Triumph Of Jesus (part 3)

The ceremony would commence outside the walls of Rome, on the western bank of the Tiber River.  The “triumphal entry” would enter the city of Rome by means of a gate that was only opened for these specific occasions.  The procession would not only include the army and the spoils of war, but it could also be replete with floats that depicted battles won and groups of captives consisting of enemy soldiers and famous leaders of the now vanquished foe.  Naturally, this can be recognized as the forerunner to what is generally thought of as a modern parade.  At the head, or sometimes at the center of all of this would be the celebrant, as cheering crowds often showered him with flowers.  A winding path would be followed through the city, with this path known as the “sacred way.” 

The climax of the procession would occur at Capitoline Hill.  There, in devotion to Jupiter, white bulls would be sacrificed to Jupiter.  On some occasions, the vanquished leader of Rome’s enemy would be slain before the eyes of the cheering masses.  Then, if the celebrant was a general (rather than the emperor), he would enter into the temple of Jupiter so as to offer his laurel wreath (his celebratory crown) to the god, doing so in order to signal that he had no intentions of becoming the king of Rome.  With this portion of the ceremony brought to a close, the temples were kept open, incense was burned at the altars, soldiers would disperse throughout the city in order to properly celebrate, and a great banquet would be provided for the citizens of Rome. 

If one was to take the position of a spectator of the Roman “triumph,” and found himself in a position to view the entirety of the procession and offer a description of what was being seen, with this sight fused with knowledge of what all would take place in association with the procession and the symbolism at work by what was being seen, and then offered a report on what we witnessed, it might go something like this: “I was so excited for the events that were about to unfold before my eyes.  Truly this was a banner day for Rome and its glory.  From what I understood, the war had been fierce.  Some thought it would never end, but eventually the general triumphed.  There were some rumors that Caesar intervened and took command of the army, directing it to its victory, and I can believe it; but if he did, he’s allowing the general to receive all the credit and be the subject of today’s ‘triumph.’ 

So even though this general was being honored today, and even though we eventually looked to him as a ‘god for a day,’ or ‘king for a day,’ there was a bit of an undercurrent amongst the populace that it should have been the Caesar himself riding at the head of this procession.  Along those lines, it’s interesting that, with all he has done for the empire, it’s the Caesar that is truly responsible for the victory that was celebrated here today, but he has never once insisted upon his own ‘triumph.’   What humility.  It tends to make one think that he truly is a son of the gods.’ 

I had a great seat.  I could not believe it when Caesar himself sent a royal messenger to bring me to the place from which I could watch the whole thing.  Then, when I was asked to write an account of it, from the people’s point of view, well, wow!  How could I refuse?  Me, of all people.  It was all a bit overwhelming.  I was so stunned by the news that I think I fainted.  I could have kissed the messenger’s feet, but he wouldn’t let me.  I was day-dreaming, thinking about my good fortune, and I almost missed the beginning of the parade.  It’s a good thing I came to myself when I did.  That would not have been a good thing. 

No One Knows The Hour (part 10)

Jesus’ talk of the kingdom, His triumphal entry, and His dramatic and judging words and actions in the Temple that fit within Israel’s narrative history, are rooted in hopes concerning the Creator God’s promise to His people and the covenant faithfulness of that God.  Occupation and possession of that land, in which their God would build His temple and in which He would dwell amongst His people, was always the evidence of their God’s power and of the fulfillment of His promises to His people.  So when Jesus speaks in the way that He does when challenged by the expert in the law, He is not simply offering up aphorisms on how the people of the covenant God are to live.  Rather, He is building upon the edifice that is already in place, and He must be heard to be speaking in the context of promise, land, Temple, and kingdom. 

So even though it does not appear, on the surface, that this particular exchange is linked to His Temple concerns, one can affirm that it most certainly is linked to Jesus’ opinions concerning the Temple and that it continues in the narrative flow.  It is not an isolated statement or encounter, but one that absolutely demands to be understood in connection to the Temple, as has all that has been examined to this point of this study, and it builds to a conclusion concerning Jesus’ insistence that no man can know the day or the hour.

If the quotation from Deuteronomy conjures up a wider context, does Jesus other statement about loving one’s neighbor as one loves self, which is taken from Leviticus, do the same?  Based upon what has been learned to this point, it would be a surprise if it did not.  Just as there was no disappointment when turning to Deuteronomy, turning to Leviticus again disparages disappointment.  When Jesus speaks these words about the love of God and the law, He is quoting from the eighteenth verse of the nineteenth chapter.  As one examines what is to be found in the preceding verses, it is almost possible to be stunned at what can be found. 

Beginning in the eleventh verse and quoting extensively (always remembering that calling to mind a larger section of Scripture, understood within Israel’s history, is the function of an isolated quotation), the Levitical text insists that “You must not steal, you must not tell lies, and you must not deal falsely with your fellow citizen.  You must not swear falsely in My name, so that you do not profane the name of your God.  I am the Lord.  You must not oppress your neighbor or commit robbery against him.  You must not withhold the wages of the hired laborer overnight until morning” (19:11-13).  This last part, concerning the laborers, is of even greater interest if this entire section is being called to mind, taking on a more interesting dimension and revealing Jesus’ and Matthew’s theological genius, as Matthew, just before Jesus’ triumphal entry, records Jesus’ telling of the parable of the workers in the vineyard, which begins with “For the kingdom of heaven is like...” (Matthew 20:1a).   Once again the reader is reminded that land, Temple, and kingdom are inseparably bound. 

Continuing in Leviticus: “You must not curse a deaf person or put a stumbling block in front of a blind person.  You must fear your God; I am the Lord.  You  must not deal unjustly in judgment: you must neither show partiality to the poor nor honor the rich.  You must judge your fellow citizen fairly.  You must not go about as a slanderer among your people.  You must not stand idly by when your neighbor’s life is at stake.  I am the Lord.  You must not hate your brother in your heart.  You must surely reprove your fellow citizen so that you do not incur sin on account of him.  You must not take vengeance or bear a grudge against the children of your people, but you must love your neighbor as yourself” (19:14-18). 

Now, it is rather simple to agree that this does in fact delineate the way in which the people of the Creator God should strive to live, and it would be wonderful to insist that Jesus was speaking in such a way so as to encourage His people (then and now) to live in such a way.  Certainly that is part of what He is doing, but considering the setting, it is obvious that it reaches beyond that.  Would this not remind the reader or listener of something that Jesus has already said?  Does this not provide a reminder of a narrative that has been called to mind by what Jesus said?  It should. 

No One Knows The Hour (part 5)

Here it must also be said that in Mark’s account in contrast to Matthew’s, rather than the withering of the fig tree being bracketed by Jesus’ actions in the Temple and a return to the Temple the following day in which He is challenged by the Temple authorities, it is Jesus’ dramatic actions in the Temple and pronouncement of judgment against it that is bracketed by the words spoken to the fig tree and the words spoken about and prompted by the withered fig tree.  It is then that Mark writes “They came again to Jerusalem” (11:27a), with Jesus being confronted with “By what authority are you doing these things?  Or who gave you the authority to do these things?” (11:28)      

So in Mark, the order of events is the triumphal entry that is accompanied by a trip to the Temple where Jesus merely looks around at everything (11:11), a departure to Bethany for the night, words to the fig tree the following day, another trip to Jerusalem and the Temple where He dramatically acts and speaks, another departure from Jerusalem (presumably to Bethany again), the disciples noticing the withered fig tree to which Jesus had spoken and doing so on the following morning on their way back to Jerusalem (thus prompting the previously mentioned commentary by Jesus), where Jesus makes another trip to the Temple. 

By way of review and contrast, Matthew has Jesus triumphally entering Jerusalem, acting and speaking in the Temple, departing for Bethany, speaking to the fig tree which produces an immediate withering and subsequent commentary on the fig tree, and an entrance into Jerusalem and the Temple where He is challenged.  Luke, by way of further contrast, has Jesus entering Jerusalem (for which He weeps while on His approach) and then speaking and acting in the Temple.  He is a bit more ambiguous in His timeline, as following Jesus’ recitation from Jeremiah he writes that “Jesus was teaching daily in the Temple courts.  The chief priests and the experts in the law and the prominent leaders among the people were seeking to assassinate Him, but they could not find a way to do it, for all the people hung on His words.  Now one day, as Jesus was teaching in the Temple courts and proclaiming the gospel, the chief priests and experts in the law with the elders came up and said to Him, ‘Tell us: By what authority are you doing these things?  Or who is it who gave you this authority?’” (19:47-20:2)     

All that follows from the twenty-third verse of the twenty-first chapter of Matthew when Jesus re-enters the Temple courts, until the first verse of the twenty-fourth chapter when Jesus goes out of the Temple courts and walks away, occurs without a change of scenery.  The same is true of Mark, as the setting does not change from the twenty-seventh verse of the eleventh chapter until the first verse of chapter thirteen. 

In Luke, the Temple is the scene of the narrative from the first verse of chapter twenty to verse thirty-seven of chapter twenty-one, which does not neatly change the setting, but simply breaks-up the narrative by informing the listener that “every day Jesus was teaching in the Temple courts, but at night He went and stayed on the Mount of Olives” (21:37).  For Luke, though Jesus embarks on His triumphal entry from Bethany, He does not return there each evening.  This helps to explain his omission of the story of the fig tree and its withering, which takes place in Matthew and Mark on the road from Bethany.  Throughout this entire section of the narrative, one must see and hear Jesus in the Temple courts, which provides a dramatic backdrop for all of the words that He speaks, along with the obviously Temple-related context for understanding His insistence that no one knows the hour . 

No One Knows The Hour (part 4)

For the sake of rounding out the Biblical picture, it’s worth noting what Mark presents in association with the fig tree and the mountain.  Mark reports Jesus as saying “Whenever you stand praying, if you have anything against anyone, forgive him, so that you Father in heaven will also forgive your sins” (11:25).  In contrast, and though clearly utilizing the Markan narrative to provide the basis for his own, Luke omits any mention of the fig tree or mountain, moving directly to Jesus return to the Temple courts and the challenge to Jesus’ authority that comes from the temple authorities. 

Though this study will not spill a great deal of ink with conjecture on why Matthew and Mark include the story of the withered fig tree whereas Luke does not, one could surmise that the appearances of the fig tree in the Matthean and Markan narratives, with both (Matthew most likely relying on Mark) connecting the withered fig tree with the mountain to be removed, could possibly have some bearing on the conclusions to be drawn.  Perhaps its appearance and correspondence to the mountain that is in view (the Temple mount, so it is both literal and metaphorical) is somehow linked to Jesus’ insistence that no man knows the day or the hour, which, as has been pointed out, is to be found in Matthew and Mark, but not in Luke.  Certainly, the fig tree did not expect to wither on that day and at that moment---it clearly did not know the hour.  

In addition, it is necessary to acknowledge and report the divergence in the Gospel stories surrounding Jesus’ triumphal entry.  An honest observer does not simply ignore these things and pretend that they are not there, though it is also quite possible to insist that differences in detail do not derail from the overall message of the accounts nor do the differences really present much cause for concern, primarily because the authors (and that world in general) did not operate with the strict, modern, western notions in regards to “doing history”.  Fluidity in reports were acceptable, as long as the major details remained intact, especially when any glaring problems could and would be corrected by the oral/aural community, which was often a far better guardian of stories in that day than was the written word.  

That said, Matthew’s account has already been detailed here quite well.  Owing to the fact that Mark is believed to be foundational for Matthew and Luke’s account, it must be said that it is Matthew’s account that is divergent, rather than Mark’s.  The divergences are accounted for by each author having slightly different goals for the telling of the Jesus story as received by their target audiences in the growing Jesus community that they want to achieve through the delivery of their accounts.  So even though each has the goal of setting forth the story of Jesus, each comes at it from a slightly different angle, which is perfectly understandable.  Honestly, it needs to be said that if each told the story in the same way, the world would have no need for multiple Gospels, and Christendom and the world at large would lack the rich and manifold witness to Jesus provided by these evangelists---not to mention their diverse perspectives and portrayals of Jesus that serve to provide a more complete sense and picture of the one that so many call Lord.

What are those divergences?  For Mark, Jesus does head to the Temple upon the occasion of His triumphal entry into Jerusalem.  However, Mark does not record Him immediately engaging with the buyers, sellers, and money changers, nor making His Jeremiah-esque stand.  In Mark’s telling, this takes place on the following day, which is also the day that Jesus speaks to the fig tree while on His way to Jerusalem.  However, in Mark’s presentation of that detail, and even though the fig tree may indeed have immediately withered, the disciples do not comment on this withering until the following day, which is when Jesus offers up His commentary concerning the fig tree, the mountain, and the need to offer forgiveness.  

Experts In The Law (part 9)

It has already been noted that Jesus was “proclaiming the Gospel” (20:1) in the Temple courts, thus provoking the challenge as to His rightful authority to do and say what He was doing and saying.  What was the Gospel? 

The recipient of Luke’s narrative, as well as those that would be the primary audience for his record of the life and ministry of Jesus, would have already understood that the Gospel message was that Jesus is the Lord of all (in a world where the regularly pronounced and well understood gospel message was that Caesar is lord of all).  Backing up into the nineteenth chapter to find support for the idea that this was part of Jesus’ Gospel pronouncement (as He was now openly challenging the Temple authorities, and doing so in a way that would provoke a response by the civil authorities as well), one reads about Jesus’ “triumphal entry” into Jerusalem, in which it was pronounced “with a loud voice” (19:37), “Blessed is the king who comes in the name of the Lord!  Peace in heaven and glory in the highest!” (19:38) 

To that, Luke adds that “some of the Pharisees in the crowd said to Him, ‘Teacher, rebuke Your disciples.’  He answered, ‘I tell you, if they keep silent, the very stones will cry out!’” (19:39-40)  Here, Jesus allows Himself to be voiced as the king.  By His own words (using rather obvious hyperbole about the ability of stones to make a point---perhaps an ironic point about the stones of the Temple itself, which Jesus will soon say will be “thrown down”?---stones are a recurring theme here in the latter part of Luke), Jesus indicates that this pronouncement of His Gospel will never cease.    

Quite interestingly, though the Pharisees (along with the experts in the law) have composed one half of the chief antagonists to this point in Luke’s telling, they drop out of sight after this statement.  From this point on, the antagonists are only going to be the chief priests and the experts in the law, with an appearance by the Sadducees coming later in the twentieth chapter.  What is it that accounts for this turn of events?  How is it that the Pharisees, according to Luke’s presentation, have no hand in the events of the twentieth through twenty-fourth chapters of Luke? 

While the Gospels of Matthew and John have the Pharisees involved, at some level, in Jesus’ arrest and execution and the plot to counter the story of the Resurrection, Luke does not.  Neither, for that matter, does Mark.  Though one cannot know precisely why the Pharisees drop out of Mark at a point that is roughly equivalent to the time that they drop out of Luke (apart from the fact that Luke is said to rely heavily on Mark in the construction of his narrative), one can confidently surmise as to the reason why the Pharisees, who have been the constant companion of the experts in the law, drop out of Luke precisely as the events that will lead to Jesus arrest and crucifixion begin to unfold. 

It is possible that this has to do with a number of Pharisees, following the Resurrection and in the formative years of the church, being won to the claims of the Gospel and joining the growing community of adherents to the covenant rooted in the confession of Jesus as Lord of all.  As it relates to Luke’s work, evidence of this can be seen in the book of Acts.  In the fifteenth chapter of Acts, it is reported that the Pharisees have a role in the church community, as Luke there records that “some from the religious party of the Pharisees who had believed stood up and said, ‘It is necessary to circumcise the Gentiles and to order them to observe the law of Moses.’” (15:5).  Though the opinion that would be rendered by the church council would come to weigh against that opinion, it does demonstrate that some Pharisees had joined the Jesus movement.  This may serve to explain why Luke withdraws the Pharisees from his narrative at the point of Jesus’ entry into Jerusalem. 

Hated (part 2)

Not only had Jesus been conducted into Jerusalem as its King, and then said and done some interesting things in connection with the Temple, but He had also said and done a great number of things prior to that which had enabled Him to gain a following and a reputation that resulted in what would come to be referred to as His “triumphal entry” into Jerusalem, and His being able to act with seeming impunity in the Temple. 

The record of Mark’s Gospel prior to Jesus’ words that spoke of the destruction of the Temple (on the heels of the widow’s unfortunate offering) have Him enduring Satan’s testing in the wilderness following His baptism, casting out demons, healing Peter’s mother-in-law, cleansing a leper, healing a paralyzed man, restoring a withered hand, offering mysteriously authoritative teaching, calming a storm, restoring a well-known demoniac to sanity, reversing a woman’s twelve year long ailment, raising a twelve year old girl from the dead, feeding multitudes, walking on water, providing hearing to a deaf man, giving sight to a blind man, experiencing a transfiguration accompanied by Moses and Elijah, and cursing a fig tree so that it withers and dies. 

This is the man---that has done these amazing works---that now speaks such things about the Temple.  He goes on to speak of the possibility of being mislead, with many coming in His name, of wars and rumors of wars, of nations and kingdoms rising up in arms against one another, of earthquakes, of famines, and of pain (13:5-8).  It is then that Jesus speaks of His own disciples experiencing persecution, of standing before governors and kings on His behalf, of preaching the Gospel to all nations, of arrest, of the Holy Spirit, of brother rising against brother, and of children rising against parents.  It is to this that Jesus adds those poignant words, saying “You will be hated by everyone because of My name.” 

Hated?  Hate was not an uncommon disposition in those days.  Hate was part of the social fabric and the contest for honor.  Israel was hated by a variety of people.  In turn, Israel offered hate in return---one can think of the attitude and disgust engendered against the Samaritans in this regard.  In many respects, the hate for and from Israel would center on Israel’s claims to be the special and chosen people of the covenant God, and thus stem from the exclusivist positions derived from their understanding of that claim.  Perhaps Jesus’ mention of this hatred because of Him was a way of communicating to His disciples that they must continue on with some of the exclusive practices being carried on by the wider citizenry of Israel? 

Of course, in consideration of Jesus’ wide-open practices in the area of table-fellowship, in which He welcomed all and sundry to break bread with Him in defiance of custom and societal norms, such thinking can be dismissed almost immediately.  Thus the high-mindedness with which Israel looked upon themselves, which was a large part of the reason for which they disassociated from the rest of the world and therefore became the grounds for mutual hatred, was demonstrably precluded by Jesus’ active and oft-repeated example. 

Yet at the same time Jesus spoke of His disciples being hated.  So how would these disciples have responded to this?  How would they have heard this?  To uncover the answer it is necessary to look into Israel’s history, and especially the history by which Israel saw itself supremely defined.  It must always, always, always be remembered that even though Jesus was certainly unique in a number of ways, His teaching and His mission were firmly grounded within Judaism and the history of Israel.  

Pilate's Dilemma (part 2 of 3)

At the same time, it is not difficult to surmise that Pilate would have been thinking that this was the first time that he (or another Roman procurator) found himself dealing with a would-be Jewish messiah, with the popular support of a large number of the people, that was not conducting overtly revolutionary activities in support of his aspirations to kingship.  As we know from the narrative, as Jesus is said to have pointed out, and as Pilate was likely to have found quite interesting, there was no band of armed men around Jesus.  This could only have contributed to Pilate’s dilemma. 

No, this Jesus of Nazareth had not taken up arms in his apparent quest.  As Pilate would have no doubt discovered, there was no overt or even implied threat of force that was going to be brought against the occupying power.  Jesus spoke of no such things, and such certainly did not present itself along with this prisoner.  There would not even have been whispers of such things amongst the followers of this Galilean. 

It is likely that Pilate would have been made aware of the “triumphal entry” and of Jesus’ activities in the Temple, but it is also just as likely that he would not have understood the significance of those actions.  Even if he had grasped the meaning behind those two actions---the coming of Israel’s king and a symbolic action of judgment against the Temple---he would have also grasped that it was not accompanied by any mob action.  Of course, if he had investigated further (which is not difficult to imagine), there was also the inescapable fact that this Jesus had directed His words and actions to the Temple and its authorities. 

Jesus had not stormed the Roman garrison or the praetorium, nor did he encourage others to do so, as might be expected from somebody that was actively seeking the casting off of the yoke of Roman power.  Indeed, as far as Pilate would be able to gather, there were no obvious demands being made against the Roman rulers of Israel.  In spite of all of these things, Pilate here had standing before him and under his judgment this Man that was accused of, not denying, and even embracing a claim to be something that He had to know was going to result in His own crucifixion. 

Yes, Pilate would hear Jesus being “accused by the chief priests and the elders” (27:12b), while certainly making note of the fact that, to those accusations, Jesus “did not respond” (27:12b).  In all this, we find that Pilate “was quite amazed” (27:13b).  The amazement is more than understandable, as this would have been a most unique situation.  Pilate would not be alone in his amazement.  Certainly, the author of the story intended the same type of amazed response from those that would come to hear it. 

As we consider the fact that Pilate is reported to have been in this state of amazement, we revert back to the original question with which this study began: “Whom do you want me to release for you, Jesus Barabbas or Jesus Who is called the Christ?”  Having already made note of the fact that Jesus is not reported to have had an armed band of followers, that no one is there speaking up for Him and pleading on His behalf (which is not surprising, considering the custom of rounding up and killing the followers of other potential messiah figures), and that He was not acting as at least part of the people of Israel were expecting their messianic king to act in His encounter with Rome, the people responded with “Barabbas!” (27:21b).