Saturday Night Theologian
4 April 2004

Luke 19:28-40; Psalm 118:1-2, 19-29

At a hearing regarding his testimony concerning his relationship with Monica Lewinsky, President Clinton defended his earlier statements by saying, "It depends on what the meaning of the word is is." In his 2003 State of the Union address, President George W. Bush said, "The British Government has learned that Saddam Hussein recently sought significant quantities of uranium from Africa." Clinton emphasized the present tense of the verb is in order to argue that his affair was a thing of the past. Bush attributed the false statement about the attempt to purchase uranium to the British so that he could later shift culpability if the truth ever emerged. Skilled speakers and writers often use words in greatly nuanced ways in order to make subtle points. The evangelist who authored the Gospel of Luke did so in his account of Jesus' triumphal entry into Jerusalem. Whereas the text of the Gospel of Mark, to which he had access, says that Jesus "took his seat" on the donkey, in Luke Jesus' disciples "set him" on the donkey. Luke is the only New Testament writer to use this particular Greek word (he also uses it in Luke 10:34 and Acts 23:24), but his predilection for using Septuagintal terminology (i.e., words and style characteristic of the Greek Old Testament) makes it likely that he had in mind four Old Testament passages, all of which use the same Greek word. In 1 Kings 1:33, David's servants set Solomon on his royal mule so that he can be led through the streets of Jerusalem and proclaimed king. In 2 Chronicles 23:20, the priest Jehoiada has the people of Jerusalem set the young Joash on the royal throne, after marching with him from the temple to the palace. The other two Old Testament passages that use the word in conjunction with kings have a decidedly more somber tone. In both 2 Kings 9:28 and 23:30, the body of the king (Ahaziah and Josiah), who has been slain in battle, is placed in the royal chariot and driven back to Jerusalem for burial. What is Luke's point in making this subtle change to the text of Mark? First, Luke stresses the role of Jesus' disciples more strongly in this section than Mark does, so he seems to be saying that the disciples put Jesus on the donkey specifically because they recognized the symbolism of the event, particularly its connection with Solomon's coronation. Second, Luke alludes to the passages in which the body of the king is brought into the city for burial (perhaps there is also an allusion to the Samaritan putting the wounded Jew on his mount in 10:34--whether a horse or a donkey is not specified). What Luke and his readers knew was that, yes, Jesus entered the city as a triumphant king, but he also came for burial. As we celebrate the procession of Jesus in the glory of the palms, we remember too the passion of Jesus and the shame--and glory--of the cross.

For other discussions of this passage, click here, or here, or here.

Isaiah 50:4-9a; Psalm 31:9-16

When we read about Palestinians who strap bombs on their bodies and blow themselves up on crowded buses or in crowded streets in Israel, we reel with horror. When we learn that some Muslim religious leaders teach that such "martyrs" earn a place in heaven for their despicable deeds, we are shocked. However, if we knew the history of Christianity, we wouldn't be quite as astonished. In 1095 Pope Urban II called on Christians throughout Europe to go to Jerusalem and take it from the Turks, promising all who participated in this "crusade" (i.e., a war undertaken in the name of the Cross) forgiveness of sins and a place in heaven. The suicide bombers of today are a reflection of the crusaders of yesterday. Suffering while engaged in deeds of hatred and revenge is useless; suffering while showing love and promoting the welfare of others is redemptive. The four Christian missionaries who were killed in Iraq recently are martyrs in the real sense of the word: witnesses (the original meaning of the Greek word) of God's love for the whole world. So is Rachel Corrie, who was killed a year ago by an Israeli bulldozer while trying to defend Palestinian civilians from harm. So are countless others throughout the Middle East--Muslims, Jews, Christians, and others--who have suffered and died in the cause of peace. Countless others in the region have suffered innocently, victims of bombs, missiles, or bullets from combatants of various nationalities. The readings from Isaiah and the Psalms describe people who suffer innocently and who hope for vindication from God. At this time a year ago, many who favored going to war in Iraq were proclaiming victory, and some even suggested that those who opposed the war owed the (U.S.) nation an apology. Today, with 600 American soldiers, more than 10,000 Iraqi civilians, and many, many others dead, and with no end to the violence in Iraq in sight, it's time to reconsider the message of today's readings. Suffering in and of itself is bad, but voluntary suffering for the sake of peace and love can be redemptive. There is nothing positive about the deaths of the innocent, yet their loved ones who survive can bring meaning to their deaths when they respond to their enemies not with hatred but with love.

For another discussion of this passage, click here or here.

Philippians 2:5-11

At about the same time as the Protestant Reformation, another major movement in Christianity was taking place that was much more radical in nature. The beliefs of the Christians who were part of the Radical Reformation were varied, but many were pacifists, believed in "gathered" churches (as opposed to state churches), and believer's baptism. Because of this last tenet, their opponents pejoratively labeled them Anabaptists, those who baptize again (after infant baptism). Although they preferred to call themselves by other names, such as Brethren, many soon accepted the name Anabaptist with pride, because they saw in the name an acknowledgement of one of their most cherished beliefs. When the earliest believers were first called Christians (at Antioch, according to Acts 11:26), the word was probably something that their detractors coined. However, before long believers were calling themselves Christians as well, because they were proud to be identified with Christ. Paul encourages believers, "Let the same mind be in you that was in Christ Jesus." In other words, he says, if you call yourselves Christians, you should approach life the same way that Jesus did. Every generation of Christians needs to examine its beliefs and practices in the light of their understanding of the life and teachings of Jesus. The radical reformers understood that accepting the beliefs of the previous generation was unacceptable. Old beliefs and practices need to be challenged and reexamined. Furthermore, we shouldn't just accept what our forebears taught us about Jesus. There is value in tradition, but Christianity is a radical religion, and a radical approach demands continued reflection on both the teachings of Christ and their proper application in the modern world. If we are to live in such a way as to exhibit the mind of Christ, every believer must be a radical believer.

For other discussions of this passage, click here, or here, or here.

Luke 22:14-23:56

We are so accustomed to hearing a conflated version of the passion narrative that reading the narrative in just one gospel sounds strange. Yet even when we read from only one gospel, we still have the tendency to "read in" material from the other gospels. When we just read one gospel, any of them, we find a picture of the passion that is somewhat different than the harmonized picture with which we're so familiar. Reading from Luke's gospel, we can see several ways in which Luke presents his distinct rendition of Jesus' death. The most obvious of these is that Luke takes great pains to craft his story in such a way that the Romans receive almost no blame for Jesus' crucifixion, while the Jews receive almost all the blame. While blaming the Jews rather than the Romans is common to the other gospels, Luke alone among the Synoptic Gospels omits any reference to the Roman soldiers mocking Jesus and giving him a crown of thorns (the Gospel of John is even more deferential to the Romans, particularly Pilate). Luke also has Pilate repeat three times his belief in Jesus' innocence. Luke alone mentions Pilate sending Jesus to Herod in an attempt to free him, or at least shift the burden of condemning Jesus to someone else. Finally, after Jesus dies, the Roman centurion at the foot of the cross acknowledges Jesus' innocence (as opposed to his comment in Matthew and Mark, "Surely this was the Son of God"). All these attempts to shield the Romans from guilt in Jesus' death make sense when one remembers that Luke is writing his gospel, as well as the book of Acts, for a certain Theophilus, who is probably a Roman official of some sort. Luke is aware that only the worst criminals suffered the fate of crucifixion, and he seems to have shaped his gospel the way he did in order to make it palatable to Roman citizens. Jesus, he stresses, was innocent of the crimes of which he was accused. Furthermore, the Romans played no major part in his death, which Luke blames on errant Jewish leaders. I don't believe that the author of the Gospel of Luke and Acts was prejudiced against Jews as a people; his close association with Paul mentioned several times in Acts supports this assertion. On the other hand, as a member of a persecuted minority, he clearly believes that the Romans were more likely to accept this new religion than the Jews were. Christians did suffer rejection and probably a measure of persecution by some Jews during the first century, as the testimony of Paul and the Jewish prayer identifying Christians as heretics show. It is not surprising for a group that feels itself persecuted to lash out verbally against those it perceives to be its persecutors, so Luke can hardly be blamed for his depiction of events. However, in the centuries that followed, after Christians outnumbered Jews and came to have much more power, particularly after the time of Constantine, many Christians misappropriated the passion narratives in all the gospels and used them as a license to persecute the Jews. In today's world, where anti-Semitism is still so prevalent, how should we read Luke's passion narrative? I think we must do so honestly, acknowledging the hostility between Christians and Jews that is evident in it. We must read it with an understanding of history, and Christians must be especially cognizant of the fact that the persecution of Christians by Jews lasted a hundred years or less and affected only a relatively small number of people, whereas the persecution of Jews by Christians has gone on for almost two thousand years and has devastated the lives of millions. Finally, Christians must read Luke's passion narrative through the eyes of Jesus, who proclaimed from the cross, "Father, forgive them, for they do not know what they are doing." To follow the example of Christ, Christians today must make every effort to reconcile with their Jewish brothers and sisters, asking forgiveness for the sins we and our ancestors have committed against them and seeking ways in which we can walk together on our respective journeys of faith.