For most of 15 chapters,
Mark's writing has been short and sweet -- without flourishing touches or elaboration
on events. Why should these two verses be any different? Simply stated yet
seemingly minus connection, one verse is set at the temple with the other at
Golgotha.
Compare what Mark wrote to
Matthew 27:51-54 and Luke 23:44-47.
Notice how the order and description of "what" and "when" slightly
changed. Plus there's a doozy of a jaw-dropper in Matthew: "many bodies of the saints" previously dead "came out of the tombs and entered the
holy city."
Within these three gospel accounts,
no matter how it was relayed, the essence of the narrative remained the same. The
curtain of the temple was torn in two; the centurion witnessed Jesus' death and
had something to say about it. Two happenings with great meaning.
"And the curtain of the temple was torn in two,
from top to bottom."
At first glance, there's one
curtain at the temple's holy place. But weren't there two? From what was
written in Hebrews 9:3: "Behind the
second curtain was a tent called the Holy of Holies."[i] Exodus 26:31-33 shares
more about this beautifully crafted tapestry. It was made "of blue, purple and crimson yarns, and of fine twisted linen; it
shall be made with cherubim skillfully worked into it. …and the curtain shall
separate for you the holy place from the most holy."
Once a year on the "Day
of Atonement," otherwise known as Yom
Kippur, the high priest entered "the
most holy" -- the Holy of Holies. "For
on this day atonement shall be made for you, to cleanse you; from all your sins
you shall be clean before the LORD."[ii] To be cleansed meant the
high priest made atonement sacrifice -- such as described in Leviticus 16
-- for his sins and for those of the Jewish people.
The atonement sacrifice
has been a key "faith" point for a majority of the Christian
community. Two verses from Hebrews 9 stand out. "But when Christ came as a high priest of the good things that
have come,… he entered once for all into the Holy Place, not with the blood of
goats and calves, but with his own blood, thus obtaining eternal
redemption"[iii]
along with "he has appeared once for
all at the end of the age to remove sin by the sacrifice of himself."[iv]
In the atonement theory, the
torn curtain, the Holy of Holies, Yom
Kippur, the high priest, and the sacrificial blood offering link together. We
are no longer separated from God, because Jesus gave "his life a ransom for many."[v] Christ's death was a divine
punishment and a payment owed -- an atonement.
Was it though? Is this how
it went down?
Taking a step back, let's consider
the temple curtains to glean understanding.
* The first veil separated
the outer court of common worshippers from the entrance into a room known as
the Holy Place of the tabernacle. No one other than the priests had access to
this area.
* Within the Holy Place
was an inner room separated by a second veil. Only the high priest could enter
this sacred space known as the Holy of Holies -- God's special dwelling place.
So, which of the two curtains
was torn? Did one have more importance than the other? If the second drapery
was the one that was torn -- hidden from view by the commoners -- just the priests
would've seen it. We know though from Isaiah 56:7-8: "…my house shall be called a house of prayer for all peoples.
Thus says the Lord GOD, who gathers the outcasts of Israel, I will gathers
others to them besides those already gathered."[vi]
How powerful would it have
been if the outer drapery (the first one) had been torn and was seen by all?
What if both veils were torn -- incorporating
the use of a singular "curtain"
to have a plural meaning? One separated the people from the priests; the other
separated the priests from the high priest who had right of entry to the Holy
of Holies. Then there's a witness by the people, for all of the people,… that everyone
has access to God through the high priest Jesus Christ.
Which leads back to the atonement
theory. Jesus sacrificed himself to atone for our sins. His blood had to be
shed. He had to provide his body as an offering, to be the sacrificial lamb.
This type of belief has been incessantly hammered into the minds of Christians
and others.
Is that really what the first
Christians believed? Or was an atonement interpretation of Jesus' sacrifice tacked
on years later by writers and theologians? Was a blood sacrifice even required for
atonement?
In the Bible, atonement alternatives
were actually declared. Furthermore, the sacrificial system was called into
question by the Old Testament prophets.
2 Chronicles 7:14 -- "If my people who are called by my name
humble themselves, pray, seek my face, and turn from their wicked ways, then I
will hear from heaven, and will forgive their sin and heal their land."[vii]
Isaiah 1:11-18 -- "What to me is the multitude of your
sacrifices? Says the LORD; I have had enough burnt offerings of rams and the
fat of fed beasts; I do not delight in the blood of bulls, or of lambs, or of
goats. When you come to appear before me, who asked this from your hand?
Trample my courts no more; bringing offerings is futile;… cease to do evil,
learn to do good; seek justice, rescue the orphan, plead for the widow."[viii]
Hosea 6:6 -- "For I desire steadfast love and not
sacrifice, the knowledge of God rather than burnt offerings."[ix]
Other Scripture references
include Isaiah 55:7,
Jeremiah 6:20
and 7:22-23, Hosea 14:2-3,
Amos 5:21-24,
Jonah 3:4-10,
Psalms 51:16-17
and Proverbs 16:6
and 21:3.
One of the more familiar
passages comes from the book of Micah. "Will
the LORD be pleased with thousands of rams, with ten thousand of rivers of oil?
Shall I give my firstborn from my transgression, the fruit of my body for the
sin of my soul? He has told you, O mortal, what is good; what does the LORD
require of you but to do justice, and to love kindness, and to walk humbly with
your God."[x]
Yes, Christ died for us.
Was that his mission though? Or was his mission to make visible the reign of
God? The temple curtain being torn was use of amazing imagery -- signifying Christ
reconciled us to the divine presence of God. And yet,…
There is even more to the
story within these two verses written by Mark.
NEXT
Part 2 -- a beginning,… an
end
