The Temple in Early Christianity: Experiencing the Sacred

The Anchor Yale Bible Reference Library

by Eyal Regev

A comprehensive treatment of the early Christian approaches to the Temple and its role in shaping Jewish and Christian identity

The first scholarly work to trace the Temple throughout the entire New Testament, this study examines Jewish and Christian attitudes toward the Temple in the first century and provides both Jews and Christians with a better understanding of their respective faiths and how they grow out of this ancient institution. The centrality of the Temple in New Testament writing reveals the authors’ negotiations with the institutional and symbolic center of Judaism as they worked to form their own religion.

Genres: Religion

496 pages, Hardcover

Published April 23, 2019

About the author

Eyal Regev (Hebrew: איל רגב) is professor of Jewish studies in the department of land of Israel studies and archaeology at Bar-Ilan University. His books include The Sadducees and their Halakhah, Sectarianism in Qumran, and The Hasmoneans: Ideology, Archaeology, Identity.

Reviews

[Christina · Rating 4 out of 5]

There is much to learn from this helpful volume. Regev argues (mostly convincingly) that the first-century Jesus-movement was not anti-Temple. I think that a good editor could have helped Regev streamline the arguments in each chapter. Some of the scholarly citations seemed dated.

[Peyton Dukes · Rating 3 out of 5]

I’m very impressed by Eyal Regev’s research and arguments. But I’ll still give my rebuttal.

Regev is simply saying that the historical Jesus was for the Temple. However, the “Son of God” Jesus is indeed against the Temple.

Jesus Christ is the new incarnation of YHWH. As it stands, Jesus represents the new covenant. The Temple is the symbol of the old covenant.

Jesus Christ does not have to vocally be against the Temple. The Temple will naturally fade away by God’s ruling, not by Jesus’s protest.

It’s a force of nature by God that animal sacrifices end - it’s not the work or suggestion of man. This is why Jesus doesn’t have to say it out loud.

Jesus is against the Sadducees and their ideology:

1) Jesus was for the poor. The Sadducees were for the rich.

2) Jesus was for liberating women, the Sadducees were for keeping women as property.

3) Jesus was for foreigners, the Sadducees stood for racial superiority.

4) Jesus was for “saving the sheep” (John 10:11), while the Sadducees are the thieves that kill the sheep.

Jesus said in Luke 4:18-19 that He was for all the oppressed groups.

The Temple represents the interests of: Jewish nationalism, the rich, patriarchy and predator dominance over prey (Jesus seeks out the original spirituality of the Garden of Eden as evidenced in Mark 10:6).

The Sadducee Temple goes against what Jesus stands for.


Regev claims that Christianity *must* be for the Jewish Temple as indicated by New Testament documents even though historically, traditionally, and by the majority, the Christian Church does not support the concept of Jewish Animal Sacrifices.

This is equivalent to saying that Jews don’t have to support the Temple in Jerusalem, because Torah documents do not support a Temple in Jerusalem. Jews offer animal sacrifices in various places other than Jerusalem according to the books of Genesis, Exodus, Leviticus, Numbers, Deuteronomy, Joshua, Judges and Samuel. There’s no indication in these books that God wants a Temple in Jerusalem (yes, really). Nowhere does God command a Temple to be in Jerusalem. In the book of Judges, Israelites are sacrificing to YHWH on their own individual altar, even. Just as the patriarchs did.

But you see, it was the Holy Spirit that told King David to put the Temple in Jerusalem. Not the Torah, not the Levite Priests, not tradition, but the quiet voice of God.

Regev’s book has actually made me appreciate the New Testament more.

It’s not revealed until the book of KINGS that God has chosen Jerusalem. Just like it’s not revealed until the book of HEBREWS that God is against animal sacrifices in the era of Christ. You see?

God presents steady evolution, slow progression and quiet revelation. Some things are not revealed until the end of one’s journey; not at the beginning.


The Sadducees are clearly threatened by Jesus’s movement in the book of Acts. Gee, I wonder why? Jesus wanted some type of Temple reform, but details are not given.

James the Just asked the Apostle Paul to do sacrificial offerings in the book of Acts, but this was only to appease the Temple Administration. Peter and John were clearly against animal sacrifices and this is why Peter/John had to leave the Jerusalem Church to establish their own churches. Acts 3:1 describes them as going to the Temple for “prayer”, not animal sacrifices.

Later on, according to Josephus, James is killed by the Sadducee High Priest for unlawful behavior…James was finally convicted of the Holy Spirit.


Jesus was for the Temple, but was against the animal sacrifices. Regev fails to make this distinction. With the Temple not being reformed by the Sadducees - it had to be destroyed.

Luke 16:19-31 seems to be a satirical attack on the Sadducees. Luke 10:25-37 presents Levites and Priests as unable to follow God’s law.

Regev overlooked and misinterpreted Mark 1:40-44. Lepers were exiled out of the community until they had the approval of the High Priest that they could re-enter society. So, the leprous person HAD to present the animal sacrifices in order to see his family again. This scenario is much like Matthew 17:24-27. Even though the Law is not ideal, you have to work with it in order to obtain harmony.

The Temple does not equal doing animal sacrifices - Jesus called the Temple a “house of prayer” (Matthew 21:13). The disciples saw it as that, according to Acts 3:1.

This is what the Dome of the Rock mosque is: a temple of worship that is without animal sacrifices.

Jesus died not only for humans, but also for animals. Jesus died for all of creation. If Jesus is not against the Jewish animal sacrifices, then I don’t see a point to Christianity. What is the point? What is Jesus adding or taking away?

Judaism is about lowly creatures dying for the higher order of YHWH. Christianity is about the higher powers (Jesus) dying for the lower creatures (humanity).


Jesus and his disciples stood up for poor people, women, foreigners, and…for animals.

There’s a couple other CLEAR signs that God does not want the Jewish animal sacrifices anymore - but people are not ready for this evidence because it is shocking.

[JonM · Rating 2 out of 5]

Prior to reading this book, I never imagined it possible to find a biblical scholar of this caliber whose biases were more pronounced in writing than his ineptitudes in literary analysis. This book is just simply not impressive on any level in its analysis. It’s not that it’s not quotable in various parts, or that there’s nothing helpful or interesting contained in it. It is just not impressive, given the scope of its contents and the prestigious publisher who invested in its author. It’s as though this scholar never really studied New Testament literature honestly or closely, but rather, only studied what was minimally necessary to endorse proclivities of modern Judaism in order to sell a book that highly favors a God who still fawns over and pines after the Jewish temple. The biases in favor of Herod’s Temple and modern Judaism’s emphasis upon God’s love for Jerusalem’s temple are so glaringly obvious that they made me want to puke. This book gushes out the stupidities of people who need a rationalize a text to mean what they want it to mean. The rhetorical gymnastics are absolutely pathetic.