Wednesday, January 28, 2015

Jesus’ Miracles in Mark and God’s Compassion and Comfort


In a previous post, I discussed how Jesus’ miracles in the Gospel of Mark function to demonstrate God’s numinous presence, as people who witnessed his miracles act in awe, wonder, and fear. These reactions demonstrate Mark’s presentation of Jesus as the one sent by God to act for God. If we look further at Jesus’ miracles in Mark, we also see that they function to bring God’s compassion and comfort to those Jesus heals. In this way, Mark presents Jesus as taking on the role of God.

At various points in the narrative the Markan Jesus is said to have compassion on the plight of people in need, or is asked by those in need to have compassion (1:41; 6:34; 8:2; 9:22). This compassion compels him to act to alleviate their situations. Yet we need not limit our recognition of this fact only to the use of the Greek word splagchnizomai translated as compassion. This is particularly true if we understand Mark’s narrative in light of Isaiah. 

Mark 1:2-3 comprises a mixture of quotations from the Old Testament, which are attributed by the author to Isaiah, but come from Exodus 23:20, Malachi 3:1, and Isaiah 40:3. Why does Mark attribute all of these to Isaiah? Some Markan scholars have argued that Mark’s attribution of the conflation of Old Testament texts in 1:2-3 to Isaiah the prophet might show the author’s intention of narrating his story in light of the New Exodus motif of Isaiah. 

By doing this, Mark sets his story within the framework of the New Exodus theme of Yahweh’s hope and victory found in Isaiah 40-55. Part of this hope and victory comes in the comforting of God’s people. 

Indeed the first verse of Isaiah 40 reads, “Comfort (parakaleite), O comfort my people, says your God.” This is a command that God’s people be comforted. Moreover, Isaiah 40:1-11 seems to serve as somewhat of an opening for Isaiah 40-66, in which the theme of God’s consolation and comfort are found throughout. Isaiah 40:1-11 is an expression of the hope of God’s comfort and salvation.

Given this understanding of Isaiah 40, and its use in Mark to set the tone of his Gospel as narrating the eschatological victory of God in bringing salvation, I would propose that the miracles performed by Jesus in Mark’s narrative may be viewed within the framework of God’s promised comfort for God’s people. Jesus acts for God in answering God’s call to bring comfort. This point is strengthened when we consider two other significant factors. 

First, since Jesus is presented in 1:14-15 as the one who proclaims the gospel of God, we might interpret his miracles as actions which visibly proclaim that gospel; the miracles function as acted parables. Again, we can hear the echo of Isaiah 40:9. There the herald of good tidings, the one who brings good news, is commanded to proclaim, “See your God.” 

In the prologue to the Gospel, Mark portrays the in-breaking of God into the narrative through the tearing of the heavens and the coming of the Spirit (1:10), and through the way Jesus is presented as the one who proclaims that the dynamic rule of God is at hand, and he calls on all to believe in the gospel of God (1:14-15). Against the background of Isaiah 40, then, Jesus is the one who not only proclaims the coming of God, but also acts for God in the bringing of comfort to God’s people.

Further substantiating this idea is the recognition that in Isaiah 40:11 God speaks of coming to God’s people as a shepherd to feed them. This may shed light on Jesus’ feeding miracles in 6:34-44 and 8:1-10. In both scenes Jesus is said to have compassion (6:34; 8:2) on the crowd, and in 6:34 his compassion is because they are as sheep without a shepherd to feed them. Thus in the miracle of feeding the people, Jesus takes on the role of God as shepherd of the people, bringing comfort to God’s people. 

Jesus’ miracles serve to demonstrate that God was fulfilling God’s promise of comfort for hurting people. Thus, Jesus’ acts of compassion are within the context of God’s promises to bring compassion. 

How are we following Jesus by bringing God’s comfort and compassion to the hurting in our world?

Friday, January 23, 2015

Reclaiming the Churh's Mission (2)


Here's another excerpt from my book, Reframing a Relevant Faith. This portion is part of the chapter on the church. You can purchase the book from the publisher at http://direct.energion.co/reframing-a-relevant-faith or through Amazon at http://www.amazon.com/Reframing-Relevant-Faith-Drew-Smith/dp/1631991213/ref=sr_1_1?s=books&ie=UTF8&qid=1418159944&sr=1-1&keywords=reframing+a+relevant+faith. A Kindle version is also available at http://www.amazon.com/s/ref=nb_sb_noss?url=search-alias%3Dstripbooks&field-keywords=reframing%20a%20relevant%20faith%20kindle.

Following the Crucified Jesus

One of the dominant themes in the Gospel of Mark is the journey that Jesus and his disciples travel. Often, this wandering band is pictured on the road moving toward, as we discover through reading the story, Jerusalem, the holy city of David. As the narrative of Mark moves forward, however, Jerusalem begins to come into clear view, and Jesus begins to point this out to them.

Most likely those who followed Jesus knew they were headed to Jerusalem; what faithful Jew would not know the direction to Jerusalem? So Jesus’ acknowledgement that they are headed to Jerusalem seems out of place, unless the mention of the direction in which they are headed is intended to mean something. Why does Jesus state specifically that they are headed for Jerusalem? For what purpose did the disciples think they were headed for Jerusalem? Did their understanding of trip to Jerusalem match that of Jesus?

Perhaps they thought that when they reached Jerusalem, Jesus would take his rightful place as King of Israel and overthrow the Romans. Perhaps they followed Jesus, hoping that they would be participants in this rule of Jesus in David’s city. Most likely they believed that Jesus’ purpose in continuing on the road to Jerusalem was so that he would be made king and, consequently, they would share in that kingly power.

This expectation is seen most clearly in the request two of Jesus’ disciples make as their band moves even closer to Jerusalem. The brothers, James and John, come to Jesus with the bold request, “Grant us to sit, one at your right and one at your left, in your glory” (Mark 10:37). These disciples seem to understand that following Jesus leads to glory, but they fail to understand that there is no glory apart from the cross that looms in Jerusalem. In Mark’s story, Jesus had spoken to them two other times before this exchange about what would happen in Jerusalem; he would be arrested, beaten and killed. But somehow they failed to hear, or perhaps, refused to hear his words. Instead they continued to see the movement toward Jerusalem as a move toward power and glory and not one that would lead to suffering and death.

The specifics of the request made by the brothers should not be missed. James and John were seeking seats of authority by requesting places on the right and left of Jesus. Jesus affirms that there are such seats, but that they are reserved for whom they have been prepared by God. But the only other place in Mark where people are said to be on the right and left of Jesus is in the crucifixion scene of 15:32-52, where someone is crucified on his right and someone else is crucified on his left. Moreover, just before we read of these two other crucified victims on either side of Jesus, we are told of the inscription that read, “King of the Jews.”

What all of this says to us is that the kingly glory of Jesus in Mark’s narrative is found in his death on the cross, and those who are at the right and left of Jesus in glory are those who take their places on the right and left of Jesus in crucifixion. For Jesus, glory comes not in the heavens, but in the cross.

This overturns our own ideas of greatness and power. Greatness does not come in worldly thrones, but in the throne of a cross. Power does not come by ruling over people, but by serving others. In opposition to the disciples, Jesus was living out true greatness and power by going down the road to Jerusalem that led to the cross.

When I was getting ready to preach one Sunday morning, I sat on one of the front pews in the church. At the end of the pew there was a stack of music books. As we stood to sing, I happened to glance at the title of the books, which read, “Easy Gospel Arrangements.” We often are like James and John in that we want easy gospel arrangements. Certainly the gospel is freely offered to all, but it is not cheap in its demands. The real gospel of the real Jesus calls us to give up ourselves in self-sacrificial service to God and others by taking up the cross and following Jesus. Only in doing this can we reclaim the church’s place and mission.

Tuesday, January 13, 2015

Reclaiming the Church's Mission

Here's another excerpt from my book, Reframing a Relevant Faith. This portion is part of the chapter on the church. You can purchase the book from the publisher at http://direct.energion.co/reframing-a-relevant-faith or through Amazon at http://www.amazon.com/Reframing-Relevant-Faith-Drew-Smith/dp/1631991213/ref=sr_1_1?s=books&ie=UTF8&qid=1418159944&sr=1-1&keywords=reframing+a+relevant+faith. A Kindle version is also available at http://www.amazon.com/s/ref=nb_sb_noss?url=search-alias%3Dstripbooks&field-keywords=reframing%20a%20relevant%20faith%20kindle.



I live in that region of the United States that has been dubbed the Bible belt; that southern part of the country where religion is as American as apple pie or as southern as fried chicken.  Indeed, I live in a very religious community where there are a plethora of churches, prayers before meals even at non-religious settings, and where you can even go into a local fast food restaurant where they have Bible verses on their receipts, and every to-go bag gets a pamphlet on how to avoid hell and get into heaven. 

In the county in which I live, there are over 100 churches of various denominations and various sizes.  Although all of them are part of the wider Christian tradition, which is unfortunate for it makes us somewhat monolithic in our religious understanding, this variety of places of Christian worship offers the seeker a selection of Christian theological beliefs, church polity, types of worship, and choices of dress.  You really can’t go wrong in finding a house of worship that fits what you want, unless of course you are not Christian. I know there are towns like this all over America.
         
Yet, despite the plethora of houses of worship in towns across this country, it seems to be that the church is becoming less relevant to the lives of people both within and outside the church.  While many stay away from church for various reasons, many do cite the fact that the church is out of touch with their needs, that the church is too dogmatic and strict in its beliefs, and that for the most part it has sided with a particular political agenda.  It is probably accurate to say that many folks stay away from church because they just don’t find it worthwhile, and thus they do find excuses to stay away.  But the fact of the matter is that these accusations against the church, as well as plenty of others, are often valid.

Moreover, among the folks who faithfully attend church Sunday after Sunday hoping to hear a word from God, are those who leave the place of worship with a great measure of dissatisfaction.  Part of this dissatisfaction has to do with the person who comes to worship, whose life is filled with distractions that draw their attention and energy from focusing on God in worship.  But much of this disappointment happens because the church has waned in its relevancy to touch people’s lives and to translate the gospel for the needs of today’s world.  It is these people that find the church very ineffectual in its proclamation, hiding behind a spiritualism that is based on worship as entertainment and preaching as superficial.  At church we are encouraged to allow our emotions to soak in the shallow songs that appear on the screen and the sermons that reinforce our beliefs, but we become uncomfortable when these challenge our status quo existence as people who choose comfort over vulnerability and prosperity over sacrifice. 

But more tragically, we are discouraged from asking serious questions about faith and about the issues we face in our world, or we are given pat answers to these questions.  In fact, we are encouraged to shut down our minds in church, which leads me to believe that church can often be one of the most intellectually dishonest institutions we can find.  As I noted in the previous chapter, church is, as one of my kids said, “The place where you can get an easy “A”.

We cannot equate relevancy with emotional manipulation and easy “A” theology.  Folks don’t want to come to church to have their emotions manipulated or to hear rehearsed answers to their questions.  People who come to church come there to find meaning for their lives and relationships that are welcoming and embracing, not condescending.  And while many churches may claim to be welcoming, the reality is that they are not welcoming those they judge as sinful. 

Furthermore, people who come to church don’t seek sermons that are mundane repetitions of outdated theology or unsophisticated platitudes.  They want to be challenged by the gospel and how to follow Jesus in faithful discipleship.  They want to deal honestly with deep questions about God, humanity, and the issues we face in our world.  They want to hear that the gospel can change the world, but not simply through getting people saved, which is far removed from the central message of Jesus.  People want to hear, indeed they need to hear, that Jesus’ message is not about heaven or hell, but about living justly and faithfully here in this life.

That being said, there is no doubt that there are faithful and relevant churches all across this nation and this world.  Faithfulness and relevance, however, cannot be equated with size.  How many members a church has or how many baptisms a church performs is not the measure of faithfulness.  In fact, there are many small churches that are probably more faithful to the call of Jesus than those mega-churches who have gone into tremendous debt to build elaborate places of worship and family life centers, but only present a false sense of relevancy.

Is it possible to reframe our understanding of Christian community that is more faithful to the Jesus of the Gospels? I am hopeful that it is. But any move in this direction must call for deep soul searching that deals seriously with the mission to which Jesus called his followers.

Friday, January 9, 2015

Reclaiming Jesus (2)


Here's another excerpt from my book, Reframing a Relevant Faith. This portion is another part of the chapter on Jesus. You can purchase the book from the publisher at http://direct.energion.co/reframing-a-relevant-faith or through Amazon at http://www.amazon.com/Reframing-Relevant-Faith-Drew-Smith/dp/1631991213/ref=sr_1_1?s=books&ie=UTF8&qid=1418159944&sr=1-1&keywords=reframing+a+relevant+faith. A Kindle version is also available at http://www.amazon.com/s/ref=nb_sb_noss?url=search-alias%3Dstripbooks&field-keywords=reframing%20a%20relevant%20faith%20kindle.
  
I recall growing up in church and always seeing various portraits of Jesus hanging on the walls.  As a child, I assumed that Jesus was a white man with flowing locks of hair, who always wore a white robe and always had a look of calm on his face.  More often than not, Jesus would be pictured with little children and young animals around him in a representation of peace and tranquility.  A confrontational Jesus would never have crossed my mind.
           
But over the years that I have spent reading the Gospels, I have come to the conclusion that Jesus was a confrontational person, who was vastly concerned with the social injustices of his day.  Jesus was not simply a teacher of spirituality as we like to make him out to be.  Nor was he some divine figure who went about Galilee healing people.  He was certainly both of these, but Jesus was also a political figure, whose words and deeds challenged the unjust political powers of his time.
           
This is not to suggest that Jesus was a politician in the way we think about politics today, nor is it to suggest that Jesus advocated a religious form of government.  Such already existed in the ancient world as no known civilization existed apart from religion having an indivisible relationship with the state.  Nor should we think of Jesus as seeking to involve himself in any political power system, whether the secular power of Rome or the religious power of the temple leadership.   Indeed, we know very well that Jesus worked outside and in opposition to the standing power of both Roman authorities and the religious leadership of Jerusalem.
           
What I mean by saying that Jesus was a political figure is that his message and his mission confronted the social structures of his day with the politics of God.  In other words, when we talk about Jesus, we need to take very seriously that Jesus’ message was fraught with challenges to the politics of his day; his was a subversive politics.  While eventually crucified in an act of cooperation between the two power centers he confronted, Jesus’ teachings were not primarily about sin and salvation, heaven and hell.  His central message was a new politic, a new way of existing in human society. His politics were the politics of compassion and justice, and central to his political message was his belief and his proclamation that God’s kingdom was coming into the world; a kingdom that was a subversive revolutionary resistance to the Roman Empire and the religious ruling elite of Judaism.
           
Thus, instead of seeking worldly political power through violence, domination, and oppression, which Jesus and others witnessed first- hand from the Roman Imperial power, and instead of acquiescing with the practice of violence, domination, and oppression as the religious leaders of Israel did as a way of satisfying Rome enough to keep their places of religious power,  Jesus called for a new politic, one that was shaped by the character and presence of God’s rule and one that was manifested in the radical living of his disciples.[1]
           
While most scholars do agree that the central theme of Jesus’ teaching was the rule of God, there is much disagreement about what Jesus meant by this term.  Again, the scholarly debates on this issue are too complex for my purposes here.  But, before we seek an answer to the question about what Jesus meant by the phrase “kingdom of God”, it might be helpful first to dismiss assumptions we might have about the character of God’s kingdom. In other words, these are the understandings we commonly have about the kingdom that are uninformed and incorrect.
           
First, the kingdom of God is not primarily a spiritual realm. It is spiritual in that it comes from God, but it is not heaven, as we might often think, and getting to some place called heaven is not the purpose of following Christ.  Second, the kingdom of God is not primarily about personal spirituality. God’s coming kingdom does transform us personally and in our Christian living we live as individuals who are in a personal relationship to God, but the kingdom of God cannot be reduced merely to personal spirituality.
           
What we need to understand about the meaning of the phrase, as Jesus used it, is that the term itself is politically charged. Jesus did not randomly pick this metaphor; he chose it as a challenge to the Roman imperial power that carried out injustice. He viewed the rule of God as coming into the word as the dynamic presence of God’s love, compassion and justice.  In calling people to enter the kingdom of God and follow him, Jesus was calling people to join an alternative empire, the Empire of God, over which God ruled and in which there was an alternative way of living in community with others.
           
What Jesus was doing through his ministry was calling people out of an existence that focused on the power of this world into a community over which God ruled as king.  And he was calling them to offer their allegiance to God and not Caesar.  This was the significance of confessing Jesus as Lord in the Roman Empire. Such a confession in the Roman world signified that one was no longer giving loyalty to Caesar or to the Roman system of domination, oppression, violence, and injustice. Confession of Jesus as Lord was not just a conversion experience in the way that we think of today as an individualized spiritual transformation; it was much more. Confessing Jesus as Lord was a transformation of the person from allegiance to one way living to another way of living.  It was an act of insubordination against the so-called supremacy of the world’s strongest power and an embrace of the call of Jesus to take up the cross and follow him. Joining the Jesus movement meant standing in opposition to worldly powers that carried out oppression, violence, and injustice.
           
Yet, the alternative kingdom Jesus was ushering into the world could not, in reality, face up to the power of Rome. Jesus and his followers were never significant challengers of Rome’s military power, and Christians in the empire remained outsiders for centuries, and were, at various points, persecuted by the Roman authorities. In fact, joining the Jesus movement could quite possibly lead a person to death. From a worldly perspective, then, this Jesus movement, and Jesus’ message about God’s kingdom, would be seen as an inevitable failure. After all, was not the movement’s leader put to death on a Roman cross?  So how does the rule of God, which Jesus proclaimed as near, continue to come into the world, since the bearer of God’s rule was put to death?  God’s kingdom continues to manifest itself in the world through the followers of Jesus who seek a different way of living and relating to others, both neighbors and enemies.



[1]
          The classic text on the politics of Jesus is John Howard Yoder’s The Politics of Jesus.  Various other scholars have approached Jesus as a political figure, including John Dominic Crossan and Marcus Borg.

Monday, January 5, 2015

Reclaiming Jesus

Here's another excerpt from my book, Reframing a Relevant Faith. This portion is part of the chapter on Jesus. You can purchase the book from the publisher at http://direct.energion.co/reframing-a-relevant-faith or through Amazon at http://www.amazon.com/Reframing-Relevant-Faith-Drew-Smith/dp/1631991213/ref=sr_1_1?s=books&ie=UTF8&qid=1418159944&sr=1-1&keywords=reframing+a+relevant+faith. A Kindle version is also available at http://www.amazon.com/s/ref=nb_sb_noss?url=search-alias%3Dstripbooks&field-keywords=reframing%20a%20relevant%20faith%20kindle.
 

From its inception, Christianity has been christocentric, that is, the life, teachings, death and resurrection of Jesus are central to the Christian faith.  Indeed, there is nothing more central to Christianity than how we understand Jesus.  This does not mean that Christians have always had a homogeneous view of Jesus, but in all the various forms of Christianity that have developed since the first century, Jesus has always been the central figure.
         
Yet, Jesus remains a somewhat enigmatic figure, whose life has been written about by thousands of authors, scholars, and lay persons alike.  Moreover, Jesus’ teachings still speak to our modern world and how we live in that world.  This means that each Christian generation must not only reaffirm the centrality of Jesus to the faith, and therefore seek to rediscover Jesus, each must also seek to understand and implement Jesus’ life and teachings in each and every context; a task that is often treated as easy, but when attempted with any seriousness, is very difficult.
         
Who was this Jesus?  What do the Gospels tell us about Jesus?  Does Jesus’ life and words have meaning for us, and if so, how do we appropriate them for our own living as his followers in the contemporary world?  These are the questions we must address if Jesus is to remain the central figure of Christian faith.

One significant point that must be made from the outset is that Jesus was a first century Jew.  While most today know this to be true, an appreciation of the influence of Judaism on the life and mission of Jesus has only recently become important.  Many Christians might agree that Jesus was Jewish, but they may see Jesus’ Jewish faith and identity only as a precursor to his founding of the Christian faith.  Indeed, in my years of teaching, I have often asked this question on an exam: “What religious faith was Jesus?”  The majority of students answer that Jesus was Christian.  But Jesus was thoroughly Jewish and remained so throughout his life.  Jesus never was what we consider to be Christian.
         
Yet, when we say that Jesus was a Jew, we must be careful to point out that this does not assume that Judaism was homogeneous in the first century.  Much like Judaism today, and Christianity for that matter, first century Judaism was eclectic.  While scholars have recognized the importance of the four dominant sects within Second Temple Judaism, the Pharisees, the Sadducees, the Essenes, and the Zealots, the largest population within Judaism, and the one Jesus was from, was the common Jews, the am haaretz, the people of the land. 
         
The Gospels clearly indicate that Jesus was not from one of the ruling groups of Judaism, the Pharisees or Sadducees.  While it is possible that the Essenes, that sectarian community believed to be responsible for the Dead Sea Scrolls, had an influence on John the Baptist, who then influenced Jesus, there is no convincing evidence that Jesus was associated with the Essenes.  And, it is highly unlikely that Jesus was a Zealot, for his teachings on peace and non-violence is not parallel to their ideas about revolution.  Jesus was born into poverty and remained a member of the common class of Jews living in the volatile world of first century Palestine. 
         
As a Jew, however, Jesus held in common with other Jews that the God of Israel, who had been revealed through creation and covenant, was the supreme God who had chosen Israel and had redeemed them out of Egypt.  Jesus, like many of the Jews of his day, was looking for God’s new redemption of Israel from the chains of their oppressors.  He was looking for a New Exodus, not from the enemies in Egypt, but from the power of Rome.  He accepted the traditions passed down through Israel’s history that God had set Israel apart as God’s people and had made a covenant with them to be their God.  He also believed that Israel had lost her way, as all the prophets testified, and that Israel’s current plight would only be ended by an act of God.  So, at one level Jesus’ consciousness of God was influenced by tradition.

Yet, we also must consider that Jesus’ awareness of God was also greatly informed by his own experience of God.  Indeed, though he, like many Jews of his day, believed God was going to redeem Israel from Roman oppression, he took on this vocation as his very own mission.  While we can point to various events in the life of Jesus that shaped his experience and understanding of God, as well as his own understanding of himself, including his upbringing under the weight of poverty and injustice and his constant encounter with the suffering of his own people, the Gospels suggest that one specific event seems to have played a particular role as the call to mission for Jesus.  In his own baptism, Jesus witnesses the opening of heaven and hears God’s commission for him to live out his identity as God’s chosen son, the one sent to bring judgment on God’s enemies of unjust power and oppression, and restoration to God’s people.  This religious experience perhaps gave affirmation to Jesus as to who he needed to be and what he needed to do.
         
But, in his experience of God, Jesus became cognizant of a God that could not be defined by tradition.  While he accepted the traditional Jewish views of God, monotheism, creation, and covenant, he also gained, in his own experience of God, an alternative to the tradition.  So what did Jesus believe about God? 
         
Foremost in Jesus’ mind was the belief that God was presently acting in the world to bring about something new that would radically shift the Judaism of his day.  Nothing clarifies this more than Jesus’ announcement that the kingdom of God had come.  Later is this chapter, we will turn attention to the concept of God’s kingdom in the teachings of Jesus, but for now I think it very right to assume that Jesus believed that God was not simply the God of Israel’s history who had somehow become distant.  Rather, Jesus’ God was now present in the world, overthrowing the powers of evil and establishing God’s own rule.
         
Jesus believed that God was establishing a new order in the world, one that reversed the oppressive power of injustice and inaugurated a world of compassion, justice, and peace.  In Jesus’ mind, the world had become chaotic, oppressive, and filled with injustice.  But he believed that God was presently restoring order and justice to the creation, and Jesus acted on this understanding of God.  His miracles serve as vivid metaphors of God’s power to release the captives and to overthrow the powers of the world, and his teachings proclaimed a new ethic that would continue to bring order and justice to creation.  In this sense, Jesus lived out his vocation as the envoy of God’s rule.
         
But Jesus also understood and communicated that God was not concerned with the formal religion that was practiced in Israel, apart from the ethical living demanded by God, particularly having love for one’s neighbors and enemies.  While he did not seek to abolish the Law, as he came to fulfill the Law, he did challenge the assumptions others had about the Law, that it was merely the outward pious actions of the religious.  Instead, Jesus declared that God was concerned about the inner being of a person and the motivations of a person’s heart that produced acts of goodness.
         
It seems clear from reading the Gospels that Jesus’ most severe challenge was aimed at the formal religion of his day, and more particularly at the religious elite that controlled religion, when he cleared the temple.  It may not have been the temple itself, or the sacrificial system within its walls that Jesus found troubling, although certainly it very well could have been.  What seems certain, however, was that Jesus was angry at the abuses that resulted from a religion that was more about ritual than about caring for others.  Indeed, many have pointed to the fact that this is the action that got Jesus killed, for he called for the temple to be a house of prayer for all people, opening the doors to those shut out from the worship of God.  In this way, he challenged the religious system of first century Judaism that was structured around purity laws that shut people out from the worship of God, and he viewed the temple as that which symbolized the religious formalism of his day. Indeed, his actions in the temple signify his direct claim to speak and act with the authority of God, challenging those who set themselves up as God’s authorities.