JERUSALEM
HOUSE OF PRAYER
FOR ALL PEOPLES

Introduction

by Fredéric Manns ofm (SBF Jerusalem)

by Moshe Greenberg (Hebrew University, Jerusalem)

by Jean-Marie Sevrin (Catholic University, Louvain-la-Neuve)

by Avigdor Shinan (Hebrew University, Jerusalem)

by Abd el Rahman Abbad (U.N. University, Ramallah)

by Wadi Abullif (Franciscan Center of Christian Oriental Studies, Cairo)

by Alviero Niccacci (SBF, Jerusalem)

Welcome to our symposium. This is Symposium number 3. After the promises made to the Fathers, after the sacrifice of Isaac, we are going to discuss, always on an academic level, a prophecy of Isaiah: Jerusalem shall be a house of prayer for all peoples.

Recently there have been a lot of congresses and symposia about Jerusalem. The Institute Yad ben Zvi published in 1994 a bibliography of 1000 titles on Jerusalem. Impossible to read them all. Our symposium is not going to repeat was already has been said. It is going to focus its research upon Jerusalem as a house of prayer for all peoples. It doesn't have a political dimension, but since religion and politics are so closely intertwined in the Middle East it can not forget this dimension. Our purpose is more the dissolving of hostility and the winning of hearts, studying our common heritage, since many of the larger issues, including the future of Jerusalem, will surface in the months ahead. It is therefore appropriate that we convene an academic conference on Jerusalem as a spiritual center.

Midrash Shir ha Shirim Zuta knows a list of seventy names of Jerusalem based on biblical phrases. One of the names is the House of prayer. About the etymology of the name of Jerusalem there are a lot of discussions. What seems to be certain is that the name Salim, the divinity of the Jebusite city, was integrated in the name Jeru Salim. David kept this pagan name. He didn't destroy the city. He didn't organize a transfer of the Jebusite population. 2 Sam 24:22 says even that David bought the threshing floor from Araunah during the plague that hit the people :

"Then Araunah said to David, "Let my lord the king take and offer up what seems good to him; here are the oxen for the burnt offering, and the threshing sledges and the yokes of the oxen for the wood."

David accepted from a Jebusite the animals for his sacrifice, even the wood. The Temple has Jebusite roots and shows a continuity with the cult of Salim. This pagan source of the sanctity of Jerusalem must be underlined. Solomon seems to recognize it, since in his prayer for the consecration of the Temple he admits that even the stranger who will come to pray will be answered by God.

The name Jerusalem is quoted 656 times in the Bible, but never in the Tora, which became central after the destruction of the Temple. The history of Jerusalem in biblical times is marked by a series of transitions: from Jebusite to Israelite, from a self-contained city-state to the capital of a kingdom, from a military citadel to a holy city. These were not one-time revolutions, but rather a result of complex processes over a long period of time. More important, Jerusalem did not have any role in the early traditions of Israel. The Patriarchs traditions are linked to Bethel and Shekem, to Hebron and Beersheva. Jerusalem' foreigness is stated explicitely in the encounter between Abraham and the Jerusalem King-priest, Melchisedek (Gen 14:18-20).

At the later stages of the biblical periods Jerusalem becomes a holy city (Is 48:2; 52:1), the site God chose to establish his name there (Dt 12:5), the place which represents God's presence upon earth.

The destruction of the city in 586 did not change the importance of the city. Jerusalem became the focus of the hopes for redemption. The earthly city became a symbol of the Jerusalem from above. The destruction of Jerusalem gave rise to a flourishing of hopes for redemption that combine national hopes with the belief in an messianic golden age. After the exile Esdras and Nehemia tried to eliminate the pagan influences from the city. But the hellenization of the city started under the Ptolemies and the Seleucides. The war between the God of Olympus and the God of Sinai started. The purified Temple of Jerusalem could not forget what the pagans did to it. Impossible not to mention here the destruction of the Temple in 70, the byzantine and the arab period, the construction of the Dome of the Rock as a counterbalance to the Christian main monument, the Holy Sepulcher.

But from whatever point of view you look at Jerusalem, the city is pluralistic. Her political and symbolic memory has been nourished by many peoples.

Before starting this symposium some friends told me: Be careful: with Jerusalem you tackle a delicate problem. It is something like in psychology to tackle with the problem of the Father. In Jerusalem the Jewish-Arab conflict in all its dimension is condensed and symbolized. I answered: I am not afraid because I am convinced that Jerusalem doesn't not represent the image of the Father, but Jerusalem is the mother of us all, like Psalm 87 has it. And with the mother it is possible to discuss about the common heritage so that the quarrel about this inheritance should not transform itself in another war. No angelic look at the city as the city of Peace nor the contemplation of the Jerusalem from above can make us forget the sad reality of a divided city.

Jerusalem was destroyed 17 times and changed his culture and symbolic horizon. Until today the city shows the signs of all these conflicts. The city is already divided by psychological walls, a web of mutual antagonisms and fears. These walls are far more threatening and divide more than a Berlin wall, a Gaza fence or a check point. Even if fears can be imaginary they create much less perforated walls than designated boundaries. Under all these destructions one can guess the mystery of a city where God put his presence. The symbolic foundation of this city invites all his inhabitants to dialogue.

It is a common place to repeat that the land we are living in bears two confronting histories, two peoples, three faith-communities and so many ethnic and religious prejudices. Euphoric dreams mingle every day with the worst of nightmares. The land is not only the land where milk and honey run, there are also to many tears and blood mingled with this milk and honey. Nine measures of beauty and nine measures of sufferings have been given to Jerusalem, said the rabbis.

For Jews, Christians and Muslims in the Middle East religion was never a private affair, isolated from the public square. Impossible to isolate religious motivations and sensibilities from the political and cultural elements. It is taken for granted that there is a working relation between Arab state and mosque and Israel and synagogue. The importance of religion in national politics can not be overestimated.

Memory so dominates that centuries do not succeed one to another, they co-exist. Even in the Universities the ever present imperative is recalled: Remember. But there are true and false memory-myths. History and memory are controlled.

The religious claims of the three monotheistic religions to Jerusalem are each one unique with their attributes which cherish different places in the city. But sometimes those places are the same, such as the Temple mount. Jerusalem's holiness complicates any attempt to solve the Jerusalem question.

Reconciliation can start only when one accepts to listen to the other's story. In purifying common history and healing collective memories justice and peace become possible.

Our topic is a very touchy one: Jerusalem as the house of prayer for all nations. Was it not a revelation of Prophet's Isaiah school, a prophetic dream, I wouldn't dare to speak of such an utopia. But we often forget that utopia can be the engine of history. "Where there is no vision, the people perish", says the Book of Proverbs 29,18. For Jews Jerusalem remembers the prayers of Abraham, the offering of Isaac and the vision of Jacob. It remembers the altar of David, the House of prayers built by Solomon and the prayers of generations of pilgrims who three times a year used to come to "be seen by God". For Christian Jerusalem is the place of the death and resurrection of Jesus, the birth place of the Church. Jerusalem is called mater omnium ecclesiarum. The expectation of the end of days contributed to the preservation of the symbolic relevance of the Holy City. For Muslims Jerusalem remembers prophets Mohammed's night journey, and his miraj. Jerusalem was also the original Qibla for Muslim prayer. The ummayad caliph Mu'awiyah linked his personal identity with Jerusalem calling himself caliph of the Bet al maqdis. The Arab identity of the city was further emphasized when caliph Omar Ibn al Khatib came in 638. But the Koran sees the Scriptures of teh Jews and the Christians as different forms of the same heavenly book, the "mother of the Book". Is the concept of revelation the same in the three monotheistic religions?

Jerusalem is the city of so many mirrors and so many symbols. Unity and diversity are present everywhere. Unity which does not mean uniformity. Joys and hopes, contradictions and sufferings of the world are concentrated here. As Psalm 86 has it Jerusalem is a mother for everybody. During centuries Jerusalem mobilized enormous energies, inspired thousands of pilgrims, Jewish, Christian and Muslim and invited them to come to drink from the living source, the divine source. World history has been fertilized by Jerusalem. Symbol of God's justice, Jerusalem has become the place of human injustice. Symbol of God's unity has become the place of the exclusion of the other. Symbol of God's presence Jerusalem seems sometimes the place of God's absence.

The Israeli-Arab conflict in all its dimensions is symbolized and condensed in Jerusalem, blessed and cursed by its religious, politic and military history and by present claims to the City's future by cousins. Jerusalem has become a magnet which draws all seekers for solutions. Historically all exclusive governing claims for Jerusalem never worked out. Only shared authority in Jerusalem would be a pragmatic compromise. Jews, Christians and Muslims share the same religious crisis created by the conflict. All three try to respond to a common religious call first addressed to Abraham "to keep the way of the Lord and to do what is right and just" (Gen 18:19).

Naim Ateek a Palestinian Anglican theologian said that the whole issue of the Land must begin with a discussion on the nature of God. I would add : the whole issue of Jerusalem must begin with a discussion on the nature of prayer. What is prayer? What is a place of prayer for all peoples?

The histories of Judaism, Christianity and Islam are strewn with the horror of evil executed in the name of God and God's revealed truth. Too often our sinfulness, our pathologies are transferred to God for divine approval. The word of God is taken away from God. God's holiness is replaced by a panoply of idols in the worst image of ourselves. Let God be God. Let men be men. Let prayer be a real prayer.

I would like to thank the Custody of the Holy Land the sponsor of this symposium for its courage to tackle with burning problems. My thanks also to all our lecturers who accepted to forget for a moment all the conflicts and to think with the reason God gave them. My thanks to Mgr Mathes who for the third times gives a so kindly hospitality. Thanks to you all the participants who are convinced that dialogue is the solution, real dialogue with God in prayer which can change dialogue between men.

Professor Greenberg gave a beneficial impulse to the discussion with a lucid exegesis of Isaiah 56:2-8. According to his presentation, two categories of people will be included in the new community of worshippers of the God of Israel. They are the "alien who joined himself to the Lord," that is who converted to him, and the "eunuch." The peculiarity of this prophetic pronouncement lies in the fact that these two categories, who were not entitled to join the worshipping community, after the restoration of Israel from exile would be brought by God himself to the temple in Jerusalem, "for - God says - my house will be called a house of prayer for all the peoples." It is significant that the term used for "alien" is not ger, the "alien resident," but ben-hannekhar, that is simply "the alien, the foreigner." Further, as Greenberg noted, the prophet speaks of "joining oneself to the Lord," not "to the Jews." Conditions for the admission are, first, keeping the Sabbath, which for Greenberg epitomizes celebrating the sacred festivals during the year, and second, "doing no evil," which is explained as "holding fast to the Lord's covenant." What strikes is, then, the fact that the role of Israel is secondary. On the one hand, the rights and duties imposed on the joiners are the same as those imposed on Israel but, on the other hand, the joiners remain a group distinct from Israel. In other words, they will be a group of equal status with Israel, yet distinct from Israel.

According to Mark 11:15-19, Jesus does not actually proclaim the destruction of the Jewish temple. Jesus enters Jerusalem as the Messiah and purifies the temple by reopening it as the house of prayer for all the peoples. Indeed, the context shows that, because he is rejected, Jesus symbolically announces the sterility of the temple, which at that time was closed to the universality of the nations. According to Mark, the material destruction of the Jewish temple is linked to the second coming of the Messiah at the end of time. According to Professor Sevrin, in the period between the first and the second coming of the Messiah, the Jewish temple, though surpassed, was to remain. Actually, the early Christians continued to attend the temple service while on the same time "breaking bread from house to house" (Acts 2:46). Apparently, the temple service continued to have a meaning for them as members of the worshipping Israel. At the same time, as believers in Jesus they were aware of having a new identity, of being a community assembled by the risen Lord, who was the new temple.

Following the lectures of Moshe Greenberg and Jean Marie Sevrin Professor Shinan discussed all rabbinic texts that mention Is. 56:7. It seems that the Rabbis (in Eretz Israel!) are trying to avoid what seems to be the simple meaning (Pshat) of the text and they understand the word `ammim as referring to the Israelites rather than to all human beings. The main sources read (in English) are the Talmud Yerushalmi Brachot 4:5; Mechilta to Mishpatim 18; Tanhumah Re'e 18; Talmud Bavli Shabbat 118b; Talmud Bavli Megilah 18a; Talmud Bavli Pesachim 87b-88a and the Aramaic Targum to Isaiah. It seems that the only Babylonian text in this group (the Targum) is close to the Pshat, but more than one explanation can be offered for this fact. It should also be noted, that Beit Tefilah is one of the names of Jerusalem (in a famous list of 70 names of Jerusalem) - a fact that deserves a special attention.

Professor Abbad stressed the strong and ancient connections of the Muslims with Jerusalem - connections said to link today's Palestinians to the pre-Israelitic population of Canaan. Abbad also underlined the Islamic conception of one God and one religion. In the Muslim view, the prophets complement each other; their mission is to call humanity back to God and the true religion of Abraham. The sanctity of Jerusalem for Islam is another point illustrated by Professor Abbad. He described the Islamic occupation of Jerusalem as an imperative duty of liberating the Holy City from the impious Byzantines (Romans). Finally, Professor Abbad pleaded the case of a tolerant behavior of the Islamic rulers towards both Jews and Christians throughout history.

Professor Wadi presents a discussion of the texts on Jerusalem in the Arabic-Christian literature. He begins with the History of the Patriarchs attributed to Severus Ibn al-Muqaffa` (10th cent.). He then examines three apocalyptic texts by Samuel of Kalamon, Pizentius of Coptos, and the famous legendary character, the Wise Sybil, which describe the final battle and the last judgment. Wadi then examines the movement of pilgrimage to Jerusalem throughout the ages with special emphasis on the Copts and on the writings of the 13th cent. Coptic authors.

More questions than answers are possible at this stage.
We discover a remarkable parallelism between the results of Professor Greenberg and those of Professor Sevrin concerning the problem of the place of worship for all peoples. Two levels are envisaged in both Isaiah 56:2-8 and Mark 11:15-19: one religious in Isaiah, and specifically Christian in Mark; the other ethnic. The first establishes a common identity for a group of believers, the second allows for a certain diversity among the members of the group. Can we call this unity and diversity? This binomial may eventually provide a useful key to a partial, at least, solution to our problem.

In several passages the Koran tackles the problem of unity versus diversity. The question is how far is diversity acceptable in Islam? What makes the unity in the diversity? What is the answer to this question with regard to our topic, Jerusalem house of prayer for all peoples? Until unity is achieved under the rightguidance of God, what is the duty and the function of the monotheistic religions according to Islam?

The issue of diversity, in the sense of ethnicity, reminds us of the problems felt by minority groups such as Palestinians, both Muslims and Christians, in this land. In this respect, inspiration comes from the large corpus of the Arab-Christian literature of the 10th-13th cent. This was a golden period when the Arab culture was formed in a fruitful cooperation of Muslims, Christians and Jews.

Even today, the presence of Muslims and Jewish worshippers around the same sacred area, and of Christian worshippers in a next-by sacred area, as well as the coming of pilgrims of the three faiths to Jerusalem are, in the eyes of faith, a realization, at least partial, of the prophecy of the gathering of many peoples on the Holy Mountain to learn the ways of the Lord and walk in his paths (Isa. 2:2-4).

To conclude, three words are important: faithfulness, dialogue, and sharing.

Faithfulness towards God and his guidance in history. Dialogue around the Scripture with open-mindedness and without mistrust. From the past centuries, we have notable cases of discussions between Jews, Christians and Muslims about Scriptural passages and topics. These examples can provide inspiration for today. We have to learn much more one of the other and we have to learn from God by letting the Scripture be our judge.

Sharing is the only solution. If the three religions have so much in common, and have a place and a function in God's plan for humanity, then sharing is imperative. Again, looking at the past centuries we find examples of sharing places of worship.

With the help of God, this attitude can bring the three religions closer to mutual understanding, which alone makes a solution possible.

This proposal may seem irenical and simplistic. It is rather highly demanding. It obliges all believers to look beyond their own outlook toward the Reign of God, which is not bound to any religion. It also obliges them to look at the consummation of human history and to evaluate their present divergences in that light.

Created and maintained by John Abela ofm - malta
Space by courtesy of Christusrex