1
Introduction
The narrative flow of Jesus’ Passion account in Matthew 27 shifts abruptly when Jesus ‘gave up his spirit’ (27:50). Up to this point, the reader follows Jesus as he is interrogated by Pilate in Jerusalem (27:11–26), taken to the Praetorium to be beaten and mocked (27:27–31a) and led away to Golgotha for crucifixion (27:31b–44). The narrative continues by recounting the darkness (27:45), Jesus’ recitation of a portion of Psalm 22 (27:46) and the responses of ‘those standing there’ (27:47–49). Then the narrative presents Jesus crying out in a loud voice and giving up his spirit (27:50). At this point in the account the reader is propelled from the narrative sequence and scene at Golgotha into a meta-narrative (vv 51–53) in which, among other events, the veil of the temple is torn in two. What is remarkable is that although each Synoptic Evangelist records this event, none of them stops to explain it.1 The lack of explanation on the part of the Evangelists, it seems, has contributed to the great variety of interpretations of this event offered throughout the history of Christendom. Scholars both ancient and modern have addressed the enigmas raised by this text from a variety of methodological perspectives with discouragingly differing, often contradictory conclusions. Some scholars have lamented that the meaning of the rent veil in Matthew will probably never be discerned with any degree of certainty.2 While the present volume is by no means the final word on this complicated text, I contend that the history of the interpretation of the rending of the veil (velum scissum) provides significant data from which we can glean sound methods towards modest progress in moving the discussion of the rent veil forward. Therefore each method will be categorised, documented and analysed for its effectiveness in bringing together relevant data for a coherent interpretation of the rending of the veil in Matthew 27:51a.
1 The State of the Discussion
Discussion of the rending of the temple veil begins with Ephraem the Syrian,3 who represents an early trend in scholarship that endures to the present day. In his Commentary on Tatian’s Diatessaron (written c. 363–373), he illustrates the ambiguity of this event by providing a variety of interpretations.4 He begins by commenting that the rending shows ‘that [the Lord] had taken the kingdom away [from the Jews?] and had given it to others who would bear fruit’.5 He then provides a diverse and lengthy list of ‘alternative’ interpretations, including the destruction of the temple because God’s Spirit had departed from it, the Spirit’s rending the veil in mourning as the high priest tore his robe during the wrongful accusations against Jesus and God’s throwing down the curtain of the temple as Judas threw down the gold he received for his betrayal, to mention only a few.6 Indeed, throughout his commentary Ephraem moves ‘freely from one interpretation to another . . . without really choosing one of them’.7 As we shall see, prior to Ephraem and since, scholars have been occupied with interpreting the rending of the veil, regardless of its synoptic context, by a variety of means which often relate to which veil (inner, outer, both or neither) is in view and what the implications of its rending are for the then-present (Herodian) temple. This variety, surveyed below,8 includes arguing for a particular view based on lexical discussions of the use of καταπέτασμα, the necessity of the veil’s being visible to the centurion who subsequently (especially in Mark) professes his faith or an apologetic interpretation. Other arguments are Christological in orientation and based largely on the relationship between Jesus’ death and the three veil texts in Hebrews. A final group of miscellaneous interpretations are largely historical in nature and seem to fit into none of the other categories. A few scholars have proposed a single rationale for their interpretation but most prefer to employ a variety of overlapping bases for their conclusions. Therefore the survey provided below does not intend to account for the extremely complicated mixture of methods and resulting interpretations employed throughout Christendom, but rather serves to illustrate both the complexity of the issues involved and the lack of substantial agreement among scholars evaluating precisely the same evidence. We will see that use of familiar methods that are to date inadequately applied to this issue is in order.
1.1 The Lexical Argument
The most obvious, although least fruitful, argument on which an interpretation is based is lexical in orientation. The text of Matthew 27:51a reads, ‘καὶ ἰδοὺ τὸ καταπέτασμα τοῦ ναοῦ ἐσ□ίσθη ἀπ ἄνωθεν ἕως κάτω εἰς δύο’.9 The question is, to which (if any) of the two (or more) ‘veils’ described first in Exod. 26:4–33 that Matthew presumably alludes to does his use of τὸ καταπέτασμα refer? Whereas most scholars draw attention to the ambiguity of the lexical evidence,10 a handful of scholars have based a significant portion of their interpretation of the rending of the veil upon the lexical evidence of καταπέτασμα.
Some have speculated that the ‘specification of “the” curtain (27:51) strongly favors the inner curtain’.11 Others have argued that in the ⅬⅩⅩ, καταπέτασμα is the preferred term for the inner veil, whereas ἐπίσπαστρον12 or κάλυμμα13 refers to the outer.14 Similarly scholars have looked to extracanonical sources (esp. Philo, Moses 2.101,15 and Josephus16) that allegedly make such a lexical distinction to insist that the inner veil in front of the holy of holies is in view for the Evangelists.17 While those who argue from a lexical standpoint are unanimously in favour of the inner veil, their subsequent interpretations are less consistent. W. Grundmann interprets the rending of the veil as among other ‘kosmisch-apokalyptisch’ events at Jesus’ death, which is a ‘Hinweis auf die Heilsvollmacht Jesu: Er eröffnet den Zugang zu Gott’.18 Similarly, C. F. Keil takes his lexical conclusions to the only other New Testament references to the καταπέτασμα (Heb. 6:19, 9:3, 10:20) and insists that ‘Das Zerreißen des Vorhangs beim Tode des Herrn bezeichnet also diesen Tod als das Mittel der Versöhnung der Menschen mit Gott’, thus allowing access to God himself. The temple and the temple-cult are therefore no longer necessary.19 F. Bleek claims that by means of the rending of the καταπέτασμα, ‘der Blick und Zutritt in das Allerheiligste eröffnet’.20 He concludes that the Evangelists record a ‘poëtische Darstellung’ with ‘symbolischer Bedeutung’, namely that Jesus’ death provides redemption, by means of which believers enter into the holy of holies.21
How scholars arrive at such interpretations solely on the basis of a dubious evaluation of lexical evidence is often not clarified and is typically devoid of any discussion of the Matthean context.22 C. E. B. Cranfield, to name but one such scholar, is tentative in his identification of the veil because of the lexical inconclusiveness of καταπέτασμα in the ⅬⅩⅩ.23 Even C. Schneider in his lexical work exclusively on καταπέτασμα favours the inner veil for its ‘cultic significance’ rather than lexical evidence.24 It was ‘the most important curtain of the temple’.25 Although careful consideration of lexical issues pertaining to the veil will be thoroughly explored in Chapter 2 of this work, most scholars suggest that there is insufficient consistent use of the term καταπέτασμα in canonical texts to determine with certainty which veil is being referred to, let alone to base an interpretation solely upon this term, and it is therefore rightly given proportional weight in the overall arguments. The lexical identity of the καταπέτασμα must then be considered with other factors.
1.2 The Visibility Argument
Another way to interpret the rending of the veil is by the centurion’s apparent response to it. All three synoptic references to the event (Matt. 27:51; Mark 15:38; Luke 23:45) place the centurion’s confession ‘ἀληθῶς θεοῦ υἱὸς ἦν οὗτος’ (Matt. 27:54; Mark 15:39; Luke 23:47)26 after the rending of the veil. Origen (c. 185–254; Comm. Matt. 140), although focusing on the response of fear, follows the text closely and literally to suggest ‘the centurion and those with him saw how the veil of the Temple was rent from top to bottom’.27 Scholars, then, see the centurion’s remark as a response to the rending of the veil, which is among τὰ γενόμενα he beheld.28 This view argues that the (Gentile) centurion would be permitted to see only the outer veil. Moreover, in order to be seen from Golgotha the veil must have been quite tall. Josephus describes the outer veil as being 55 cubits high (J.W. 5.5.4 §§211–12), which not only would allow the centurion to see the veil from that distance but also would conceal the inner veil from his view.
The strongest and most thorough modern proponent of this view, H. M. Jackson, argues that owing to its size29 and its ‘hanging where and how it did’ (J.W. 5.5.4 §§207–9) the veil ‘must have been capable of being seen from a great distance’.30 In a detailed topographical discussion on the subject, he argues that Golgotha was on the Mount of Olives, ‘for it is the only place of sufficient elevation outside the walls of the city from which the outer curtain of the Temple, facing east, could be clearly seen, away across the Wadi Kidron’.31 Jesus’ death being a very visual event,32 the rending of the veil must also have been a visual phenomenon to which, it is argued, the profession of faith by the centurion bears witness. As were the other ‘signs associated with Jesus’ death’, the rending of the veil is likely to have been ‘public’.33 Moreover, if the inner veil were in mind, only the Jewish priests would have witnessed the rending, and they certainly would not have publicised this event!34
As with the lexical arguments, interpretations based on visibility are quite diverse. Origen proposes, among other things, ‘a moral interpretation’ which brings one to the ‘fear of God’ that will ‘bear witness that He who has suffered these things is the Son of God’.35 T. E. Schmidt suggests that the ‘rending may foreshadow God’s judgment on the Temple; but, at a deeper level, it signifies the departure of God’s Spirit from the Jews’.36 D. Bock concludes, however, that whichever veil is in mind, ‘it suggests an opening up of access to God’.37 Marshall sees the outer veil’s being in view for Luke, while for Mark it may represent ‘the new way into the presence of God opened up by Jesus’.38 Seeming to merge two interpretations, McNeile uses the rending of the veil to somehow associate the ‘Lord’s Death, the fall of Jerusalem,39 and the End of the Age’, concluding that ‘the rending of the veil was a warning sign (cf. Clem. Recogn. 1.41, “lamentans excidium loco imminens”)’ in addition to being a sign of mourning.40
The fundamental difficulty with the visibility argument, as with many attempts to press the historical details, is that it does not seem to acknowledge the distinctly apocalyptic language in which the evangelist places this event. Surely Matthew, whose distinct voice is not acknowledged here, places the velum scissum between the death of Christ and the explicitly apocalyptic ‘events’ of the splitting of rocks, opening of tombs, and raising of the holy ones,41 intending the rending of the veil in some way to relate to this motif. The visibility arguments place the event in a purely historical narrative context and make no provision for Matthew’s apocalyptic milieu. Indeed, L. Sabourin rightly comments ‘the interpretation of history lies in the center of apocalyptic thought’.42
1.3 The Apologetic Arguments
Scholars from the third century on have suggested a variety of what can be broadly called ‘apologetic’ interpretations of the velum scissum. They have often taken careful note of Jesus’ prediction of the destruction of the temple (Matt. 23:38) and, seeing the rending of the veil as a symbol of temple destruction, have interpreted the event as a means of vindicating, or fulfilling, Jesus’ prediction. Similarly, other scholars have suggested that the rending of the veil is simply an act of vengeance on the part of God for the unjust execution of his son. Still others have taken a slightly different approach to the ‘apologetic’ concept and suggested that the velum scissum is a sort of ‘authentication’, a divine ‘sign’ affirming that although Jesus was crucified as a felon, God is ‘speaking’ through the rending of the veil to affirm that Jesus is in fact who he claimed to be, God’s (divine) Son. In addition to affirming the divinity of Christ, other scholars use the velum scissum to argue for his humanity and for the historical reality of the sufferings he endured on the cross.
In Matthew 23:38, Jesus is recorded as saying ‘ἰδοὺ ἀφίεται ὑμῖν ὁ οἶκος ὑμῶν ἒρημος’,43 a saying which many ancient and modern scholars intuitively associate with the velum scissum.44 This interpretation comes in a variety of combinations normally associated with the destruction of the Jerusalem temple in 70 C.E., including pure vindication of prophecies whether they are Old Testament prophecies45 or Jesus’ prediction in 23:38 and elsewhere46; a combination of this vindication with judgment/ retaliation on the part of God47; or simply pure judgment in response to the execution of God’s Son.48
These often complicated and overlapping views have recently been summarised by Davies and Allison, who for a variety of such reasons prefer to relate the tearing of the veil to the destruction of the temple in 70 C.E.49 In addition to Matt. 23:38, they look to Matt. 27:40, where passers-by speak of Jesus’ alleged claim that he would destroy the temple and rebuild it in three days. They conclude that ‘it is most appropriate that, immediately after people mock Jesus for his prophecy about the temple (v. 40), his words should be vindicated’.50
Although many in this category see the velum scissum as a sign of judgment in some sense, ancient scholars particularly specify the means by which the veil was rent. Some have apparently drawn from a tradition not unlike that of Tacitus (Hist. 5.13), who records reports that during the 70 C.E. siege of Jerusalem, ‘the doors of the shrine (temple) opened and a superhuman voice cried: “The gods are departing”: at the same moment a mighty stir of their going was heard’.51 Some have understood the association of this tradition with the rending of the veil as depicting abandonment. It normally involves an angel abandoning its role of protecting Israel.52 Others have stated that what has departed from the temple, again in judgment, is either the Holy Spirit or even God himself.53
In a classic ‘apologetic’ sense, some, especially ancient scholars, have proposed that the velum scissum, being a miraculous event of divine origin, is therefore a witness or declaration of the divinity of Christ,54 which is itself sufficient grounds for faith.55 It is also cited as historical evidence for the reality of Christ’s crucifixion.56 Interpretations of these arguments are too diverse to discuss in full here, and some of them, as is often the case with discussions of the velum scissum, are mere interpretations, with less apparent methodological rationale than many modern scholars would find adequate. Moreover, they rarely give careful attention to each of the respective synoptic contexts, and none do so for Matthew. According to Ephraem the Syrian, the veil was among the innocent sufferers for the sins of humanity.57 Cyril of Alexandria declares that the rending of the veil marks the advent of the ‘great day of the Lord’ from Joel 2:30–31.58 Eusebius represents the rending of the veil as the stripping away of the old covenant (ἡ κατὰ Μωσέα παλαιὰ διαθήκή περιῃρητο).59 Tertullian argues that the velum scissum demonstrates that it is Christ who is the ‘true temple’.60 Melito of Sardis sees the rending of the veil as a sign of mourning.61 For R. Brown, the ‘sanctuary as such went out of existence; the building that continued to stand there was not a holy place’.62 Others interpret the velum scissum as a sign that the temple was handed over to the Gentiles.63