that he would not have done so: by disrupting public activity in the Temple and publicly challenging the authorities’ honor, Jesus virtually provoked it.⁷⁵ In our chapter addressing Jesus as a prophet, we briefly addressed his action in the Temple; here we seek to show its connection to his execution.

Merely prophesying the Temple’s destruction publicly could invite scourging and the threat of death,⁷⁶ and execution would prove an especially appealing solution if a leader already had a significant gathering of followers.⁷⁷ The guardians of law and order in the Temple, whose positions depended on keeping peace between the Romans and the people, were permitted to punish violations of the sanctity of the Temple — and only this offense — with death.⁷⁸ If Jesus did not violate the inner sanctuary, nevertheless he provoked the antagonism of those who could hand him over to the Romans as a messianic (royal) pretender, an offense the Romans viewed as treason.⁷⁹

Sanders regards Jesus’ controversy with the Temple establishment as an “almost indisputable” historical fact.⁸⁰ Later Christians would not have invented Jesus’ act against the Temple; they maintained their connections with the Temple (Acts 2:46; 21:23-26) and wished to avoid the suspicion that they were subversive (which enemies of temples were considered anywhere in the Empire). Attestation by both Markan and Johannine streams of tradition further supports the tradition’s antiquity.⁸¹ It moreover provides the best explanation for Jesus’ execution.⁸²

This action also coheres with Jesus’ prophecy against the Temple.⁸³ This prophecy is likely authentic (see ch. 17). A few scholars doubt that Jesus predicted the Temple’s destruction, attributing that “fiction” to Mark.⁸⁴ In so doing, however, they miss several points (noted in ch. 17): the tradition’s multiple attestation (cf. Jn 2:19); that the church would not have invented the claim, feeling comfortable attributing the charge especially to false witnesses (Mk 14:58; Acts 6:14); and likely Jesus tradition in 2 Thess 2:4.⁸⁵ That the later church felt comfortable attributing the charge about Jesus destroying the temple only to false witnesses (Mk 14:58; cf. Acts 6:14)⁸⁶ suggests that it is not an idea that Jesus’ earliest followers felt comfortable with, at least not initially.

Jesus’ prophecy against the Temple is plausible in his milieu; we have noted that a minority of Jews before 70, mainly sectarian, did oppose the Temple or the establishment that controlled it.⁸⁷ Others before 70 CE also predicted the Temple’s destruction,⁸⁸ and there is no reason to doubt that Jesus did so.⁸⁹ Like some of his contemporaries, as Sanders notes, Jesus undoubtedly expected a kingdom “in which a temple, whether new or cleansed, would be useful.”⁹⁰ Because Jesus’ protest in the Temple would have deliberately provoked the authorities to seek Jesus’ death,⁹¹ we should also see the act in the Temple as a pivotal event in Jesus’ mission.⁹²

↑ Back to top