Sunday, April 01, 2007

Palm Sunday

Today is Palm Sunday, traditionally the day that we remember Jesus' entrance into Jerusalem. Sunday is perhaps as good a suggestion as any--it fits perfectly with Mark and with John as well if we wink a little.

The road that they lay clothing and branches down on would seem to be one from Bethany to Jerusalem, particularly on the Mount of Olives. Matthew could be read to imply that Jesus continued on the donkey(s) into the city, probably the eastern gate.

What is perhaps most significant for Christians are the Scriptures that this event seem to evoke. They are

Psalm 118:26: Blessed is the one who enters in the name of the Lord (RSV).

and

Zechariah 9:9: Rejoice greatly, O daughter of Zion! Shout aloud, O daughter of Jerusalem! Lo, your king comes to you; triumphant and victorious is he, humble and riding on a donkey, on a colt the foal of a donkey (RSV).

The Zechariah passage evokes the image of a king being restored to Israel. Assuming that Jesus was intentionally evoking this image, the event implies not only that Jesus is in fact the king who will restore Israel, but that he knew it. Not much new information there for most of us, but some scholars do deny that Jesus thought himself to be the Messiah.

Psalm 118 has other "messianic" verses as well. It evokes echoes of Jesus' coming suffering and indeed his vindication by resurrection. "The stone that the builders rejected has become the head of the corner" (118:22). So the words, "blessed is he who comes in the name of the Lord" evokes not only Jesus' victorious kingship, but the suffering he is about to face before it.

My "take away" this Palm Sunday is to realize that this is the day when Jesus wept over the city of Jerusalem. I have generally thought of Palm Sunday as a positive day, because the people are celebrating Jesus. But recognizing the context of Psalm 118, and realizing that Jesus stopped to weep over the destiny of Jerusalem, perhaps makes this a good day to mourn the mindless sinfulness of the world.
Posted by at
Labels:

24 comments:

Keith Drury said...

What winking do I need to do in John? I know all you Asbury Bible heads see things from a literary approach (i.e. why did Mark tell it this way) but as a practical-head I tend to see things historically (i.e. "what really happened and when.") So when you drop little wink-wink comments they are interesting crumbs for me... So will you remind us of this wink element in John's sequence... and maybe even you'll do that for all of holy week? ;-)[wink-wink]

7:42 AM
Ken Schenck said...

I actually rewrote this one because the first draft had more about the winks than about the "stuff." The wink is that John seems to have Passover as Saturday rather than Friday (18:28; 19:14, 31). So when John talks about Jesus arriving in Bethany "six days before Passover" in John 12:1, that would seem to be Sunday. But this is the day before he enters Jerusalem (12:12), which would then be Monday. That was the wink.

8:47 AM
Angie Van De Merwe said...

Maybe this is a stupid question, but how did the ancients view history? Isn't "historical science" itself a "modern" construct? I can understand the literary approach, as that approach would lend itself more to universal application...but without historical "grounding" then, the "story" just becomes a myth that represents truth and not truth itself....What did really happen histoically (Frei)? And can we "really" "know" it? Everything seems to me, interpretation...I recognized this all in my undergraduate time at IWU, but was not ready or willing to "give up" on the "grounding" of truth in reality (history). With anti-realism, how do we have any objectivity to gauge anything. Or does it matter, if it is all about "personal relationship", i.e. "faith"? The "real question for me" is, how do we know that Scripture itself is not an interpretive text of its authors, hence "truth as they "see" it"? And does that truth have any relavance universally? Or are the Scriptures one of many "means of grace"?

9:17 AM
Angie Van De Merwe said...

By the way, I'm reading Vygotsky's Mind in Society, he contends that culture becomes a part of human nature. If this is so, then, the Jewish "culture" of training children would be undestood....natural upbringing. But, other cultures also have a way to bring up children, don't they? even each family becomes a "culture" And if it is so that our culture develops our nature, then how is it that one is "transformed"? Religion? And how do we assert that Christianity is the "only" solution or way? Do we understand religion as the to character training (education) and the Church's responsibility to train society is underwrite the failing's of a "secularized" society?And how do we understand the "Spirit" in all of this?

9:57 AM
Bill Barnwell said...

I really have never understood the excitment around Palm Sunday. For example, I found one of the saddest scenes in Mel Gibson's semi accurate "Passion" movie where the bloodied Jesus is carrying his cross while onlookers scream on. During this it flashes back to Palm Sunday when the crowds were smiling and laying down their palm branches for the Messiah's entry. I would assume that most Jews worshipping Christ that day saw in Jesus a warrior Messiah who would and cast down the Romans. Basically, their worship was based off of false assumptions and when they didn't materialize, they turned on Jesus.

I'm sure that not everybody who was honoring Christ that day turned against him a week later, but probably many of them did. Why then, does almost every church, mine included, parade our children down our church aisles each Palm Sunday with palm branches and songs? Should we bring them back out on Good Friday to do a mini-play screaming and jeering Christ? I know, I know, the Palm Sunday presentations are cute, and maybe I'm being too big of a crank, but I think I have a point.

11:04 AM
Ken Schenck said...

Angie, I have what I call a pragmatic epistemology. It accepts what I call micro-reasoning as so pragmatically valid that we can for all intents and purposes say it is true because it seems to work without exception. Has anyone in this universe found that 1+0 ever equals anything but 1 when these symbols are taken in their normal sense?

Larger constructs of knowledge in this universe are 1) increasingly "mythical" in the sense that they are expressions of reality, knowing mechanisms that help us function in the world. The better they help us function the more "true" we call them and 2) "myths" can be more or less precise. The more precise the myth, the more details and data it accommodates according to the canon of Occam's Razor, the more "true" it seems to be.

This is all from the human perspective, to which we are all hopelessly bound.

From the standpoint of faith, however, we might believe that reality exists outside ourselves. Indeed, as Christians we believe that God has revealed Himself to us both through prophecy, Scripture, and most importantly through Jesus Christ. As a sign of the truth of this faith, these revelations work very well both with micro-reason and with the picture of reality that they indicate.

Finally, there is the much here contested idea of God's suprarationality, by which I refer to God's "nature" and existence outside this universe and thus outside our point of reference.

This is my pragmatic epistemology in a nutshell.

11:05 AM
Ken Schenck said...

Bill, absolutely hilarious!

11:06 AM
Anonymous said...

Yes... let's weep for the sin of the world... and then make like Christ and triumphantly enter the defeat/redemption of corruption head on. It's what popular prophets and kings do.

2:08 PM
Anonymous said...

And Bill, if you ever read this, know that I for one will push for little children in my local church to crucify a play-act on "Good" Friday.

2:11 PM
Anonymous said...

Ken...I view Palm Sunday as an invasion. Jesus moved into the city on a donkey and not on a horse with 300 Spartans. He assaulted the enemy, the enemy (the ruler of this world) seem to triumph as Jesus went to the cross, but 3 days later, he arose!

5:13 PM
Ken Schenck said...

Craig, certainly the cross is victory! But it is paradoxical victory in defeat. It is laying down, it is shame and humiliation. Palm Sunday is an anticipation of the second coming, yes. But Jesus also weeps over the city. He struggles with the task before him. If we do not hold both poles together, the miracle of redemption falls apart.

5:22 PM
Angie Van De Merwe said...

Ken,
Thanks for your response. Isn't our pragmatic understanding itself bound to the "ideals" we think are "real"? Yes, I agree that there are certain scientific princples that work at all times, and with all peoples, i.e. gravity, etc. But, we cannot univeralize one principle of science to the detriment of the other, i.e. theories of light. For we only understand scientific truth within context of pragmatic necessity, so, it seems to me that the view of complementarity is of import in assessing reality completely, but our minds can only focus or develop rational "proofs" along one "side". Therefore, how do we integrate faith? Is it that we understand "life" along the lines of a couple of sides of the Quadralateral and the academic disciplines that align themselves to those foci? Complementarity then would be the UNIVERSITY!

11:16 AM
Ken Schenck said...

I agree that my constructs are mythical. But alas, here we stand, we can do no other...

5:22 PM
Angie Van De Merwe said...

I no longer believe (or choose to believe) that there is any supernatural knowledge. The knowledge we have is not trancendent, but bound within historical "time frames" (context) Each person is a context within himself and must be understood within the contexts of his psyche, historical time frame, etc. for man was made to be "known and loved" not studied and controlled...There is no foundational knowledge, as such, but there is a residue within "men" that understands the concepts of justice, truth, beauty, love. These concepts are what any moral model "appeals to" when representing the "cause" of their call. And the moral models that I can think of off hand are the ones who represent the cause of those who have been stero-typed, marginalized, downtrodden, abused, etc.

I have not written anything that is not representative of the convictions I am forming and committing to. Possibly because I have experienced what it is like to be run over by a Mac truck, I do not adhere nor want to associate in any way with those who think they "know it all" and it is in the Scriptures or in any "discipline", as if a human being is a universal specimen!!!! The Bible and men's plans in general, become a HARD hammer when used in this way. So, when you talk of character development, who would I want to be like? A universal specimen of universal man or ME? I think, in this sense post-modernity is freedom to be unique.

8:07 PM
Angie Van De Merwe said...

Commitment of mind and heart is knowledge that supercedes abstract foundational knowledge. Truth is lived, as well as known. But, truth is not logic, it is historical. Truth is not epistimic, but experiential. Therefore, truth is individualized. Salvation is not some "by and by" in the sky, but is integrity to live by and for convictions that have been born out of the fires of the realities of life. Marx did seek to be historical, I believe. Identifying truth in this way in no way dissolves truth, but redefines it. Yes, I do believe that truth has been redefined over the centuries. "We know in part and prophsy in part" because we are limited within our contexts. But, when that which is perfect is come...when is that? Is this possible in this life? I had hoped so. I'm sorry that my "ramblings" seemed so ludicrous to you. But, I do not think I am unique in desiring to be loved, accepted and known and not just used for the purposes of God. If the individual matters at all to God, then the individual's uniqueness must matter to us.

Of course the theological concepts of univeralizing "men" in Adam would undercut the "Fall" the way in which Augustine understood it. It would also undercut the understanding of salvation in or through the Church as the Roman Catholic would understand it. But, as philosophy has influenced theology in the past, it will and has influenced theology in the present. Who comes after William of Ockham? Why do we think that modernity is the epitome of "truth"? "Help my unbelief". I pray for more faith.

12:27 AM
Ken Schenck said...

You poke fun at me because by faith I believe in suprarational knowledge. Then you poke fun at a graduate having a bit of a faith crisis who questions suprarational knowledge. Then you blame it on IWU where the primary teacher of these things is Chris Bounds, who agrees with you against me on the nature/will controversy (although vehemently not on what that nature is).

For which of these things is IWU to be criticized? For my faith that God might be able to think thoughts you and I can't understand? For a student who has continued reading after graduation and is wrestling with the confidence of teachers and random bloggers? For having a theology professor who only agrees with you on a few things?

7:55 AM
Angie Van De Merwe said...

Once a Wesleyan..Faith is believing when there is no "reason to believe" I do choose to believe in God. But, I do not choose to believe in a book that "dropped down from the sky". The Scriptures are written by men, who had experienced or come to understand "truth"...NO ONE in the Religion and Philosophy department at IWU has ever done ANYTHING EXCEPT SUPPORT, ENCOURAGE, AND EQUIP. I love those guys....I have known some of them for over 12 years now and they have, yes challenged my faith. But, it needed challenging. But, they have also been helpful in many ways in underwriting my faith. For I do not believe that we can really hold to any "theology" without the testing of it. I believe that each of us has been created as developmental beings. Therefore, education helps to refine, and assess our commitments and understanding. Because we are different in giftings, personalities and therefore, commitments...students are "in process"...It is not the conventional "wisdom" that has changed the world, but those who dared to think and act differently from the status quo. But, of course the "status quo" would resist these upsurpers of truth...I in no way am saying that my "crisis in understanding" is to be that profound in outcome, but it is a necesssary process for me to go through...I think the dilemma is how much can we understand truly in revelation and how much are we bound by our reason. It is all about where you "play out" on the Quadralateral. Where is faith predonminatly focused.
In academia, doctors of philosophy do "commit" to understand their "truth" (science) in the emphasis of certain parts of the Quadralateral. Dr. Schenck's N.T. scholarship understands "truth" where Scripture and Reason intersect. Dr. Bounds understands his "truth" in Tradition/Scripture and Reason. I think that complementarity is a much bigger, larger, picture of "truth" and understanding than Scripture alone, Traditin alone, etc.And understanding our intnerdependence in "knowing and understanding" truth leads us to humility and hence, Dr. Schenck's supra-rational realm...for we do know only in part....

As far as my "faith crisis", I am not floundering spritually, but intellectually, perhaps, emotionally. My faith underwrote a lot of my "identity", so as my faith has been challenged (and as Dr. Schenck said, I am choosing what I read outside of IWU!), my "self" has also undergone upheaval. I don't see this as a bad thing AT ALL!!! I think I am just owning what I want to be committed to ultimately. Perhaps I need to apologize for any negative reflection on the religion department as my professors.I have the UTMOST respect for them for one of their values is mine: education. Knowledge is power. The Greeks gave us philosophy, the ultimate questions (meaning). Martin Luther gave us the Scriptures via the printing press. The academy gives opportunity to develop wholistically (not separating the spiritual from everything else). Now, it is our responsibility to educate ourselves, in understanding how these all interface.

10:55 AM
Ken Schenck said...

Ken Schenck is not IWU... we were actually put on the "most recommended" list for some conservative Republican group recently.

If you're going to try to skewer me--or IWU for me, let's set the record straight:

1. Given that you try to hammer me on certain points, it makes it look like these are the issues that define me here at IWU--they're not. You're obsession with questions of supra-rationality are tangential to the vast majority of my thinking and teaching and the course of study here. It is something I am willing to be corrected on if someone could show me that it does not honor God more than the nature view does.

2. I don't think you even understand what I have been arguing. I am arguing that what you call a transcendent point of reference is actually a revealed point of reference. But from where you and I sit, it has the same authority over our lives and pretty much functions in the same way as a reference point.

The differences are rather in what we think that transcendental/revealed point is. So for Bounds and I, the difference in how the perspective plays out is largely insignificant. What I am trying to do is allow for what I consider to be true omniscience and omnipotence, rather than a God who is a projection of an ideal human nature.

3. The problems that I grapple with vis a vis postmodernity are real issues. There are over 25000 different churches that think they know what God's trancendental reference point is. The math is not hard--you and I are probably wrong on some of what we think that revealed point is. Even then, Bounds and other friends of mine would describe me more as a chastened modernist than a true postmodernist.

This talk of myth should only be disturbing to those who don't understand what I'm saying. It is a meta-language that, in my mind, allows me to use the normal canons of reason without making myself vulnerable to critique from those who are radically postmodern. In other words, it allows me to be a critical realist.

If you wish to engage in an objective debate on any of these topics, I will be glad to. Keep it to the truth issue and I won't delete it.

11:26 AM
Anonymous said...

Wow Ken, I thought I gave you a hard time every once in a while, but I am not any where near OAW's league.

7:32 PM
Angie Van De Merwe said...

Hey OAW,
Why Worry? God is in control with His irresitable grace! He will make sure that the Church doesn't fail! I mean, He makes sure that the individual whom He chooses doesn't fail, doesn't He? The Church will win. It's ALL ordained!!! And besides, those who have not been educated, don't need to be, because God will make sure that they "know" what they need to know. Right???? The Greeks knew God as FATE!!! Calvinistic Christians know Him as omnipotent! (I don't mean to be "mean".)

5:38 PM
Angie Van De Merwe said...

my comment left out the last part of my sentence.....Calvinistic Christians know Him as omnipotent despite what man desires, chooses, or wills....

5:42 PM
Anonymous said...

Ummm... Angie...

God predestines means to ends.

Key point to remember about the beliefs of orthodox Christians.

OAW

10:06 PM
Angie Van De Merwe said...

Judas held the money bags and wanted to fill them more, thinking that he would bring about the Kingdom Of God. He chose to force God's hand, in a way that was unethical and immoral. That is the evil. Does God bring about His Kingdom with unjust means? Was Judas a "means" to an end? I cannot make an absolute statement for I know that an absolute ethic is that "men are never used as a means to an end, but are ends themselves". Was it that God sought to teach the disciples through the failings of Judas? No. But, that did/does happen.

11:03 PM
Anonymous said...

Judas held the money bags and wanted to fill them more, thinking that he would bring about the Kingdom Of God. He chose to force God's hand, in a way that was unethical and immoral.

Can you show me where from Scripture you get your speculation?

That is the evil. Does God bring about His Kingdom with unjust means?

Yes, but the fact that God does so doesn't give license to men to use such unjust means.

Was Judas a "means" to an end?

Most certainly.

I cannot make an absolute statement for I know that an absolute ethic is that "men are never used as a means to an end, but are ends themselves".

Umm, Angie Dearie,

That is an absolute statement honey.

Was it that God sought to teach the disciples through the failings of Judas? No. But, that did/does happen.

You mean God didn't want to teach the disciples and us through the failing of Judas?

OAW

12:58 AM

Post a Comment

Subscribe to: Post Comments (Atom)