The fact that this movie, Zeffirelli's Jesus of Nazareth, was recommended to me by people who know about good movies and good theology, in other words, by people whom I trust, prompted me to attend a Lenten study series using this movie at my church. I have never seen this movie and so, Tuesday night, saw a scene: the cleansing of the Temple.

The typical pious reaction to Jesus' cleansing of the Temple is scandal, followed with attempts to explain Jesus' presumed expression of anger, and leading to notions of "righteous anger", justifiable anger, anger without sin. (Psalm 4:4 quoted in Eph. 4:26). These explanations have never seemed to me to be anything more than a rationalized contrivance intended to save face, Christ's and our own who affirm His sinless earthly existence. In the movie Jesus is not depicted harming any person, he just overturns the tables.

I have never heard anyone make the connection between the temple cleansing of Josiah and Hezekiah (2 Kings 23, 2 Chronicles 29) and Jesus' cleansing (Matt. 21:12-13; Mark 11:15-17; Luke 19:45-46; John 2:13-17) but cleaning the house before Passover is the task proper to the righteous king or, these days in Judaism, the head of household. Jesus shows his kingship in this careful act before His Final Passover (John's source material is a little different here, but the cleansing still takes place before a Passover). Emotional temper doesn't factor into it at all: the text is making a christological statement. We should see in it neither a sample of how to display anger righteously nor be bogged down on whether Jesus could do all this without sinning. On the latter issue, I don't question He could. And anyone who doubts that Jesus lived without sin because of this story has missed the real point of the passages.

Since I have never mustered the courage to watch Gibson's Passion, the only biopic of Jesus that I have seen is Jesus Christ Superstar. You are smirking, aren't you? I love the music; you can't argue with Andrew Lloyd Webber and Tim Rice -- I love Disney's Aladdin, too for Rice's lyrics! Yes, in Superstar, I am upset that Judas is cast as a black man, I don't understand that, actually. And, yes, I was shocked by the Broadway performance many years ago (ten years?) when the resurrected Christ and (resurrected? in white) Judas shake hands at the end of the show. We Catholics were warned as children to not think anyone in hell except Judas and Hitler. Anyway, this is my point of reference, you must understand. I compare Zeffirelli's masterpiece with a rock opera.

And, more poignant than the Temple cleansing scene, as important as that action may be, is Jesus' intent focus, fixation almost, on the rising smoke of the sacrifice. He is engrossed in its constant presence and lofting. It recalled to my mind the censor of Revelation, mixing incense with the prayers of the saints. The smoke from the offerings was a prayer to God, and Jesus was touched to rededicate the Temple to the purpose of prayer.

I wanted to talk in greater detail about John's placement of the story earlier in his Gospel, in fact, it occurs right after the water to wine incident at Cana. John's source is different than the Synoptics not only in its placement but also in reference to which type of OT literature is fulfilled by the story: in John, the cleansing fulfills Wisdom literature, i.e., Ps. 69:9a, but in the Synoptics, the cleansing fulfills the Prophets, Isaiah and Jeremiah (56:7 and 7:11, respectively) Fulfilling Wisdom literature is consonant with John's Logos and of seeing Jesus as God's wisdom embodied; Jesus is the climax of God's Word.