3rd Sunday of Lent B - Homily 4

Homily 4 - 2015

Lent started with Jesus calling us to repent. Scholars all agree that the word repent is a poor translation of what Jesus really asked. He invited people to change their minds, their way of seeing things – virtually to stand on their heads. The change he asked for was that people believe, [or, really, trust], the Good News of God. Jesus evidently assumed people have trouble doing that – trouble seeing God as Good News. Probably, all of us here would feel inclined to say, “I already see God that way. There is no need for me to change. ” I wonder.

Let us start our reflection today with St Paul’s Second Reading, I preach a crucified Christ. I preach a world’s saviour spectacularly killed by the world he came to save – the utterly powerless and dangerous enemy of both the religious State and secular State. Jews wanted a miraculous Christ, Greeks one who spoke sense, wisdom. Religions are usually into a God who is almighty; secular states into common sense, rationality – like economic rationalism and military realism. Yet Paul claims that Jesus redefines power and wisdom, and sees his redefinition as immeasurably preferable, God’s foolishness is wiser than human wisdom, and God’s weakness is stronger than human strength. It is important to get it right, since we consciously or unconsciously justify our behavior according to our sense of God. Rather than “Lord God, heavenly King, Almighty God and Father”, should we better address our prayers, “O knowingly foolish and deliberately weak God”? Might that wean us off our addictions to power and common sense?

The Gospel sheds further light.  John’s Gospel has Jesus say, “… stop turning my Father’s houses into a market”. And he meant it. The whole scene angered him to such an extent that he drove whatever animals he could out of the place, and didn’t mind if they knocked over the moneychangers’ tables in the process.  What was that about? Pilgrims needed to purchase animals if they were to fulfill their obligations to offer the required sacrifices to God; and they needed to convert their foreign currency if they were to pay for them. In the same scene in the other Gospels, Matthew, Mark and Luke have Jesus quoting the line from the Hebrew Scriptures, “… you have made my house a den of thieves”. Significantly, in this passage from John’s Gospel, Jesus was not objecting to shabby financial dealings. He was challenging what the temple was essentially about, and upsetting a tradition that went back virtually forever. When confronted, he effectively said, “My own crucified and risen humanity will put you in closer touch with God than any temple ever could”. The mystery deepens.

Jesus called God his Father, and he called the temple my Father’s house. What he said was really a bit like, “There was no bartering, no keeping count, at home at mum and dad’s - just love” That is how things should have been with the temple – though, as Jesus saw it, that was obviously not how the temple operated. How were sacrifices understood? What were they meant to do? Sacrifices were the necessary means to get back into God’s favour, to even up the score. With their sacrifices, people, basically, were bartering with God. They would offer the required sacrifice; God would forgive them. They were paying the necessary price for their salvation - the bigger their transgressions, the more costly their sacrifice.  It was essentially a business transaction. 

Religions are still heavily into that, building up the credit needed to outweigh the debts, getting more graces, more merit, more whatever, to make up for our sins. Yet Jesus insisted that his God was a Father. Fathers are not accountants or bank-managers. They are not into power, at least not with adult children. Rather, they empower; and they do it by loving and trusting, encouraging and forgiving. What angered Jesus so deeply was that the whole system then, and that same mindset now, demean God and God’s love.

Might our sense of God need reviewing?