FATHER FRANK’S RANTS - 301

FATHER FRANK’S RANTS are such a special mindset that I felt it necassary to bring him to your attention by giving you a tast of his rants, if you wish to read more then click on Father Frank's Rants.

Rant Number 301 1 May 2008

Temple of Blood

Do not trust in these deceptive words: “This is the temple of the Lord, the temple of the Lord, the temple of the Lord.” Jeremiah 7:4

If I were Jewish, the ancient Roman monument that would impress me the most would not be the corny, gruyere-like Colosseum. It would be the Arch of Titus. The dramatic triumphal structure that stands in the Forum. Erected to celebrate Titus’ victory over the rebellious Judeans in AD 70. At the end of a bloody war culminating in the destruction and sacking of the Jerusalem temple, Judaism’s holiest shrine. Carved in stone, the visitor

beholds a melancholy scene: prisoners driven away into slavery and the conquerors carrying away the Temple treasure, such as the great seven-branched candlestick, the Menorah. Titus later became emperor but died shortly afterwards, still young. Hmmm…maybe it was to make amends that 300 years on Emperor Julian the Apostate promised to the Jews he would rebuild the temple - before a Persian spear stopped him forever.

Would rebuilding the Temple be a good idea? People like Rabbi Dov Stein might think so. He is connected to the Sanhedrin Organisation. He would like to bring back the Temple animal sacrifices. Discontinued since AD 70, as sacrifices can only take in the temple. No temple, no sacrifices. And Rabbi Dov also apparently called for a king to be appointed over Israel. Huh! Why did I not think of that myself? Monarchies usually mean stability. And they bring in tourists, too – Britain proves it. Animal rights brigade notwithstanding, the Rebbe sure is a man of bright ideas. Lateral thinking, perhaps.

Whether some earnest fellows are really planning to rebuild the Jewish temple is a moot point. Not that it would be intrinsically wrong. Judaism is a distinguished world religion. Christianity’s elder sister. If that faith’s lawful religious authorities determined that God wishes to have his temple rebuilt, it would be intolerant to oppose it. Sikhs and Buddhists are allowed to have temples. Why not the Jews? Ma fi mushkila, as Arabs might put it.

The Arabs. There’s the rub. The temple is no problem. The place is. Because the Jerusalem temple stood more or less on the haram al sharif. The Temple Mount. Where the Dome of the Rock and the Al Aqsa mosque are now located. Most unlikely Muslim luminaries would agree to either have their holy places moved or, worse, demolished to make way for the Jewish temple. Forget it.

Some wonder why Jerusalem should matter to Muslims. They observe the name ‘Jerusalem’ is mentioned hundreds of times in the Bible but never in the Quran. True, the holy city is not explicitly mentioned in Islam’s holy book. It is, however, mentioned implicitly, by description. Sura 17, appositely named The Children of Israel, v. 1: ‘Glorified be He who carried his servant for a journey by night, from the sacred mosque to the farthest mosque…’ An arcane passage, taken to refer to the mysterious Isra’, a supernatural night journey undertaken by the Prophet astride the mare-headed steed Buraq. From a mosque near the Ka’ba to the mosque of Al Aqsa, ‘the farthest mosque’. Located in Jerusalem, on the Temple Mount, where Muhammad dismounted and tied Buraq to a wall. Thus, Muslims say that not only the Quran indirectly speaks of Jerusalem. The sacred city which was hallowed by a tremendous miracle in the Prophet’s life.

Two faiths confront each other on the Temple Mount. Seems absurd, doesn’t it? We are in the third millennium and people still fanatically dispute about recondite matters like temples, animal sacrifices and miraculous journeys. All right in the tales of the Thousand and One Nights but reputed impossible in our modernity. This impossibility, however, could spark off a conflagration that would make the two previous intifadas look like vicarage tea parties. Enough to make modern, liberal and ‘enlightened’ folks shake their heads in disbelief. All so extreme, stupid and irrational. Not a conflict about reasonable, tangible matters like human rights, democracy or equality. This is the ancient quarrel, the feud between Isaac and Ishmael cropping up all over again. An atavistic, violent and deep-rooted struggle between two kindred peoples. Divided by a similar burning zeal for the all-important things of God. By Gad, the priest does admire them!

All-important? Yes, because Jerusalem is holy city to both faiths. To three, in fact, as Jesus preached, suffered, died and rose again there. One of his prophecies did indeed foresee the catastrophe of AD 70. Of the magnificent temple Jesus warned: ‘Not one stone will be left upon another’. And the sacred city was also the wicked city, the Jerusalem that ‘kills the prophets and stones those who are sent to you’. Prophets like Jeremiah and Ezekiel had issued similar condemnations. The temple had fallen into sin. The glory of the Lord that had once dwelled in the ineffable darkness of the Holy of Holies had departed, Ezekiel said. Weird heathen deities had been allowed to pollute the sacred place with their shrines. Monsters like the evil King Manasseh had even sacrificed their own sons to the Canaanite idols. The Hebrews had succumbed to syncretism – or ‘religious pluralism’. Guess God gave Israel her comeuppance. Babylonian destruction of the temple and the people’s foreign captivity followed. Only a faithful remnant did return.

Men’s yearning for God dwelling in their midst are perennial. For Christians that dwelling place is the temple of Christ’s body. Namely, the very body and blood of Jesus, the Eucharist. That too has been ferociously fought over in the past, though we don’t do that anymore. Is that necessarily good, though? Or simply one of indifference, lack of interest? Maybe, just maybe fighting for a teaching or a doctrine is a measure of the holy zeal of a religion’s adherents. Without that zeal a religion is dead. So heated disputes over matters of faith might be a sign of healthy vitality, after all.

Mind you, there is a right zeal and a wrong zeal. Zeal to kill the innocent, for example, is unholy zeal. Or no zeal at all.

Rather, it is called sin.

Revd Frank Gelli