The Choice on Palm Sundays

Palm Sunday gives us a lot to chew on in our time, as it did then. Jesus’ fans know that he intends to make a dramatic entrance into Jerusalem. They are poised and ready to lay down their cloaks as a type of red carpet for him, and Jesus had apparently made prior arrangements to ride in on a donkey, which some would recall as a reference to the prophet Zecharaiah’s writing (see 2 Kings 9:13; Zech 9:9). The crowd borrows from Zechariah shouting their proclamation that God’s chosen leader is arriving to bring peace. Later that same week, Jesus would hear something quite different: “Crucify him!” How do we make sense of this?

The short answer provides a very simple explanation: the audiences were largely different from one another. The Triumphal Entry crowd was mostly made up of Jesus fans (with others there, too), and the crowd before Pilate was made up of mostly different people (with a few Jesus fans trying not to be “outed”). It wasn’t that people changed their minds so completely that they wanted Jesus dead after they heralded his arrival. It’s that the people who wanted him dead probably wanted it before he arrived. Who were in these different crowds?

The latter crowd was very likely encouraged to gather by the Jewish leaders who were Sadducees – a branch of ancient Judaism that mostly lived in Jerusalem itself. It was largely Law-oriented, politically powerful, more affluent, and protective of the status quo they were charged to maintain by Rome. If they kept the Jewish people peaceful in Jerusalem, Rome allowed them to remain in office with power. They were also known as ones who did not believe in life after death and took some shots at Jesus around this issue. When Jesus came into town, disrupting the Temple life by overturning the money-changing tables (a way to seriously rip people off – like currency exchangers who give a poor exchange rate), Jesus made a serious stink. He was literally challenging economic injustice that was being sanctioned and promoted by representatives of God. By flipping tables, he was offering a Jubilee of sorts where the books got wiped out and the wealthy were forced to share with the poor whom they abused. Jesus’ teaching that week further infuriated the Jewish leaders because Jesus was challenging their authority as he offered different interpretations of scripture. The Jewish leaders, seeing that he had a strong following of people who wanted to see change saw him clearly as an antagonist who would ruin their nation. They wanted him out, which means they wanted him dead.

There were others in both crowds – Zealots – who were hoping and praying for God to support their violent overthrow of Rome. The kind of Messiah they wanted was a Macho Man who would bring lots of bravado and military might to the battlefield. There were many Jewish people from the region Jesus lived and taught that felt alienated and ripped off by Rome and the Sadducean elite who lined their pockets to stay in power at all costs. They were confident that since Israel was God’s nation, God would be with them in the fight to save their nation through force. They were fighting to protect and redeem their land – they were fighting for their faith itself – a holy war with Judaism on the line. They likely had mixed feelings about Jesus on Palm Sunday. They perhaps wondered if this guy who was drawing crowds and performing miracles clearly empowered by God would finally call his followers to arms during the Passover celebration – a fitting time for such a feat. Maybe the donkey was a rouse? The table flipping perhaps gave them some hope – that was an act of anger for sure. As the week wore on, however, he clearly showed no intention to bring a coup. Judas Iscariot – the disciple who betrayed Jesus to the Jewish authorities who arrested, indicted, illegally tried and called for his execution – was likely a Zealot who turned on his leader out of deep disappointment.

There were also Pharisees in the crowd who weren’t happy with the Sadducean leadership but were not willing to take up arms against them or Rome. Jesus was a Pharisee, ardently followed Jewish Law, but, unlike the Sadducees, believed that there was more beyond the grave (and in this life, too). As a group, they were not sure what to do with Jesus, who challenged their interpretations of scripture that gave him license to blatantly violate some of the laws they were supposed to uphold. They may not have wanted to see Jesus killed, but they likely would have been happy to see him fade away.

Jesus’ followers resonated with Jesus’ message. They would have chosen to follow him more than they would the leading Pharisees, the loudest Zealots, and the richest Sadducees. They recognized Jesus as clearly anointed by God, validated by miracles which then supported his authority to offer alternative interpretations of scripture. This was not a decision without implications, like choosing Dawn dishwashing soap over Ivory or Dial or Palmolive. To take such a stand was to inherently challenge those who were opposed to Jesus. There was risk involved and they knew it. In light of the reality of potentially being excommunicated from the faith community, or worse, getting arrested and beaten by religious authorities, or the very worst, martyrdom, do you suppose they treated their association with Jesus lightly? Of course not! With so much on the line, they had to have great confidence in their decision. The rabbis from both the Pharisee and Sadducee camps would have at minimum cautioned them from being lured away from time-honored traditions and interpretations. The Zealots would have called them wimpy and faithless given their “cowardice” in not being willing to put their lives on the line for the land and people of God’s Chosen. It would have been far easier to simply align with one of the established camps.

Do you see any parallels from the Jewish characters at Palm Sunday and the following week and Christianity in our time? Are you aware of very similar dynamics at work today in the Church?

The differences between various branches of Christianity are too many to address. Yet I do want to address one issue that is strangely in debate. Like the Zealots of old, there is a branch of Christianity that envisions Jesus more akin to Rambo than Gandhi. While he may have come in peace, when he comes again, so they believe, he’ll be coming with a very sharp sword. There will be a lot of bloodshed where people are divided up for slaughter or salvation. These modern Zealots, of course, will be strumming harps while men, women, and children are slain and the earth itself is destroyed. No matter – God will make a nice, new shiny one for them in just a matter of six days! This apocalyptic vision of the end times is wildly popular and has basis in the Bible. It is well known that the Jewish people expected God to bring wrath and justice at any moment, freeing them from Roman tyranny. The Gospels themselves seem to portray two sides of Jesus – one that looks a lot like Gandhi, and the other, Rambo. What do we do with this? How do we reconcile two seemingly different images?

The ramifications of which image we embrace are massive. The Rambo branch not only has Jesus wearing all the military gadgetry possible, it also implies that his followers should, too. And, since they believe that the United States is the world’s greatest Christian nation, then defending it and expanding it with military might is the act of the faithful. To defend and promote the American flag is to be a true Christian. In this visage, America becomes the New Israel that God will defend to and through the end of time. This particular branch of Christianity began developing after WWII, but began taking on more extreme positions through the 1970’s and 1980’s, all the way up to now. They happen to be the loudest voice of non-Catholic Christianity in the United States, and the most powerfully organized and aligned religious body in the United States. While their strength is waning as people in the United States are leaving churches and Christianity, they still own the largest publishing houses, seminaries, and religious media outlets. The case they make is, on the face of it, hard to challenge on an emotional level. Their position is that the Bible is inerrant (has no errors), infallible (it cannot be wrong), and should be read plainly (without the input of non-Christian schools of thought that represent higher criticism). This means that we can simply read the text and apply it without much effort. What could go wrong? With this approach, we can embrace a theology where God creates everything at God’s word, male and female are created as distinct, complementary genders never to be confused and therefore narrowly defining marriage, LGBTQ folks are an abomination not to be respected or treated fairly, we’re to take up arms as a matter of faith, and the world is going to be destroyed by God anyway, so no need trying to save it. Massive implications.

However, I don’t read the Bible that way. I think the Bible was written by serious, devout, faithful people who wanted to do their best to write what they wrote. I am sure they prayed for guidance and clarity, and I am sure that they sensed God being with them as they took on their project. I am also sure that more than their fingerprints found their way into their writing. Their interpretations and hopes and dreams – all informed by their worldview – made its way in, too. A plain reading of the text doesn’t make much room for that because it is assumed the God essentially guided their quills. It takes some Olympic level logical gymnastics to deal with inconsistencies and errors, often ending with, “we can’t make sense of it now, but once we’re in heaven it will all make sense.”

Is Jesus more like Rambo or Gandhi? I’m going with Gandhi, who modeled his nonviolent approach to challenging English Imperialism after – can you guess? – Jesus. What we see at Palm Sunday and through his last week of life is completely consistent with the Prince of Peace that Jesus was. He rode into Jerusalem on a donkey, not a war horse, a bicycle, not a tank. Are there passages that wreak of apocalyptic fever that are attributed to him? Yep. But I am not sure they are original to Jesus. If they were, then Jesus didn’t live into them much since he was known for his pacifistic resistance and discouraging violence. The overwhelming witness of Jesus’ teaching and lifestyle was nonviolence in pursuit of shalom.

Just like in Jesus’ day, we have a choice to make on the same issue. Do we really believe that Jesus was the Prince of Peace driven by deep love for all people and creation, or a tough talking, military-ready strongman? Whichever way you decide, there are repercussions. If you choose the Prince of Peace, know that the largest and loudest non-Catholic voice in the United States challenges you. It is not an easy stance. And if Jesus really was the Prince of Peace, how does that affect our personal worldview about violence on an individual level, and on the national front?

I wonder if we should view every day as Palm Sunday, an opportunity to welcome and celebrate this one into our world, into our lives, and allowing Jesus to inform the use of our hands and feet, our minds our lips, our calendars, and our pocketbooks.