Third Sunday of Lent (B)

Readings:

1. Exodus 20.1-3, 7-8, 12-17
   Psalm 19.8, 9, 10, 11  Response:  “Lord, you have the words of everlasting life.”
2. 1 Corinthians 1.22-25
3. John 2.13-25

[Note:  Many parishes use the readings from Cycle A during Lent.  In that case, the gospel would be John 4.5-42, the story of Jesus and the woman of Samaria.]

Reflections on the Gospel Reading

The Gospels are good examples of revisionist history.  The Christian community treasured sayings of Jesus and stories about him.  With the passage of time later generations of Christians came to understand the words and deeds of Jesus in new ways.  Two events were particularly important:  the death and resurrection of Jesus; and the destruction of the Jerusalem temple some forty years later.  The rethinking of traditions about Jesus is reflected in all the Gospel accounts.

Nowhere, however, is a revised understanding more clear than in the Gospel of John.   Story after story reflects two levels of meaning.  For example, in John’s passion narrative Pilate brings Jesus out before the crowds for the last time.  What follows can be read in two ways:  either “he (Pilate) sat himself on the judge’s bench.” or “he (Pilate) sat him (Jesus) on the judge’s bench.” (John 19.13)  Both the Greek verb and the two pronouns are ambiguous, probably deliberately so.  What the Evangelist seems to be saying is that to human eyes Pilate was sitting on the Judge’s bench, but in God’s eyes and to the eyes of faith Jesus was sitting on the bench judging the Roman Empire and the whole world.

This Sunday’s gospel exhibits more of these revisionist developments.  John the Evangelist wrote his Gospel some seventy years after Jesus’ death and resurrection and some thirty years after the destruction of Jerusalem and its temple.  During these years his community had pored over sayings of Jesus that related to the destruction of the temple and stories about a disruption he had caused in the temple business around the feast of Passover¹.  They tried to understand them in the light of the Scriptures and in the light of subsequent events.

It seems that many Christians thought that the second coming of Jesus would coincide with the destruction of the temple. (Crossan 1991, 356-357)  When the temple was destroyed in the year 70 and Jesus did not return in glory, they had to question that understanding.  They searched the Scriptures again; listened to prophetic voices in their community; and arrived at the new understanding reflected in John’s Gospel.

Twice in today’s passage John notes that “his disciples remembered.” (John 2.17, 22.  In the lectionary the same Greek word is translated “recalled” in verse 17 and “remembered “in verse 22.)  First John says that they remembered the words of Scripture.  Later on he is more specific.  He says that after Jesus was raised from the dead they remembered what he said and “came to believe the Scripture and the word Jesus had spoken.”  Let’s see how that remembering worked.

Cleansing of the Temple?

The action of Jesus in today’s gospel passage can be understood in more than one way.  It is often referred to as a cleansing of the temple, a protest against corrupt practices that had crept into the necessary business of making provisions for animal sacrifice.  Some think that it might have been a protest against a practice that the high priest Caiaphas had recently introduced.  He brought the market for sacrificial animals into the outer precincts of the temple where there was danger of their wandering into the more sacred areas. (So V. Epstein quoted in Brown 1966, 119.  See also Pilch 1996, 56.)  If Gentiles were forbidden to go there, think of what a sacrilege it would have been if an animal went there.

Jesus’ protest against making the temple a marketplace would make sense in the light of peasants’ general distrust of merchants and traders. (See Malina & Rohrbaugh 1998, 74.)  It would also tie in with the vision of the prophet Zechariah that “there shall no longer be traders in the house of the Lord of hosts on that day.” (Zechariah 14.21 NRSV)

This seems to be one of the ways John the Evangelist understands Jesus’ action.  In John’s Gospel Jesus refers to the temple as “my Father’s house,” thus indicating great respect for the temple while claiming authority over it.

John also sees the “cleansing of the temple” as a fulfillment of a passage from Psalm 69, a psalm frequently invoked by Christians to explain the meaning of the passion and death of Jesus. (See Fuller & Westberg 2006, 250.)  John’s readers would have recalled what preceded and followed that brief citation:

I have become a stranger to my kindred,
        an alien to my mother’s children.
It is zeal for your house that has consumed me,
        the insults of those who insult you have fallen on me.

                (Psalm 69.8-9 NRSV.  My emphasis.)

John changed it slightly to “Zeal for your house will consume me.” thus making it a prophecy.  “John interprets the Psalm to mean that zeal for the Temple will destroy Jesus and bring his death.” (Brown 1966, 124)

John seems to be saying that Jesus’ legitimate enthusiasm for the dignity and honor of the temple has led to his being falsely accused and ultimately condemned to death.  Other Gospel writers were also careful to exonerate Jesus of any hostile intent toward the temple or any sense of satisfaction in its inevitable destruction. (See Brown 1966, 119.)

Symbolic Destruction of the Temple?

For others, Jesus did not intend to reform the temple practices.  “Jesus was not urging the temple’s reform but pronouncing the temple’s doom.”  (Meier 1994, 894) “It is not at all a purification but rather a symbolic destruction.”  (Crossan 1991, 357.  See also Borg & Crossan 2006, 49.)

According to these authors, there was nothing wrong with selling animals for sacrifice.  Moreover, the commandment “You shall not have other gods besides me” forbade the use of Roman or Greek coins with images on them, so it was necessary to exchange them for imageless coins from Tyre. (See Brown 1966, 115; Pilch 1996, 55; Malina and Rohrbaugh 1998, 74.)

By disrupting the daily activity of the temple Jesus was symbolically “shutting down the operation.” He was not objecting to the institution of the Temple or the priesthood or sacrifice.  In John’s view, writing about seventy years after Jesus’ ministry and thirty years after the destruction of the Temple, Jesus was saying that all of this was obsolete.  The temple of his resurrected body would replace the sanctuary (naós) of the Temple (hierón) as the place to worship God.  Referring to the last words of the Prophet Zechariah (14.21), there would no longer be the need of traders in the House of the Lord.  Also, Jesus was engaging in a prophetic action, which predicted the eventual physical destruction of the temple after the fashion of the prophet Jeremiah. (See Jeremiah 7.)

This seems to be the way that the Judean leaders understood Jesus’ action, as can be seen from their hostile demand for a sign. (John 2.18)  They probably judged what Jesus did in much the same way as today’s military establishment judged the actions of Philip Berrigan and his companions when they hammered on A-10 Warthog bombers that fired depleted uranium shells. (See Berrigan 2000, 12.)

In this understanding of John’s narrative the Judean leaders saw the disruption of business as an insult not only to the merchants and the priests but also to God who dwelt in the temple. ”An action of the sort described in vv. 14-16 would have been a serious public challenge to persons in charge of the temple that could hardly be overlooked.”  (Malina and Rohrbaugh 1998, 74, 77-79.)  We know from the other Gospels that the actions of Jesus and the accusation of intent to destroy the temple played a part in the events leading up to Jesus’ death. (See, for example, Mark’s passion narrative.)

An Even Higher Level of Understanding?

Jesus’ response to the request for a sign justifying his actions can also be read on two levels.  In one sense “Destroy this temple and in three days I will raise it up.” is an ironic accusation and a messianic claim.  He is placing the burden on his opponents and saying:  If you go on acting immorally (mainly by rejecting my teaching and killing me) you will bring on the destruction of the temple, but I as God’s anointed one can restore the temple in a very short time (“three days”) on the last day.

However, after the resurrection and the destruction of the temple without the glorious return of Christ, John and his community understood the saying in another much deeper level:  “He was speaking about the temple of his body.”  In other words, when Jesus said: “Destroy this temple and in three days I will raise it up.” he was referring to his death and resurrection.

This interpretation of Jesus’ saying is closer to the interpretation of Jesus’ action as a symbolic destruction of the temple.  At this level John is saying that God no longer dwells in the temple but in Jesus. The risen Jesus has become the center for Christian worship.  By casting out the merchants and moneylenders Jesus was declaring the temple obsolete.  Its physical destruction was only a matter of time².

The Meaning for Us Today

Today’s gospel reading is less of a call to action than a call to belief.  True, it should make us wary of any cozy alliance of religion with oppressive commercial interests.  Does the need for funds to maintain buildings and programs compromise our efforts to speak out against injustice?  The wealthier our church, the more likely that it stands in need of cleansing.

However, the main thrust of this Sunday’s gospel reading is a revelation of who the risen Jesus is.  He is the new temple, the place where God dwells.  His once-and-for-all sacrifice both fulfills and terminates the temple sacrifices. (See Hebrews 9.11-10.18.)  His body (in the sense of his resurrected body, his Eucharistic body and his body, the church) is now the center of our worship.  All our prayers are directed to God through him.

Lent is a good time for us to reaffirm our faith in the Jesus presented in today’s gospel reading.

---

Explanatory Notes:

Judean Leaders  “The Jews” is “John’s set term for the hostile authorities in Jerusalem.”  (Meier 1994, 893)  However, in our day “the Jews” seems to refer to all Jews at the time of Jesus.  As a result “Judeans” or “Judean leaders” is a better translation.  Note that in Mark’s account of the “cleansing of the temple” the ones who ask, “By what authority are you doing these things?” are the Jewish leaders, “the chief priests, the scribes, and the elders.”  (Mark 11.27-28)  Curiously, with the exception of Matthew 27.62 and John 18.3, “the Pharisees” disappear from the four passion narratives.

Three days According to Brown 1966, 123, “ ‘Three days’ was an expression that meant a short, but indefinite time.  It is thus used in Exod xix 11; Hos vi 2; Luke xiii 32.”

---

In preparing these reflections, in addition to the biblical texts, I consulted the following works:

Berrigan 2000 – Philip Berrigan, “Depleted uranium — made in USA,” National Catholic Reporter , Vol. 36, No. 17, February 25, 2000, p. 12.

Borg & Crossan 2006 – Marcus J. Borg and John Dominic Crossan, The Last Week:  A Day-by-Day Acccount of Jesus’s Final Week in Jerusalem (New York:  HarperSanFrancisco, 2006), 31-53.

Brown 1966 – Raymond E. Brown, S.S., The Gospel according to John (i-xii) , Volume 12 of the Anchor Bible (Garden City, NY:  Doubleday & Company,  Inc., 1966)

Crossan 1991 – John Dominic Crossan, The Historical Jesus:  The Life of a Mediterranean Jewish Peasant  (New York:  HarperSanFrancisco, 1991)

Fuller & Westberg 2006 – Reginald H. Fuller and Daniel Westberg, Preaching the Lectionary:  The Word of God for the Church Today, Third Edition (Collegeville, MN:  The Liturgical Press, 2006)

Malina & Rohrbaugh 1998 – Bruce J. Malina and Richard L. Rohrbaugh, Social-Science Commentary on the Gospel of John  (Minneapolis, MN:  Fortress Press, 1998)

Moloney 1998 – Francis J. Moloney, S.D.B. The Gospel of John.  Sacra Pagina Series Volume 4, A Michael Glazier Book (Collegeville [MN]:  Liturgical Press1998)

Meier 1994 – John P. Meier, A Marginal Jew:  Rethinking the Historical Jesus, Volume Two, Mentor , Message, and Miracles (New York:  Doubleday, 1994)

NRSV = New Revised Standard Edition – Bruce M. Metzger and Roland E. Murphy, Eds. The New Oxford Annotated Bible containing the Old and New Testaments  (New York:  Oxford University Press, 1994)

Pilch 1996 – John J. Pilch, The Cultural World of Jesus:  Sunday by Sunday, Cycle B  (Collegeville, MN:  The Liturgical Press, 1996)

---