OK, this post will present a question for discussion instead of my usual pontification.
In Matthew 27:51 we read that after the death of Jesus the curtain in the temple was torn in half. The text, however, does not explain why it does that.
Now, on my reading it can mean one of two things. First, it may symbolize the fact that the death of Christ has made a way into the presence of God. Or, second, it may mean that the divine wrath has gone out from the temple and has smote the Son in judgment (see Revelation 16:17 for a clue!). Which do you think it is?
Perhaps this new commentary will help you unravel the mystery!
Hi Jim,
I guess I’m wondering why the divine wrath would be going out from the earthly temple. God was most certainly present in the Old Testament tabernacle/temple, but I thought that changed with the coming of Jesus Christ (John 1:14, Colossians 2:9)…if I’m reading my Vos correctly (and there is a good chance that I’m not) pages 154-155 “Christ is the anti-typical tabernacle”. It just seems to me that whenever we hear the voice/thundering of the Father, it is coming from the heavenly tabernacle/temple…which would lead me to believe that the divine wrath would come from that direction. Then again, who am I to put limits and boundaries on God…but I’m failing to connect the dots in terms of the “Going Out” aspect. Hoping that you’ll shed some light on this, as I’m hopelessly intrigued at this point
Hi Tom,
Thanks for the reply! Is the above an argument for the “going in” interpretation?
Remember that the earthly temple stood as a picture of the heavenly reality. So when Matthew records the rending of the curtain of the temple, what is that depicting? Many commentators say that it depicts the fact that Christ’s death made a way into the presence of God in the heavenly temple. That may well be true. However, the picture in the OT (as well as in the new, hence my reference to the Revelation passage) is that God’s wrath issues forth from the holy of holies. Here is a further hint. Consider also Numbers 16:41-50, and at that compare it with Revelation 16:17.
Now, ask again, why is the curtain cut in half at the crucifixion?
Errr-uhhh-ummm…I don’t think I’m really arguing for either, just trying to grasp the “going out” bit. The “going in” would be the generally accepted interpretation, and the one that I at least am familiar with and have believed. I just simply have never heard the “going out” interpretation, and wanted to know more.
Having said that however – My refelx questions are these…Was not the divine judgement/wrath of the Father being poured out upon His Son in the events leading up to His ultimate death..ie(the suffering, and forsaking of Jesus by His Father)? When He cryed “It is finished”, is He still awaiting the divine wrath? Or has His work of redemption/atonement been completed even before He “yields up His spirit” into the hands of the Father?
Not trying to be argumentative, just discussing
Hi Tom,
These are good questions! Let me try my best to give a good answer.
As for the going out interpretation, I’m not convinced in my own mind – fully. Still batting it around, that is way I solicited opinions from others.
In terms of the Father pouring out his wrath upon the Son in an act of atonement it is generally held by the orthodox that the wrath of God was received especially by Christ on the Cross. Among the neo-Orthodox, however, they extend the act of atonement to the entire life of the incarnate Christ. This is problematic for a number of reasons. However, perhaps my good brother Jeff can fill in some detail here as the doctrine of the atonement is one which he has studied and taught in just about every aspect.
I hope this helps. Keep up the good questions, Tom!
Yes that helps..thankyou Jim. Just to clarify though…when I said “events leading up to His ultimate death” I didn’t have in mind the entire life of the incarnate Christ, but rather from the suffering in Gethsemane right on to His suffering upon the cross where He was forsaken by the Father (in our place). If He was experiencing the divine wrath during these moments, then I find it difficult to see the divine wrath coming forth from behind the curtain in the temple at the moment of His death (although Luke’s account does seem to at least make possible the “going out”…and he was writing with the intent to keep things in “consecutive order” 1:3)
dheBav In awe of that answer! Really cool!
Thanks Tom, that does clarify! And it provides a challenge to the going out thesis. Good stuff!
Blessings, good brother!
I must confess that my understanding of God’s presence in the temple is incomplete at best. In reference to my first comment about God no longer dwelling in the temple now that Christ has come…is that accurate? I mean up until Christ’s ultimate once and for all sacrifice for sin upon the Cross, was the Old Testament sacrificial system still in effect and was God still present in all of that (still in the holy of holies)??
Hi Tom,
Good questions! I will shoot from the hip here and do my best to give a biblical answer.
Just as the OT sacrifices were only types and shadows and could never actually take away sins, so in the OT the temple made with human hands never was meant to house God. Again, the book of Hebrews (along with Paul’s sermon on Mars Hill) makes clear that God dwells in inapproachable light and a heavenly temple NOT made with human hands. Rather, the OT temple served as a temporal and earthly shadow of a heavenly and eternal reality.
That said, it is true that God made “appearances” at the temple/tabernacle of the OT. These we call theophanies. But, again, theophanies are not meant to communicate the idea that God could be contained and actually housed within the walls of humanly made buildings. Rather, the temple pointed beyond itself to at least three eschatological realities: 1) the heavenly temple, 2) the flesh assumed by the eternal Logos, and 3) the church of Christ.
So, even at the time of Christ when the Word became flesh and tabernacled among us, the Old Covenant shadowy temple was already becoming obsolete and fading away (cf. Heb 8).
Does that help?
Yes, very helpful. I understand that the temple pointed beyond itself in those ways you mentioned (and certainly God can not be contained in a box), but at the same time the temple and the functions to be perfomed within (as instituted by God) served a purpose at THAT time i.e..the offerings, sacrifices, etc. I especially have in mind the function of the high priest when he would enter the holy of holies. Now, again, I understand that these things pointed beyond themselves…but isn’t it true that if the high priest did not perform his duty in a manner that was acceptable to God and His instructions, well then the tinkling bells on the bottom of his garment would be heard no longer.
And so I was just wondering whether or not this sort of thing was still in effect, or if God had withdrawn from Israel in this capacity…that’s probably were I’m missing something…something happened somewhere in the middle of my Bible to the nation of Israel (Babylonian captivity and that sort of thing) that must have implications…like I said, my understanding is incomplete at best.
All of that to say, that it would seem to me that these things would have implications on the “going out” at the time of the Crucifiction.
Thank you Tom for your continued interest in this topic and your good questions!
The purpose which the sacrificial laws functioned at that time were exclusively typological. There was nothing effectual in them at all – at least on the spiritual or ordo salutis level. In other words, no one was eternally or spiritually redeemed, saved, or justified through the law – not then, not ever.
You make mention of the divine justice which would be leveled against the high priest if he did not do things just so. This, we might say, was an intrusion or recapitulation of the covenant of works (here I might direct you to the new volume from the WSC guys called The Covenant of Works in the Law of Moses. I have some serious reservations about the book, but this point is explicated well throughout. Or, perhaps even better you might look into Meredith Kline’s Kingdom Prologue). God’s law demands perfect, personal, and perpetual obedience; thus if the High Priest transgressed the Law he would come under the divine curse.
Now, even that curse served a twofold function: 1) Protological Function – points back to the garden and the covenant of works given to God’s first high priest, Adam. 2) Typological/Eschatological – points forward to the second Adam, Jesus Christ, who was not only a High Priest after the order of Melchizedek, but became a cursed priest through the bearing our our iniquity and received the divine wrath on the alter of the cross.
Now, it may be of interest to know the different interpretations of Matthew 27:51a. First, the issue has come up in the literature of which curtain is in view. The Greek word itself gives us no solid hint. Is it the inner curtain or the outer curtain? Many of the scholars today say it is the outer curtain. This is substantiated by the argument that the curtain tearing must have been a public event seen by many in order to make the historical record. Now, if this is correct, then the tearing of the curtain may very well anticipate the destruction of the temple in 70 AD (thus God’s judgment on Israel and her priesthood) and the end of Old Covenant ceremonial system. At least one commentator that I have read says that the tearing of the curtain in some way reflects what is happening on the cross as Christ’s body is broken for us – that God has killed Jesus. That is the closest interpretation I have seen to the going out hypothesis.
Anyway, hope that helps! Good thoughts you are working through!
Well, I thank you very much for the interaction on this topic. Yes, I plan to dip into some Kline after I get through some Vos. This is very rich stuff, so it’s been profitable for me to be able to get your thoughts…thanks again!
Hey, cool tips. Perhaps I’ll buy a glass of beer to that person from that forum who told me to visit your site
The people who think the wrath tore the curtain as it went “out” onto Christ have the wrong idea I suspect. The idea is more along the lines of ‘cutting a covenant’ like what Abraham did in offering a sacrifice. In the idea of a sacrifice, whereby God and Man participate together- God has shown that not merely can man come to Him freely now should he desire Heb 10:20 (the sense we are all familiar with), but indeed the very wrath of God’s has gone out from the temple and is lifted from Humanity (the sense you are suggesting). He Himself was made a curse for us so we could be absolved of the curse. Not that Christ was punished, but that we are expiated of our sins. Great thought I like your site.