sign in sign up
<<
Home , Eternal return

The John 2:13-22 March 7, 2021 John 2:13-22 The Passover of the Jews was near, and Jesus went up to Jerusalem. In the temple he found people selling cattle, sheep, and doves, and the money changers seated at their tables. Making a whip of cords, he drove all of them out of the temple, both the sheep and the cattle. He also poured out the coins of the money changers and overturned their tables. He told those who were selling the doves, “Take these things out of here! Stop making my Father’s house a marketplace!” His disciples remembered that it was written, “Zeal for your house will consume me.” The Jews then said to him, “What sign can you show us for doing this?” Jesus answered them, “Destroy this temple, and in three days I will raise it up.” The Jews then said, “This temple has been under construction for forty-six , and will you raise it up in three days?” But he was speaking of the temple of his body. After he was raised from the dead, his disciples remembered that he had said this; and they believed the scripture and the word that Jesus had spoken. The Eternal Return John 2:13-22 March 7, 2021 Rev. Michael Catanzaro

I. Apparently, last , my tongue was sufficiently in cheek so as to not incite an angry mob of parishioners mustered in defense of the pastor’s wife as I facetiously heaped blame upon Linda for the need to purchase new speakers, including subwoofer, to replace the one which she had a hand in wrecking (kinda, sorta). I actually received quite a bit of positive feedback about the sermon from all quarters of the congregation for linking modern life to the Gospel; while one or two men and husbands admired my ability to enact such a purchase while, simultaneously, able to blame it on one’s spouse.

However, I did receive one comment, somewhat critical, from a colleague and fellow Princeton Seminary graduate, The Rev. Dr. Laurie McKnight, who said: “Wow. They PAY you for that? You think you're pretty funny. 13 paragraphs on Linda's transgression...5 on Jesus and Peter. Holy smokes!” To which I replied, “5 paragraphs or 50, so long as the point is made.” I also told Dr. McKnight, that this week’s sermon was going to be all HER fault. So, instead of the similar flight of fancy I had planned for today, you have her to thank for the somewhat long, academic diatribe to follow.

II. The story before us today, Jesus’ cleansing of the Temple is, to use the Latin, something of a sui generis text, or, of its own kind. This is, arguably, one of the few, if only, in scripture that we see Jesus using physical force. Though it might be easy to make the assumption that Jesus was angry or violent, and give credence to the notion of righteous anger, the scripture does not, explicitly, bear this out. Suffice to say, though, that Jesus is, indeed, emphatic about the of the Temple, or “His Father’s House,” as he calls it, and the ensuing ramifications of such an understanding. III. The truth of such an actually having occurred in the life of Jesus, is given traction by of the fact that each of the Gospel writers includes an account of the Temple cleansing. The Synoptic Gospels, however, place this event at the end of his ministry, just prior to his arrest, whereas John’s account comes in the first of his ministry immediately subsequent to the of the Epiphany. This has given rise to the nomenclature of the Synoptic account being referred to as the so called “ Cleansing,” while the Johannine account is referenced as the “First Cleansing.” That there is a temporal disparity between the Synoptics and John is really of little consequence. More noteworthy, by any instrument of measure, is that all of the Gospel writers considered this a matter of such weight that each included it in their version of the Good News of Jesus Christ.

IV. Now, before we get into the possible relevance of this passage for our lives, and I have a bit of a wild idea about that (which we’ll get to in a bit) some background to the story is helpful. There is, as it turns out, a perfectly reasonable explanation for the animals and money changers in the Temple that day; or, more accurately, in that outer part of the Temple known as the “Court of the Gentiles”; so named, because this was the only section of the Temple into which Gentiles were permitted. Though still considered “holy,” this area was somehow understood to be “less holy” compared to the increasingly “more holy” areas which were encountered the further into the Temple one went; with the most holy place, called “the Holy of Holies,” being reserved for only the High Priests, and only on certain occasions.

V. The Court of the Gentiles, then, was the outer ring of the Temple where the 300 to 400 thousand pilgrims who had made the journey to participate in the festival of the Passover would first arrive. The pressing issue for these pilgrims, was to purchase the prescribed animals required to fulfill the various acts of sacrificial atonement. Most of these pilgrims travelled great distances to get to Jerusalem, so it was far more convenient to purchase these animals upon arrival rather than transport them from home. And, as these pilgrims were very often from far-off lands, and made use of different currencies, it was a necessary convenience to be able to exchange their funds for the currency in use in Jerusalem so that they might purchase the prescribed animals.

VI. These animal husbandmen and money changers which were in the Court of the Gentiles that day, were seen as a necessary and valuable part of the industry of , and they were there with the both the support and of the Temple authorities. Therefore, we must see Jesus’ actions as a rebuke not only of the people doing the deals but, also, of the people who fostered the culture of deal making. Though only the former were driven out, Jesus was speaking to all those who, as Jesus said, had made his Father’s house a market place.

Now, of course, the latter part of John’s account of these events is the reason this passage finds its way into the lectionary readings for Lent: “Destroy this Temple,” says Jesus, “and in three days I will raise it up.” Jesus is prophesying his own, eventual death and resurrection, only understood by his followers, later, in hindsight.

VII. What I would like us to focus on, though, is the question the Jews put to Jesus just prior to this . Immediately after he had driven out the money changers and those selling livestock, they ask Jesus to justify his actions and, more importantly, the rationale for them by saying, “What sign can you show us for doing this?” In other words, they want a miracle as proof of his authority. The real proof will be the cross, to which he alludes, but I think this desire for the miraculous as proof of ’s authority is a fascinating human tendency, often our greatest obstacle to , and, as such, is something that we should explore here this morning.

VIII. In 1912, the French Sociologist, Emile Durkheim, in his book, The Elementary Forms of the Religious Life called the world’s attention to the dialectical relationship, between the Sacred and the Profane, which he understood to be the central characteristic of religion. He writes, “"religion is a unified system of beliefs and practices relative to sacred things, that is to say, things set apart." So, in Durkheim's theory, the sacred represents the interests of a particular group (say a religion, denomination or congregation) and these interests are embodied in certain sacred symbols and practices. The profane, on the other hand, involves mundane individual concerns. We should note, however, that this dichotomy of sacred and profane, is not equivalent to good and evil. For Durkheim, what people understand to be sacred, or profane, could be either good or evil.

IX. Fast forward now to 1957, when a Romanian religious historian on faculty at the University of Chicago, , publishes his book, The Sacred and The Profane: The Nature of Religion. Building on and expanding Durkheim’s work, Eliade asserts that the Sacred contains all "," or value, and other things acquire "reality," or value, only to the extent that they participate in the sacred. Eliade’s understanding of religion centers on his concept of “hierophany” or the manifestation of the sacred as it breaks through into our world. So, for Eliade, humans only acquire their reality, their identity, to the extent of their participation in a transcendent reality; thus religious behavior does not only commemorate, but also participates in, sacred events. This, Eliade called the Eternal Return.

X. In order to aid us in a better understanding the concept of the Eternal Return, it is important to note that Eliade engaged in a long period of study at the University of Calcutta, in what was then called British India. He eventually married an Indian citizen, and his PhD thesis, granted in 1933, was a study in practices. Certainly, then, Eliade was quite familiar with the Hindu notion of , and his notion of the Eternal Return borrows from, or at least shares with it, a common understanding of as cyclic rather than linear. However, rather than see as a terror to be repeated or escaped, as German Existentialist Philosophy Frederick Nietzsche had done, Eliade’s view of the the Eternal Return is as a medium of opportunity, enacted by religious practice and symbols, which facilitates not our departure from this world, but an entry way for the sacred to burst through to us and change the very world in which we must remain. XI. So, the sacred comes to us. But, we facilitate its arrival, by creating a , or a structure of invitation, amid our otherwise profane . And, for Eliade, this invitation must move beyond mere , and enter the realm of Religious practice.

Now we go out on a limb. This morning I’ve spoken to you about the cleansing of the temple, and about Durkheim’s notion of the sacred and the profane bearing fruit in Eliade’s concept of the Eternal Return. What I’d like to do now, is use the latter to explore the former. The ideas I’m about to put forth are not necessarily scriptural, or an orthodox interpretation in any way, shape or form; you are certainly free to reject them if you see fit. But, I would ask that you first hear me out, as they might possibly inform our understanding of this scripture and bolster our orthodoxy.

XII. We talked earlier about John’s account of this story being the so called “First Cleansing” of the Temple. In light of Durkheim and Eliade, it is interesting to note that in John’s telling, the cleansing of the Temple follows directly on the heels of the Epiphany, the first manifestation, or breaking through of Christ to the world; which, in John, is the miracle of the wedding at Cana where the mundane is transformed by the sacred. Then, immediately, John presents Jesus in the Temple, and here Jesus rousts the mundane, the animal sellers and money changers, from the sacred, from the holy place that is the temple. Note, then, that one of the important takeaways from this story of the Temple cleansing is that a difference does, indeed, exist between the mundane and the sacred; and, further, it is a distinction to be honored with great vehemence and passion.

XIII. However, the question becomes where, exactly, does one draw the line? Recall that Jesus’ rebuke was directed not only at the people making trade that day, but also at the people who facilitated such a system. Certainly, nobody would have imagined cattle, sheep and doves being sold in the Holiest of the Holies, nor money changers in any of the areas surrounding it. And yet, out on the margins of the holy, in the “less holy” space which was the Gentile Court, the profane was allowed to creep in. Here apparently, the keepers of the Temple were willing to compromise. However, Jesus’ reaction to seeing such a compromise, prods us to consider that, perhaps, we should pitch our fiercest battle not at the site of the most sacred center, but at that location or moment of the sacred which abuts the profane; at the margins.

XIV. So it is here, in the outer courtyard of our lives where we will draw our line. But where, in the real practice of our life, is this line located? I would say, at those moments of necessary convenience which prevent or delay us from creating a space, a structure of invitation, through which the sacred might enter. Moments at which we choose to remain bound to our mere sense of individual spirituality, rather than entering into the realm of corporate Religious practice. Remember, the importance of our scripture passage today lies not in those who were removed by the cleansing, but, rather, what got cleansed and who did the cleansing. Center stage is the Temple, or, for us, the church, and the religious practices and symbols which are to be found in such places.

XV. But, we have to be here to participate in them. Not because we somehow “should,” but because, as Eliade asserts, we only acquire our reality, our identity, to the extent of our participation in a transcendent reality. We aren’t here in church, physically or virtually, to simply commemorate the sacred, we are here to participate in the sacred, inviting the “hierophany” or the manifestation of the sacred, to actually break through into our world. Those in the temple that day asked of Jesus a miracle as a sign of his authority. Perhaps he refused to offer one because the only miracle which truly and finally inspires faith, is the miracle of people gathering, once again, in Temples and Churches, to lift up those symbols of the sacred and engage in those practices which invite, with passion, the sacred into our world, in the and promise of the Eternal Return. XVI. Finally, we return with thanksgiving to Laurie Mcknight’s equally tongue- in-cheek, faux criticism of her colleague and friend’s sermon, as it does point out the unfortunate fact that there are some people, especially Princeton minister types, who need or even want, the 50 paragraphs until they return, once again, to participate in the eternal; supposing that there should be some greater price to be paid for communing with the sacred. And that is ok, as such a quest is not a timed event.

But, for others, like those who compose this congregation, 5 paragraphs will nicely suffice, thank you very much; with the added benefit of this sacred circle of eternal return visiting us all the more frequently and all the more easily. The life of faith is hard, but it doesn’t have to be that hard. We have the power to make it really quite easy if we will only be present. Amen.