Theology

Theology

One-Sentence Summary

Cecilia Wassen argues that Jesus’s actions at the temple are suggestive to the Qumran movement. In same way as Qumran sectarians, Jesus would have supposed the temple as corrupted and anticipated new faultless temple to replace it, and the priests being condemned to fail irrespective of their behavior.

One-Paragraph Summary

To explain the violent outburst of Jesus in the temple, Cecilia Wassen ​ considers Jewish Second era of temple documentation, with the Scrolls of the Dead Sea, and analyzes multiple scholar’s perspectives on why there are different representations of the scenario, which are presented amongst various texts. This article appraises these elucidations and present a scrutiny of the core information in the Scriptures on the Jerusalem temple. It implies that the negative attitudes towards the temple displayed through the actions of Jesus and some of Qumran’s religious writings express the belief that the temple would have ended up desecrated regardless. It did not matter from an apocalyptic viewpoint, nor did it not consider how priests do to push the businesses because meant to be condemned by the Jews, in the same sense that Jesus as well as the sectarians of Qumran, for whom the last era had come.[1]

Full Summary

In “The Use of the Dead Sea Scrolls for Interpreting Jesus’s Action in The Temple,” author Cecilia Wassen analyses different scholars’ viewpoints on the four canonical gospels that document the violent action of Jesus in the temple. Although they differ significantly in perspectives, Cecilia​claims that the majority of scholars agree that these actions are historical and genuinely did occur. (Wassen, 2016)[2]. Jesus’s manifestation in the temple are a specific heading in the list of “Key Events in the Life of the Historical Jesus.” Within an edited book by Darell Bock and Robert Webb, Cecilia referenced it to investigate the historical Jesus based on Darell Bock and Robert Webb’s claims on the event that took place in the temple, mentioning it as “the safest starting point for our investigation.” (Darell Bock, 1994)[3]

Throughout the beginning four pages, to provide context on the setting of Temple,​Cecilia​claims that the account research throughout the context of Josephus’ and the archaeological research on Jerusalem, where moneylenders and vendors conducted their industry was pinpointed as the Royal Stoat in the outer courts. ​Cecilia​states that in general, scholars agree that the occurrence was a reagent for the ultimate seizure and execution of Jesus.  Providing alternating contexts and opinions, Cecilia​claims that because those who guard temple guards failed to encumber Jesus, many researchers undertake that Jesus ‘ actions must have been minimal and that the evangelists’ claims were highly exaggerated. Cecilia commonly states that Jesus’s scribes highly embellished a significant percentage of their applications.  ​Cecilia says that the primary divide between academic views lies in how to perceive the behavior of Jesus each of the prenominal rhetoric, symbolic act bearing a biblical meaning, or mostly as a rebellion against several aspects of the temple service. Prominent scholars debate these opposite viewpoints. ​Cecilia uses scholars such as Sanders, who interprets every incident as a sign of the temple’s coming collapse, or Craig Evans, who suggests that Jesus was fighting against hypocrisy in the priesthood.

Cecilia used Sander’s point to extensively depict believes that fetched up temple again as people had an insight of an adulterated temple with the corrupt priests. Therefor as Cecilia mentions, the contentions in contradiction of the priesthood and the desecration of the temple in the secretariat nonfiction of the Dead Sea Scrolls brought about a great debate on the handful document. Cecilia also commented on the restricted battle between the act of the Jerusalem calling and the teacher of the righteousness in that the fabulous priest was suspect of contravening the rules due to greed of the others.  In her claims, Cecilia mentioned that the Jewish text was with an apocalyptic position in their perception due to the threat about the desecration of the priesthood in the temple, in the same way, insatiability and arrogance have been a degradation of the priests were found in the temple. Cecilia claims that the apocalypse holds the fact that priests could even offer contaminated sustenance after the renewal of the new tower referred to temple in which the impending damage of the temple was in specific term due to the previous connection of destruction (2016)[4]. Cecilia mentions that the apocalyptic of Jeremiah served as another viewpoint about sins of both priesthood and people in that the fragments that were preserved provided full historical interpretations reviewed after the time of the temple rebuilding. In all these conceptual analyses, Cecilia provided evidence that there is an prospect of imminent desecration of the temple over the exploitation of priests and the people becoming evil to the generation that is coming before the new era.

In Jesus’s activities and prospects, Cecilia proposed the like the same way as the Qumran sectarians temple would once become defiled and mocked in the apocalypse, which became a  belief of that time. According to her comments on some of her chapters, Cecilia evaluated the prediction about the imminent destruction of the temple being most probably from Jesus’s prophetic message by assuming that not everything was right in the temple; hence if not so the temple would not have been destroyed. By using the Sander arguments, Cecilia found that there was no evidence of this kind of expectation in Jesus’s teachings and that no assessment is done against priesthood and the temple critics. Cecilia realized the future of talking about prospect destruction of the temple in an apocalyptic dissertation, which began notably when Jesus’ phraseology of the retreat that occurred in the temple building. Cecilia mentioned the expression of the desolating irreverence as its signs could be seen through apparent originality from the early churches. According to Cecilia, a common argument against the genuineness that no similar traditions certified to Jesus elsewhere, which therefore leads to doubts of whether the history of Jesus made any forecast on the synoptic traditions that could make a cold basement to doubt about the past. However, later Cecilia found reasons why Jesus could have said like that since the entire plausible connection of the destruction predictions on the temple and the inspiration of Jesus on prophecies that were made before His existence.

In conclusion, to comprehend Jesus’s activities in the temple, one should take a frequent study to turn Jewish text in understanding period times that include the Dead Sea Scrolls. This is because these texts are used to dissimilarity the explanations of all events with a clarification that offers scrutiny of crucial documents on the Jerusalem temple in the Scroll. Jesus’s activities depict a negative insolence towards the operation of the temple and some of the denominational writings from the Qumran distribution of expectations under the defiled temple on end times. Hence, the apocalyptic expectancy that the sanctuary should be converted to besmirched Asheton due to reinterpretation of later generations on issues regarding their own time. The apocalyptic standpoint, there is no regard for how temple celebrants participate in their occupational since they were bond to be condemned by Jesus and Qumran, where the last age had arrived (Wassen, 2016).[5] Generally, in a massive blow of Jesus’s interpretations on the sanctuary are the remnants of the Qumran arrangements, whereby the sectarian Qumran of Jesus was a perceived sanctuary sullied and prospects of the new perfect temple being initiated and priest being condemned with the letdown of their conduct.

[1] This abstract is based on the one found at ATLA, The Use of the Dead Sea Scrolls for Interpreting Jesus’s Action in the Temple, Therefore, this is an overview of the relevance of the Death Sea Scrolls for the study of the past of Jesus’s actions and expectations that temple would become deviled at apocalypse. Evans, C. A., & Flint, P. W. (Eds.). (1997). Eschatology, Messianism, and the Dead Sea Scrolls (Vol. 1). Wm. B. Eerdmans Publishing.[1]

[2] Derivation of the four aspects of canonical gospels that document the violent act of Jesus in the temple. Wassen, C. (2016). The Use of the Dead Sea Scrolls for Interpreting Jesus’s Action in the Temple. Dead Sea Discoveries, 23(3), 280-303.

[3] Sauf mentioned a notice otherwise stated the content of this bibliographic record may be used under investigations of the history of Jesus based on Darell Bock and Robert Webb’s claims, Bock, D. L. (1994). Current messianic activity and of Davidic promise: dispensationalism, hermeneutics, and NT fulfillment. Trinity Journal, 15(1), 55-87.

[4] This held the facts of priests in the renewal of temple in with future defilement of the temple of specific term due to the previous connection of destruction. Wassen, C. (2016). The Use of the Dead Sea Scrolls for Interpreting Jesus’s Action in the Temple. Dead Sea Discoveries, 23(3), 280-303.

[5] The apocalyptic sense on the temple to become defiled Asheton with no regard on how temple priests ran them as they bond to criticize Jesus and Qumran anticipations. Wassen, C. (2016). The Use of the Dead Sea Scrolls for Interpreting Jesus’s Action in the Temple. Dead Sea Discoveries, 23(3), 280-303.