What is the significance of the temple being torn from top to bottom?

Explanation:

Matthew explains that the moment after Jesus gives up his spirit and dies on the cross, the curtain of the temple is torn in two from top to bottom. While Matthew does not explain the significance of the temple curtain being torn in two, we can deduce the significance by comparing Jesus’ statements concerning his death with the purpose of the temple curtain. We know from the Old Testament that God was specially present in the Holy of Holies so that access was limited to the high priests who were only allowed to enter once per year.³ Thus, the curtain that separated the Holy of Holies from the Holy Place and the rest of the temple court signified that God must be separate from sinful humans.

Now consider that Jesus says that he did not come to be served but to serve, by giving up his life as a ransom for many (Matthew 20:28). Also, when Jesus and his disciples partake in the last supper, he explains that his blood is poured out for the new covenant (Matthew 20:28).⁴ So he explains that his death on the cross is meant to establish a new covenant between God and his people.

Putting together the fact that the temple curtain was meant to separate the people from God, and that Jesus death on the cross was to establish a new covenant between God and his people, we can see the significance of the temple curtain tearing. The temple curtain tears when Jesus dies on the cross because Jesus’ death on the cross establishes the new covenant so that the way to God is opened through him.⁵ There is no longer a curtain standing in the way of the Holy of Holies, because anyone can access God through faith in Jesus Christ (2 Corinthians 5:18–20).

Counterargument:

While there is a theoretical connection between the tearing of the temple curtain and the notion that Jesus opens the way to the Father, this interpretation exceeds what is allowed by the context. That is to say, this view takes it that the tearing of the curtain is due to the achievement of Jesus’ death. Unfortunately, the main textual support that links the tearing curtain with the achievement of Jesus’ death is Matthew 27:52–53. There we learn that the tombs of the dead are opened and some of the saints are raised before entering the holy city. That the dead are raised marks the triumph of Jesus’ death. The problem is that Matthew 27:51b stands in the way of Matthew 27:52–53, where we read that there is an earthquake.⁶ That there was an earthquake likely has to do with God’s wrath and should not be read in terms of the achievement of salvation. Thus, taking Matthew 27:51a and Matthew 27:51b together prevents us from the conclusion that the tearing of the temple opens the way to God.

Response to counterargument: The problem with this counterargument is that it works against itself. For if it is the case that Matthew 27:52–53 confirms the achievement of the cross, why not take Matthew 27:51b in a positive light? In other words, if Matthew 27:51a along with Matthew 27:52–53 concerns the achievement of Christ’s work on the cross, then we should interpret the earthquake in light of this achievement. Thus, it likely has less to do with God’s wrath and more to do with Christ’s triumph over darkness. The point here is that this counterargument aims to show that Matthew 27:51a should not be taken in a positive light but makes this case by assuming that Matthew 27:51a should not be taken in a positive light, which is to argue in a circle.

Explanation:

After Jesus dies on the cross the temple curtain is torn in two from top to bottom. While Matthew does not comment on the significance of this event, we can deduce the significance from the author of Hebrews.⁷ In order to establish the significance of Jesus’ death on the cross, the author of Hebrews leans heavily on the imagery of the temple curtain. For example, in Hebrews 6:19–20 the author explains that we have a sure and steadfast hope that enters behind the inner curtain where Jesus has gone before us as a forerunner. Further, in Hebrews 9:12 the author highlights the fact that Jesus entered the Holy Place once for all, making atonement by his own blood. Hebrews 6:19–20 and Hebrews 9:12 suggest an intimate connection between Jesus’ work, the Holy of Holies, and the temple curtain.

Finally, in Hebrews 10:19–20 the author reminds us that we have confidence to enter the sanctuary by the blood of Christ, who opened the way through the curtain by his flesh. In other words, the temple curtain stood in the way so that only the high priest could enter the Holy of Holies, and that only once per year. By his death on the cross, Jesus opened the way through the curtain, a curtain which literally tore in two when Jesus died on the cross.

Counterargument:

No one would deny that Jesus’ death opened the way to the Father. Neither would anyone deny that the author of Hebrews leans on the imagery of the temple curtain to illustrate the significance of Jesus' work. Still, the author of Hebrews never mentions the tearing of the temple curtain. In fact, some scholars believe that the book of Hebrews was written before AD 70⁸ while the gospel of Matthew was written around AD 85.⁹ If these dates are accurate, the author of Hebrews could not be referring to the tearing of the temple curtain mentioned by Matthew.

Response to counterargument:

There are several problems here. First, the point is not that the author of Hebrews points specifically to the tearing of the temple curtain to illustrate Christ’s work. Rather, the point is that there is a strong thematic connection between the temple curtain barring access to God, and Jesus’ death opening access. In fact, the theme is so strong that God tears the curtain from top to bottom when Jesus dies to physically demonstrate what Jesus accomplished. The argument here is that the author of Hebrews supports the strength of the imagery of the temple curtain as it relates to Jesus’ work, not that he refers to the tearing as described by Matthew.

Added to this, even if one did think that the author of Hebrews has in mind the actual tearing of the temple curtain, that the author has in mind the actual tearing of the temple curtain is not ruled out by the publication date of Matthew’s Gospel. For one, the account is also depicted in Mark 15:38 which scholars believe was written between AD 65 and 73.¹⁰ Thus, the author of Hebrews could have the account of Mark in mind. And second, and more importantly, if the author of Hebrews has the tearing of the temple curtain in mind, since he lived during the first century he may know of the event from firsthand testimony. The writer of Hebrews is clearly Jewish, and the Jewish leaders would likely have discussed the tearing of the temple curtain. In any case, the argument does not hinge on the notion that the author of Hebrews has the actual tearing of the temple curtain in mind.

Possible weaknesses:

The potential problem with this view is that Matthew says nothing about the meaning of the tearing of the temple curtain. He simply states the fact that it tore in two. Since this view is not agnostic over what this fact means, in a sense, it is forced to speculate. Still, the speculation is grounded in the function of the temple curtain, so the speculation is grounded in fact.

Explanation:

In Matthew 24:1, Matthew records Jesus leaving the temple when his disciples come to him and point out the buildings of the temple (Matthew 24:1). Jesus acknowledges the buildings and then explains that not one stone will be left upon another that will not be thrown down (Matthew 24:2). In other words, Jesus predicts that the temple will be destroyed. We know from history that in fact, the temple was destroyed in AD 70. Matthew’s readers would have known both that Jesus predicted the temple would be destroyed and that the temple was destroyed. Thus, when they read Matthew, they would conclude that the destruction of the temple began when God tore the curtain from top to bottom at the moment of Jesus’ death.¹¹

Counterargument:

The problem with this argument is that our goal as interpreters is to identify what Matthew means when he explains that the temple curtain was torn, not what his readers would have understood. In other words, it could be that the temple curtain was torn in two because God’s judgment was upon the temple, but one cannot conclude this based on how Matthew’s readers might interpret the text. Rather, one must conclude this from the text itself.

Explanation:

When Matthew writes that the curtain of the temple was torn, he uses the passive form of the verb to split. This is important, because it implies that the curtain was torn by God.¹² It is also important that Matthew points out that the curtain was torn in two, because it demonstrates the fact that the curtain could not be repaired. The curtain did not undergo a small tear that could be repaired, but was irreversibly destroyed by supernatural intervention, highlighting the judgment of God.

Counterargument:

There are two problems with this interpretation worth noting. First, the passive form of to split does not imply that the curtain was torn by God. Rather, it simply means that the curtain did not tear itself but was torn by another. Of course, that the curtain was torn in two by God is not disputed, but the evidence for this comes from the fact that the curtain was torn from top to bottom, not the passive form of to split.

Second, that the temple curtain was irreversibly destroyed by supernatural intervention does not entail God’s judgment. Rather, it could just as likely refer to the fact that the barrier between humans and God has been irreversibly destroyed by Christ’s work on the cross.

Possible weaknesses:

The problem with this view is that while the temple was destroyed in AD 70, there is no indication from text that God would be directly involved in the temple’s destruction. To show that God was involved in the temple’s destruction, one has to build a case by pointing to texts that indicate that God would bring judgment on the temple by being involved in its destruction. This view does not build such a case.

Explanation:

Matthew explains that after the moment of Jesus’ death, the temple curtain is torn in two from top to bottom (Matthew 27:51). In the same verse, he notes that the earth shook and the rocks were split. That the earth shakes in the moment after the temple curtain is torn in two is no coincidence; instead, these events ought to be understood together. So what does it mean that the temple curtain was torn in two and the earth shook? We know from other passages that the earth shakes when God is angry. For example, in 2 Samuel 22:7–8 we read that David cries out to God in distress, and from the temple God hears David’s cry. Then the earth reeled, rocked, and quaked because God was angry. Similarly, in Nahum 1:6 we read that God’s anger is poured out like fire, and the rocks are broken into pieces by him.¹³ Likely, Matthew has the same imagery in mind. When the temple curtain tears in two, it marks God’s dramatic departure from the temple before his wrath shakes the ground.¹⁴

Counterargument:

The connection between God’s wrath and the ground shaking is interesting and insightful. Still, we must be careful which texts we use to support our interpretation. In this case, 2 Samuel 2:7–8 is found in a song written by David, while Nahum 1:6 is found in a vision. On the other hand, Matthew presents Matthew 27:51 in the context of a historical narrative so that we should take it that the curtain literally tore in two, and the ground literally shook. For this argument to go through, it ought to offer historical passages that support the notion that when God is angry, the ground shakes.

Response to counterargument:

In fact, we do have at least one similar historical narrative passage where God’s anger is on the move. In Exodus 19:21–24 God tells Moses to warn the people not to get close to the mountain.¹⁵ Specifically, God warns that if the people do get too close to the mountain, he will strike out against them. In other words, God is a God who is sometimes on the move, and his anger and power can manifest in the real world.

Response to response to counterargument:

It is difficult to see the connection between Exodus 19:21–24 and Matthew 27:51. In Matthew 27:51 God warns Moses that if the people get close to the mountain, God will strike them down. In Matthew 27:51 the temple curtain is torn and there is an earthquake. In the first passage, the narrator names God, and God names what he will do if the people disobey him. In Matthew 27:51, God is not named, and the curtain tears and the earth shakes. If there is a connection between these, it is not obvious.

Explanation:

Matthew explains that after Jesus’ death on the cross, the temple curtain is torn in two from top to bottom. Most likely the tearing of the temple curtain indicates that God is on the move, that is, God is angry over the death of his Son, so he leaves the temple in dramatic fashion. We can deduce that God leaves the temple angrily in dramatic fashion when we consider that in ancient times, one would demonstrate their anger by tearing their robe. In similar fashion, God is angry over the death of Christ, and he demonstrates that anger when the temple curtain is torn in two and he leaves in dramatic fashion¹⁶

Counterargument:

While it might be that ancient people tore their robes to demonstrate anger or sorrow, it is not clear that the Israelites perceived the temple curtain as God’s robe. The temple curtain was meant to guard the Holy of Holies, but it is never depicted as a garment for God.

Possible weaknesses:

The problem with this view is that Jesus went to the cross according to the will of the Father. Thus, while God would be sorrowful over the death of his Son, it is hard to see how God could display a fit of rage by tearing the temple curtain in two when Jesus’ death is the culmination of God’s redemptive plans for humanity.