Rev. Tom Lenhart
Sermon: September 24, 2006
“On What Authority?”
1 Corinthians 1: 18-25 and John 2:13-22

            Let us pray.

Confession is good for the soul so it is said. So let me begin with a confession. Now don’t worry I am not really going to confess publicly about that personal stuff! (Indeed, I probably don’t have enough time any way.) I do confess, however, that I am a fan of the Gospel of John even though in many current religious circles this gospel is not fashionable or favored. Among other things it is seen as problematic because it uses the term “the Jews” to signify those with whom Jesus was in conflict. {Indeed, the seeming breadth of that term makes me uneasy and so perhaps you as well.} Yet modern scholarship has helped us to understand that while the writer of John did use an inclusive and problematic term, what he had in mind is probably no more than the religious establishment of the time.  What he was focused on was akin to “the Pharisees and Scribes,” the term often used in certain of the synoptic gospels.   Nonetheless, the loose language of this -- the Fourth Gospel -- was one of the biblical sources used in the past to fuel anti-Semitism.

However, I am still transformed when I read portions of John. For me nothing describes as profoundly and poetically the relationship of Jesus Christ to God as the famous Prologue of John – “In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God and the Word was God…  And the Word became flesh and lived among us, and we have seen his glory, the glory of a Father’s only son, full of grace and truth.” (John 1: 1, 14). Thus, it is from the very beginning of this gospel that we are exposed to a high Christology – that is an emphasis on the divine aspects    of Jesus more than on the human ones.  It is a view of Jesus that is from the top down rather than from the bottom up. While Jesus was made flesh; yet Jesus is and always has been God in a profound and defining, yet not fully describable, way. And as we shall see today’s passage from John   - focuses on Jesus identity both the divine and the human aspects and our difficulty in appreciating it-- as did last week’s passage from Mark.

Despite my fondness for the Gospel of John  today’s text is a bit troublesome for me. When I hear or read this text, I see in my mind’s eye  Rembrandt’s famous etching, vividly portraying this scene  in all of its seeming violence  -- Jesus whip in hand from whom the animals scatter, doves fly and people flee.  And, of course, the scene is dominated by money changer’s tables overturned and their coins scattered every where-- all by an aroused Jesus. Indeed, if you have a chance to see the   etching at the Metropolitan Museum of Art in New York, or to see a reproduction of it, you will notice that Rembrandt places the obligatory, medieval halo of divinity -- not over Jesus head as one would expect -- but around the hand holding the whip. Is this divine violence? Violence glorified? Is this the Jesus that we think of – the one who heals out of love, eats with tax collectors and befriends the prostitutes and the outcasts of his day?  Is this the Jesus who at the final hour permits no hand to be lifted in his defense? Who is this Jesus whip in hand who forcibly clears out those in the Temple environs?

Interestingly this is one of those rare events in Jesus’ life that is depicted in all four gospels. The so-called synoptic gospels – Matthew, Mark and Luke -- all describe the cleansing of the Temple.  But they put this event at the very end of Jesus’ life during that final fateful week in Jerusalem.. In each of these gospels this act by Jesus -- a major affront to the Temple and religious leadership -- serves as the final and precipitating cause for Jesus’ trial and ultimate sentence of death. Thus this text is frequently the subject of sermons during Lent.

In John this story comes at the very beginning of Jesus’ ministry. Unlike the synoptic gospels where Jesus makes one trip to Jerusalem, in John’s gospel, Jesus makes three such trips. The cleansing of the Temple occurs during that first trip. Scholars debate which is the correct chronological location in Jesus’ life for this event. Both can not be correct because it is unlikely that Jesus cleansed the Temple twice. Why, because this was an extraordinary affront to the Temple authorities and it is inconceivable that they would have allowed Jesus the opportunity to do it twice. Most scholars believe that it happened once on that final visit to Jerusalem and it cost Jesus’ his life. 

                      So why did the writer of John – writing later than the other Gospel writers -- place this passage right at the beginning?  At least on one level it was to highlight that from the beginning Jesus embodied a fundamental challenge to the religious establishment. Moreover, though Jesus knows from the beginning who he is and what is to happen to him -- the religious authorities and most people simply do not understand or accept who he is.

                      How does this passage reveal Jesus identity?  First, let us understand what exercises -- what angers Jesus here. These denizens of the Temple -- the animal merchants and money changers -- were not engaged in illegal or corrupt conduct as is often suggested. A major function of the Temple was to serve as the place of ritual animal sacrifice. It was not surprising or inappropriate that animals would be available for purchase for sacrifice, especially by the many from the surrounding country who would come to the Temple at the holy days. Having animals available for sale was not the problem.  The money changers too were essential because the Roman coins in circulation could not be used to pay the Temple tax. Those coins were inscribed with the heads of the Roman emperors depicted as Gods and, thus, were blasphemous and could not be used in the Temple. The money changers provided the necessary local coins without the offending inscriptions. There is no suggestion in the text of improper profit taking.  Jesus was not concerned about illegality or gouging.

                      Instead, Jesus perceived that the Temple was no longer what it was intended to be It was to be the dwelling place of God on earth – and as such a vehicle for Jews to connect with and to worship God. By Jesus’ time the rituals and the necessary infra-structure, such as animal stalls and money changers, had become the focus, indeed the currency, of the faith not mere adjuncts to it. This passage is not a condemnation of commerce per se but of commerce that had robbed God’s house of its identity.

                      What Jesus did was extraordinary; he directly repudiated the established and religiously sanctioned practices of the day. And, it was especially extraordinary to do this at Passover – the most highly attended of the Jewish Holy celebrations when thousands would have been at the Temple – many now unable because of Jesus’ actions to find animals for the obligatory sacrifices or coins acceptable for the Temple tax.

                      Now, the problematic violence of the act may best be understood not as an endorsement of violence per se or an endorsement of a violent Jesus. It is a reminder that while Jesus is the Son of God – he share much with us -- passion, emotion –even as here anger. It is also a device the writer of John used to highlight the depth of the chasm that existed between Jesus and the authorities from the beginning --a divide not simply over Temple rituals and practices but fundamentally over Jesus’ identity. None of the three synoptic gospels talk about Jesus using a whip. Though John’s version of this story is not a celebration of violence, it does, however, signal that passion and righteous indignation and action not passivity are appropriate when religion and religious institutions run amok. It was appropriate for Jesus to act with passion when his Father’s house was used -- not for worship -- but as a place for the celebration of ritual – for the worship of worship forms.

                      Does this have any relevance for us? Are we ever guilty of such practices? Has anyone ever left a church because a minister left (and a new one they did not like arrived)? Has anyone ever left because the liturgy or the hymn book changed? There are times when we in this modern age forget that church is about a community of faith where God is present. Church is not principally about the rituals, liturgies and the personalities involved.  That is not to say that what we do and how we do it is irrelevant or unimportant. However, they must not become what we worship but remain what we use to worship. Remember what we do now by way of worship bears little relationship to how they worshipped in the catacombs and will bear little relationship to what is done 100 years from now. What mattered then, what matters now and will matter in the future is who we worship.   To the extent that picking a church has become for some like channel surfing for the most entertaining channel, then some among us have lost sight of the very purpose of church and faith.

                      While I do not read our passage in John as glorifying violence I do see it as recognizing that drastic actions are some times necessary to bring God back to the center of our lives. As you know from other sermons I am in awe of the German pastor and brilliant theologian, Dietrich Bonhoeffer, who ultimately was put to death by the Nazi regime. Bonhoeffer was arrested not for his voiced opposition to the regime or its captive state church or for his inclusive theology but for his part in a failed attempt to assassinate Hitler. Bonhoeffer is reported to have agonized over whether to join the conspirators. Was such violent conduct consistent with his faith in Jesus Christ, who lived and ultimately died on the Cross in love for us? Eventually, he joined the conspiracy because he saw no other way to replace that barbarous and, to him, truly godless regime.

                      Bonhoeffer wrote that it was the failure to put God at the center that contributed to the horror that was Nazi Germany. Bonhoeffer noted “we thought we could make our way in life with reason and justice and both failed.” The good people failed because the final standard to which each looked for ultimate guidance was insufficient. It was only those who were “called to obedient and responsible action in faith and in exclusive allegiance to God” who can stand fast against evil. (Letters and Notes from Prison 5) There are times and matters in life that require us to obedient and faithful action in exclusive allegiance to God. That was what Jesus was doing at the Temple that day. And so too we as individuals and as the church are challenged at times to speak out and act with passion and conviction.

                      It is fashionable among some groups to decry the actions and the assertiveness of our conservative religious brothers and sister, who so vociferously speak out and act with respect to the issues of our day. Perhaps the point of the cleansing of the Temple is not that we should object to their speaking out and acting on their beliefs as they understand them but that we too as the church and a people of God should add our voices to the debates of the day and our actions to the mix. Haile Salassie, the late Emperor of Ethiopia once said,

“throughout history—it has been the inaction of those who could have acted, the indifference of those who should have known better, and the silence of the voice of justice when it mattered most that has made it possible for evil to triumphant.”

                      But there is a further message in our text. And that concerns the challenge to know who Jesus really is. Interestingly, the religious leaders faced with this audacious act at the Temple did not throw Jesus out. Rather they asked an interesting question, “What sign can you show us for doing this?”  They were not asking for a miracle to be performed but rather were really asking, what’s your authority for doing this? You talk about you Father’s house -- who do you think you are? Like us, these individuals were preoccupied with proof of authority. Think about our world and how much of it involves that issue; who has the authority to pull the plug on life support, to terminate a pregnancy, to intercept telephone calls in the name of national security? Our world is characterized by a concern over who has authority -- to whom must we pay allegiance. Checks and balances on authority define our type of government. So often we seek to understand and to allocate authority; it is part of our need to be in control. So the request by the religious leaders to give them a sign -- proof of who Jesus was -- is not surprising. It is about control. The answerfrom Jesus to this question is,   of course on a literal level, a non sequitur -- “Destroy the Temple and in three days I will raise it up.” On the surface it does not make sense. And the religious leaders’ response reflects this. To paraphrase their reply, they say “you can’t be serious -- the Temple has been under construction for 46 years and you are going to raise it up in 3 days.”  The audience has no clue.

                      The writer of John as is his habit tells us -- the reader -- what is going on. The Temple is the body of Jesus, which will be raised up in 3 days if (or perhaps better translated “when”) destroyed. Jesus is the new Temple; he is the dwelling place of God on earth and thus has the authority. The proof of this is no more and no less then the death and resurrection which is why the disciples finally get it—understand who Jesus is after Easter on the Emmaus road and in the upper room.   It reminds us that without Easter the events in Bethlehelm would be of little moment. Jesus life while exemplary and a model would be no more than that of a prophet -- important but not the life that changed everything.

                      That’s of course the hard part. We hunger for sureness about Jesus and often do find it. A friend of mine has written that often we know only a Deus absconditus, “a God in hiding.” How do we find God? Like the religious leaders we often demand signs. We live in a world that demands proof. Like Thomas we want to see the wounds. We want a God who intervenes. Like Paul’s’ Greeks we desire wisdom. We want a Messiah that does miracles – intervenes in our world, and demonstrates wisdom as we understand it. Instead, we get what we can not explain or fully understand, a God who does what we least expect -- who gives us Easter. Easter is the ultimate proof and gift; a gift that we do not earn or control but one bestowed as a matter of grace. It changes what has come before – the cleansing of the Temple finally becomes clear. It changes what is – including our lives.  And it changes what shall be.  Our proof is the thing in itself -- the Cross. It is the profound actuality of Christ’s death and resurrection that in and of itself identifies Christ and God and is forever transforming.  As John proclaims such is faith and such is our faith.  Thanks be to God. Amen.