January 10, 2005

Crystal on the temple cleansing

The only part of the temple cleansing scene which I don't find disturbing is that Jesus disrupted the animal sacrifices (animal lover, here *g*). It makes me think of the lines ... Matthew 12:7 ... If mercy is superior to the temple sacrifices, how much more to the laws of ritual impurity ... and Jesus saying elsewhere in Matthew "Go and learn the meaning of the words, 'I desire mercy, not sacrifice."

One spiritual director told me once that my Jesus was a plastic Jersus, because I wouldn't let him get angry. Obviously I have some issues :-). But, on the whole, I like Jesus being passionately disturbed to the point of doing such a reckless/brave thing, for surely this act put another metaphorical nail in his coffin with the religious leaders.

Then there's the part where Jesus obliquely refers to his death and resurrection ... poor disciples, they never seem to understand. I'm actually grateful to them for being such dense dopes - it means that if they can eventually get it right, there's hope for even me.

Finally, it ends on a kind of sad/foreboding note ... But Jesus would not trust himself to them because he knew them all, and did not need anyone to testify about human nature. He himself understood it well. :-(


At 2:29 p.m., Blogger Larry said...

Crystal, Jesus does not trust himself to us because he knows us too well, but he has commited himself totally to us with a love that transcends trust. And we will be like him.

At 3:26 p.m., Blogger david said...

an interesting logic puzzle: can an omniscient being trust? Or is trust an irrelevant practice to omniscience? Is trust essential to relationship? What does that say about our relationship to the Divine?

And Jesus wept. And was amazed. And asked that this cup pass from him. And cried out that God had abandoned him.

What to do with all of that?

At 3:51 p.m., Blogger crystal said...

And Jesus wept. And was amazed. And asked that this cup pass from him. And cried out that God had abandoned him.... that is the best stuff :-). it is paradoxical that God can made sad, happy, can change his mind, can be tempted, is vulnerable ... and still is omniscient, omnipotent, immutable. If he couldn't do the former, I wouldn't love him.

At 7:48 p.m., Blogger Marjorie said...

The fundy study pointed out that when Jesus cleansed the temple, there is no evidence that he hit or harmed anyone, just destruction of property (my words, not theirs). Was he angry? Is anger a sin? Could he have been angry? God sure got angry in the Old Testament. He may not have been angry, he may have been.

I don't think your un-angry Jesus is plastic (though he may be at odds with Catholic doctrine ;-)). I think we all have to work hard to understand Jesus and for some it is very important that he was NOT angry. Fully human and fully God, it boggles my mind.

David asks an excellent question -- even if one is trustworthy, how does an omniscient God trust -- wouldn't he know? Likewise, we believe because we don't know, if we knew, it would be knowledge, not belief. But, I think I'm twisting the point, here, I think Jesus knows these people are not trustworthy, even Peter and certainly me. I wouldn't feel too bad that the creator knows his creation.

At 12:50 p.m., Blogger Larry said...

Re anger: I don't believe anger is a sin. Some things it's sinful not to be angry about. God gave us anger as well as love, and each has its appropriate place. Jesus was appropriately angry: they were abusing, profaning, degrading the Temple; only the dead of soul would not have righteous indignation about that. Incidentally it's perfectly possible (and natural for a Christian) to be angry and continue to love.

At 5:12 p.m., Blogger david said...

Be angry but do not sin; do not let the sun go down on your anger,and do not make room for the devil. Ephesians 4:26-27.

I think our marraige lasted through thsoe rough early years in aprt because we took this passage to heart following our first real argument,


Post a Comment

<< Home