Readings for the Feast of the Dedication of the Lateran Basilica in Rome: EZ 47: 1-2, 8-9, 12; I COR 3: 9c-11, 16-17; JN 2: 13-22. http://www.usccb.org/bible/readings/110914.cfm
On Thursday, September 20th 2001, President George W. Bush addressed the nation and a joint session of Congress following the horrendous attacks of September 11th. He explained the tragedy in the following words:
“Americans are asking ‘Why do they hate us?’ They hate what they see right here in this chamber: a democratically elected government. Their leaders are self-appointed. They hate our freedoms: our freedom of religion, our freedom of speech, our freedom to vote and assemble and disagree with each other.”
Surprisingly, that explanation stood without contradiction. And it did so with virtually none of our political or thought leaders in the mainstream questioning its validity. Not even our poets or religious leaders who should be sensitized to reading symbol found voices strong enough to redirect the response so everyone could hear.
Why do they hate us?
The answer should have been: Look at the targets and their symbolism. They were carefully chosen – the World Trade Center, the Pentagon, and (probably) the White House. The targets said: they hate our unjust economic system which since the fall of the Ottoman Empire has oppressed the poor of the Islamic world and robbed them of their resources. They hate our military that enforces the system’s injustice even to the point of blasphemously stationing goyim troops near the holy sites of Mecca and Medina. Above all, they hate the political system that cooperates unquestioningly with Israel in its oppression of Palestinians and whose sanctions against Saddam Hussein killed more than half a million Iraqi children without remorse.
Hence the targets – the center of world trade, of military planning, and of anti-Muslim political conspiracy.
The religious and political leaders of Jesus’ day also probably wondered about the origin of his apparent hate for them and their religion. Why would a good Jew symbolically “raze” the temple and predict with apparent prophetic delight its actual destruction? “Why does he hate us?” I’m sure they wondered.
The answer: consider the temple’s symbolism and the violence of Jesus’ attack.
First of all the symbolism . . .
All of today’s readings describe the temple’s intended meaning. For Ezekiel, the temple is the very source of life. It’s as though all the earth’s life-giving waters flowed from it, so that “every sort of living creature can multiply and live” including sea creatures, fruit trees and health-giving medicinal plants. Today’s psalm responsorial calls the temple the very home of God who is the refuge of his favorites – the widows, orphans, and undocumented aliens. In today’s second reading, Paul says the temple represents what human beings should actually be – the very home of God’s Holy Spirit of love and compassion.
All of that Jesus found contradicted by the sociopolitical reality of his day. Here’s what he saw and wanted “cleansed”:
Economically, the temple had become the principal “means of production” in all of Palestine. Its reconstruction and renovation had begun 46 years before under Herod the Great. It continued until 63 CE – just seven years before the Romans finally razed it to the ground. You can imagine then the day laborers, brick layers, stone masons, and artists employed in that very long process. As a public work, the rebuilding of the temple stimulated the Jewish economy.
While that wasn’t bad in itself, the temple primarily served the interests of the elite. It was the banking center of Jerusalem. To it flowed the taxes and tithes from all over the Jewish world – the equivalent of billions of dollars. So it represented the corruption that always accompanies great wealth. The temple’s overseers were infamously avaricious. Even the conservative Jewish historian Josephus called high priest, Ananias (47-58 CE) “the great procurer of money.”
Most damningly, the Temple was the ideological center of the Jewish faith. As such it embodied the whole “purity code” that was so oppressive to simple people such as Jesus’ own parents. You recall how temple authorities were especially hard on the long list of “impure” poor people who were particularly close to Jesus’ heart – the prostitutes, lepers, Samaritans, undocumented aliens, sick and starving. Temple authorities despised those people. They saw them all as being punished by God for their well-deserved afflictions. Such “unclean” people had to offer sacrifices of pigeons and doves to make reparation for their second class social status.
Jesus rejected all of that. So along with his friends he attacked it symbolically. John the Evangelist describes Jesus’ bringing temple business to a screeching halt – driving out those “who sold oxen, sheep, and doves, as well as the money-changers seated there. He made a whip out of cords and drove them all out of the temple area, with the sheep and oxen, and spilled the coins of the money-changers and overturned their tables, and to those who sold doves he said, ‘Take these out of here, and stop making my Father’s house a marketplace.’” It’s hard to imagine Jesus accomplishing such disruption by himself; he must have been part of a much larger demonstration.
Worse yet, Jesus predicted with prophetic delight the actual destruction of the temple which would have been even more shocking to Jews than the destruction of the Twin Towers. Jesus’ action, he implied, was merely a pantomime version of a real destruction to come. In Mark’s version of the event, he says, “Do you see these great buildings? Not one stone will be left here upon another; all will be thrown down.” (MK 13:2). Does that sound like 9/11? What blasphemy! For Jesus’ contemporaries, his actions coupled with those words predicted a catastrophe like none other.
His words actually came true in the year 70 when the Romans leveled the entire city of Jerusalem. No wonder the Romans and their Jewish collaborators saw Jesus as a terrorist worse than Osama bin Laden!
You get the idea. Jesus’ direct action in the temple represented an attack on the status quo politically, economically, and ideologically. It might even be true to say that Jesus’ choice of targets followed the same lines as the 9/11 terrorists when they attacked the World Trade Center and Pentagon, and probably intended to do the same with the White House. All of those symbolize what’s wrong with the world in the eyes of those who consider themselves oppressed by empire.
And the lessons from all of this? I’d be interested in what you think. For me it means that we must:
• Be attuned to the “signs of the times.”
• And to the repercussions of cooperating with actions and policies based on greed, empire, and vilification of the poor and powerless.
• Think poetically embracing the explicative power of symbolic language as more powerful than the merely descriptive.
• Interpret that symbolism for others – in the name of the Christian faith we ostensibly share.
• Be willing to be thought of as terrorists and atheists ourselves,
• Entailing a willingness to participate in bold, public actions against the prevailing power structure.
• Be willing to suffer the painful consequences of such actions – as Jesus did.
• Admit that we deserve the hate of those working to destroy the system that oppresses them.
• And pray for the defeat of U.S. policies based on false explanations of opposition to imperial oppression.
Mike? I too always wonder when no one protests…”Surprisingly, that explanation stood without contradiction. And it did so with virtually none of our political or thought leaders in the mainstream questioning its validity.”
It is important to question statements that are at odds with individual understanding. Therefore, please do not take it personally when I question what you wrote: “…they hate our unjust economic system which since the fall of the Ottoman Empire has oppressed the poor of the Islamic world and robbed them of their resources.”
If you google “Blackwood’s Edinburgh Magazine” the history of the Ottoman Empire (which encompasses centuries, I realize), for example the situation of Hasbeiya, Lebanon….where the Druze massacred Maronites in 1860… “It was at this time that the Emir imposed new taxes, which fell particularly hard on the poor…” etc. etc. The history of the Ottoman Empire involved just as much imperialism and misery as any other empire. Could we please not paint the emirs and pashas as if they were some variety of Quakers or Mennonites? Christianity has had moments of brutality…same with the Islamic world. The Bulgarian-Ottoman Wars involved genocide. We do ourselves no favors by creating and believing illusions. Justice involves truth. Especially if you are eager to castigate Israelis, make extra certain to account for the rest of the history of that region, even if it isn’t taught in U.S. colleges and universities.
Tamerlane, for example, was a bloody badass, and so was the regime that he conquered and overran. In a Berea Renaissance history class, we used a textbook called “The Portable Renaissance Reader” which credited Tamerlane with upsetting the applecart and allowing the Renaissance to begin, exposing European emissaries to all sorts of creative inventions from China and elsewhere. I always wondered what sparked the Renaissance … surely it didn’t just occur spontaneously. The Church was on the run for a brief time, and independent minds were free to explore in that interlude.
LikeLike
One of the practices which weakened the Ottomans was their slavery of the Janissaries. “The Auspicious Incident” is interesting: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Auspicious_Incident
LikeLike
Well Mike I admire your calling a spade a spade. To compare Jesus
to the perpetrators of 9/11 should sure wake folks up! Not that what you wrote is not exactly true in every respect; but here’s the rub: they have eyes but do not see, they have ears but do not hear.
Unfortunately denial is not a river in Egypt….
LikeLike
Hello, Mike
Your statement that “not even our poets …found voices strong enough to redirect the response so everyone could hear.” caught me eye. Although I am a perpetual complainer against the MFA navel gazing and word games that make up most of the poetry published in this country, I still have to give the poets a break for not saying anything about politics. There are almost no venues, in print or on the web, for dissident or radical political poetry. The few self-styled radical-politics websites who do publish poetry stick closely to the usual identity politics, pwoggy themes in their selections of poems for publication.
Just an observation,
Jon Taylor
LikeLike