Today we hear the story of Jesus rampaging through the temple at a time close to the Passover. Today we hear the story when Jesus, filled with righteous anger, destroyed or damaged the property of a ruling class. So much for a meek and mild Jesus.
All four gospels record this event. In the synoptics (Matthew, Mark, and Luke) it takes place on either the day of his triumphal entry into Jerusalem (Palm Sunday) or the next. But in John it takes place early in his ministry and shortly after the wedding in Cana. And while the synoptic version is relatively short and calm by comparison, John's version is longer, more violent, more destructive, and contains a Passion prediction. All of this might be why people conflate the stories, placing the John version at the end of Jesus' ministry instead of at the beginning.
John's placement of this event at the beginning may seem to be a curious choice. After all, the synoptics record that this was one (big?) reason the chief priests wanted him dead. So why put a story that was a key factor in his death at the the beginning of the gospel where it doesn't carry the same consequences?
One answer is, “Because it's John, and he always does things a little different.”
Another answer is a bit more complex.
In this story we hear Jesus say, “Destroy this temple and in three days I will raise it up.” The Jews reply, “This temple has been under construction for forty-six years and you will raise it up in three days?”
You can hear the incredulous, patronizing tone in their voices. But, as is typical with John, the readers of the gospel are given hidden information that will only come to light later: “But he was speaking of the temple of his body.”
I need to make a side comment here, especially as we are getting closer to Holy Week. In John's gospel he uses the term “the Jews” several times, especially as we get into Holy Week and the whole Passion story. Over the course of history this has led to Jewish persecution of all kinds, some worse than others, and none acceptable. One way to read this isn't as the Jewish people or an individual Jewish person, but as the political leadership. In other words, you can read “the Jews” in much the same way as we might say “the Republicans” or “the Democrats.”
So . . . back to the story.
Jesus says, “Destroy this temple and in three days I will raise it up.” This is the first and only Passion prediction in John's gospel. But the more important part, I think, comes at verse 22. It's here that John says the disciples remembered these words after the resurrection and they believed.
Most of Scripture is a collection of stories that recounts the record of God's saving deeds in history, and how he saved his people in ages past. And we see, if we are paying attention, how God continually expands the circle, letting more and more people come within the reach of his loving embrace.
The gospels, while certainly recounting the record of God's most amazing deed in the resurrection of Christ, also ask us to reflect back on the life and death of Jesus after the resurrection. John maybe does this more explicitly than any of the other three. Today we hear that, after the resurrection, his disciples remembered and believed. And as the story moves into Holy Week in John, he writes that the disciples at first didn't understand these things but they remembered them after he was glorified, ie resurrected.
Like the disciples remembered and believed post-resurrection, we also reflect back on Christ's life and death, remembering how that story impacts us. It is through the telling and remembering of this story that we engage with Christ and deepen our relationship with him.
As we retell and remember the story of Christ, it is worth noting where we most engage with him. Our remembrance and engagement with Christ is most tangibly seen in the Eucharist. In the remembrance of Christ in the Eucharist, we remember his death, we proclaim his resurrection, we await his coming in glory.
There is a Greek word for this type of remembrance: anamnesis. Whereas amnesia is a forgetting, anamnesis is a remembering. But it's not simply a remembering of a past event, but an action in which an event is realized as present. At the Eucharist, this remembrance of Christ's sacrifice is made really present in the bread and wine become Body and Blood.
This very well might be why we Anglicans have had such a hard time during the pandemic. Our remembrance of Christ is played out in the Eucharistic feast. Our remembrance of Christ is tied to Holy Communion; that holy meal which is a foretaste of the heavenly banquet and in which Jesus said, “Do this in remembrance of me.” For us these are not just stories recounting God's saving deeds. For us, this is a holy remembrance of the life of Christ. For us, Holy Communion is a re-membering . . . a time when members who have been apart and/or separated are now re-membered, brought back together to be one body, one blood.
The cleansing of the temple drove out all that separated the people from God, and the disciples remembered his words about being raised on the third day. Lent is a time for us to cleanse our own temples and drive out all that separates us from God.
As we prepare to regather in limited fashion and once again receive the Body and Blood of him who died for us and is the bread of life, let us also prepare ourselves to once again receive the Paschal feast in remembrance of his sacrifice, death, and resurrection.
And may that remembrance, that anamnesis, be manifested in our present actions.
Amen.
Posts
0 comments:
Post a Comment