Comments on: commentary and reflections – palm sunday b http://lectionary.wolsblog.com/2009/03/31/commentary-and-reflections-liturgy-of-the-palms-b/ weekly reflections and commentary on the revised common lectionary texts, lectionary blog Sun, 10 Jan 2010 23:15:26 +0000 http://wordpress.org/?v=2.9.1 hourly 1 By: Lawrence http://lectionary.wolsblog.com/2009/03/31/commentary-and-reflections-liturgy-of-the-palms-b/comment-page-1/#comment-23295 Lawrence Tue, 07 Apr 2009 13:17:28 +0000 http://lectionary.wolsblog.com/?p=556#comment-23295 Lance, You're right - a colt could be a young, unridden horse, and there is no explicit reference to the Zechariah image of the liberation of Jerusalem by a king on a donkey. I'm not sure, though, what symbolic significance an untried pony might have; it would mean that the animal that Jesus rode on would be completely incidental to the rest of the drama - the royal Davidic King material. Jesus on a warhorse or Jesus on a donkey (echoing the humility of the animal as a contrast to the exalted significance of the rider) seems to me to be the choices that would do justice to what is likely to be Mark's symbolic shaping of the narrative. I go for the latter. Yes, Mark is at no pains to emphasise humility - but the Zecharaiah image is of a liberator, for all the humility of the donkey! I'd go with the notion that Matthew makes explicit what is here in Mark. Thanks for the comment and good wishes - I'll echo them in return! Lawrence Lance,
You’re right – a colt could be a young, unridden horse, and there is no explicit reference to the Zechariah image of the liberation of Jerusalem by a king on a donkey. I’m not sure, though, what symbolic significance an untried pony might have; it would mean that the animal that Jesus rode on would be completely incidental to the rest of the drama – the royal Davidic King material. Jesus on a warhorse or Jesus on a donkey (echoing the humility of the animal as a contrast to the exalted significance of the rider) seems to me to be the choices that would do justice to what is likely to be Mark’s symbolic shaping of the narrative. I go for the latter. Yes, Mark is at no pains to emphasise humility – but the Zecharaiah image is of a liberator, for all the humility of the donkey!
I’d go with the notion that Matthew makes explicit what is here in Mark.
Thanks for the comment and good wishes – I’ll echo them in return!
Lawrence

]]> By: Lawrence http://lectionary.wolsblog.com/2009/03/31/commentary-and-reflections-liturgy-of-the-palms-b/comment-page-1/#comment-23294 Lawrence Tue, 07 Apr 2009 13:07:25 +0000 http://lectionary.wolsblog.com/?p=556#comment-23294 Dick, I think that Jesus, in Mark's gospel, is clearly about Messiaship - hence the sigificance of the Messianic Secret motif. What I was trying to say is that Jesus comes to the Temple to enact and proclaim that the God whom he calls Abba is not the same God as the god of the Purity System, centred in the Temple. The Temple has become corrupt - the sorce of opposition to the Kingdom Jesus proclaims. I think this is Mark's focus. The Temple, like all other opposition to the Kigndom, will be swept away - because it has aligned itself with that opposition. I think this is Mark's theological focus vis-avis the Temple, rather than the later Lukan theology of sacrifice and priesthood in the wake of the Temple's destruction. I agree with you about the importance of his ministry being the fruit that the Temple <i>ought</i> to be bearing and clearly isn't. That comes out clearly in the continual stress of 'he taught as one having authority, not as the scribes'. That is what provoked the Temple opposition. The political importance is not an attempt to take over the Temple, but in announcing the Kingdom - which means the end of Roman hegemoney as well as the hegemony of the Purity System. It meant Jesus could be denounced as a revolutionary and executed by Rome as one. I like your off the cuff thought. Personally, I read Jesus as being particularly canny: he stops outside the city because it is safe for him to enter only during the daylight and when there are large, supportive crowds to protect him from the authorites' plans to snatch him (enter Judas, stage left, offering information for money about where to get him at night). Dick, I think that Jesus, in Mark’s gospel, is clearly about Messiaship – hence the sigificance of the Messianic Secret motif. What I was trying to say is that Jesus comes to the Temple to enact and proclaim that the God whom he calls Abba is not the same God as the god of the Purity System, centred in the Temple. The Temple has become corrupt – the sorce of opposition to the Kingdom Jesus proclaims. I think this is Mark’s focus. The Temple, like all other opposition to the Kigndom, will be swept away – because it has aligned itself with that opposition.

I think this is Mark’s theological focus vis-avis the Temple, rather than the later Lukan theology of sacrifice and priesthood in the wake of the Temple’s destruction.

I agree with you about the importance of his ministry being the fruit that the Temple ought to be bearing and clearly isn’t. That comes out clearly in the continual stress of ‘he taught as one having authority, not as the scribes’. That is what provoked the Temple opposition. The political importance is not an attempt to take over the Temple, but in announcing the Kingdom – which means the end of Roman hegemoney as well as the hegemony of the Purity System. It meant Jesus could be denounced as a revolutionary and executed by Rome as one.

I like your off the cuff thought. Personally, I read Jesus as being particularly canny: he stops outside the city because it is safe for him to enter only during the daylight and when there are large, supportive crowds to protect him from the authorites’ plans to snatch him (enter Judas, stage left, offering information for money about where to get him at night).

]]> By: Palm Sunday Rebellion « The Least, First http://lectionary.wolsblog.com/2009/03/31/commentary-and-reflections-liturgy-of-the-palms-b/comment-page-1/#comment-23242 Palm Sunday Rebellion « The Least, First Mon, 06 Apr 2009 02:37:10 +0000 http://lectionary.wolsblog.com/?p=556#comment-23242 [...] Here’s the last half of my Palm Sunday sermon.  In the opening, I talked about how obvious it must have seemed to Jesus’ Palm Sunday followers that he was beginning a military coup.  You can find an excellent treatment of that at Disclosing New Worlds. [...] [...] Here’s the last half of my Palm Sunday sermon.  In the opening, I talked about how obvious it must have seemed to Jesus’ Palm Sunday followers that he was beginning a military coup.  You can find an excellent treatment of that at Disclosing New Worlds. [...]

]]> By: Dick Wolff http://lectionary.wolsblog.com/2009/03/31/commentary-and-reflections-liturgy-of-the-palms-b/comment-page-1/#comment-23216 Dick Wolff Sat, 04 Apr 2009 21:21:23 +0000 http://lectionary.wolsblog.com/?p=556#comment-23216 Hi, again. I'm perhaps being a bit slow, but I don't understand the 2nd half of your first paragraph : can you explain it in different words? It seems to me Mark is saying that, for those that have faith, the Temple institution has no remaining weight - they can let it go. The Kingdom is arriving, the Temple is now redundant, not worth fighting for. I'm gradually coming to the view that Jesus was not a Messianic claimant so much as a Temple-deposer - and I think we see it here. By bearing all the 'fruit' in his ministry - the 'fruit' that the remote Temple claims to have a monopoly of - he is fundamentally and explicitly undermining its authority by 'delivering its goods' out in the rural heartland, dangerously beyond their reach. That is far more insulting and threatening than any political takeover bid to run the existing institution. It was that sort of popular loss of respect/authority that led to the collapse of the Berlin Wall - as Pink Floyd sang : "the ship of fools had finally run aground". It's that sort of bypassing of the Church's rôle by (secular) others who claim to - and often can - 'do it better' that causes such anxiety for those of us still wedded to the institutional church. It's an off-the-cuff thought, but the messianic ride from the Mount of Olives seems to sort of dissipate at the city wall, as if to say "Oh, why bother? It's not worth it; it's dead already." Hi, again. I’m perhaps being a bit slow, but I don’t understand the 2nd half of your first paragraph : can you explain it in different words?
It seems to me Mark is saying that, for those that have faith, the Temple institution has no remaining weight – they can let it go. The Kingdom is arriving, the Temple is now redundant, not worth fighting for. I’m gradually coming to the view that Jesus was not a Messianic claimant so much as a Temple-deposer – and I think we see it here. By bearing all the ‘fruit’ in his ministry – the ‘fruit’ that the remote Temple claims to have a monopoly of – he is fundamentally and explicitly undermining its authority by ‘delivering its goods’ out in the rural heartland, dangerously beyond their reach. That is far more insulting and threatening than any political takeover bid to run the existing institution. It was that sort of popular loss of respect/authority that led to the collapse of the Berlin Wall – as Pink Floyd sang : “the ship of fools had finally run aground”. It’s that sort of bypassing of the Church’s rôle by (secular) others who claim to – and often can – ‘do it better’ that causes such anxiety for those of us still wedded to the institutional church.

It’s an off-the-cuff thought, but the messianic ride from the Mount of Olives seems to sort of dissipate at the city wall, as if to say “Oh, why bother? It’s not worth it; it’s dead already.”

]]> By: Lawrence http://lectionary.wolsblog.com/2009/03/31/commentary-and-reflections-liturgy-of-the-palms-b/comment-page-1/#comment-23181 Lawrence Fri, 03 Apr 2009 16:11:02 +0000 http://lectionary.wolsblog.com/?p=556#comment-23181 Dick, thanks for the comment. Personally, I think the key has to do with the fact that Mark is written pre-70. That Jesus condemned the Temple and pronounced its impending doom seems absolutely clear: his remarks to this effect are used in evidence against him. But that seems, in Mark's gospel (which is probably reflecting accurately what actually happened in his ministry) to be related exculsively to Messiahship and the Temple opposition to his message of the Kingdom (and, by extension, to his distinctive view of God). If Jesus saw the Kingdom about to be established, all opposition would be removed. It is Luke (writing <i>after</i> the Temple's destruction in AD 70) who quite explicitly develops a theology of Jesus as the New High Priest, his death as the end of Temple sacrifice, and the Church as embodying the Temple process of sacrifice and forgiveness. In other words, I don't think the restored Temple theology is Mark's. I think this reflects (as you've suggested) that Jesus saw the Temple functions of forgiveness, reconciliation and restoration being relocated within the new relationships within the messianic community. Dick, thanks for the comment. Personally, I think the key has to do with the fact that Mark is written pre-70. That Jesus condemned the Temple and pronounced its impending doom seems absolutely clear: his remarks to this effect are used in evidence against him. But that seems, in Mark’s gospel (which is probably reflecting accurately what actually happened in his ministry) to be related exculsively to Messiahship and the Temple opposition to his message of the Kingdom (and, by extension, to his distinctive view of God). If Jesus saw the Kingdom about to be established, all opposition would be removed.

It is Luke (writing after the Temple’s destruction in AD 70) who quite explicitly develops a theology of Jesus as the New High Priest, his death as the end of Temple sacrifice, and the Church as embodying the Temple process of sacrifice and forgiveness.

In other words, I don’t think the restored Temple theology is Mark’s. I think this reflects (as you’ve suggested) that Jesus saw the Temple functions of forgiveness, reconciliation and restoration being relocated within the new relationships within the messianic community.

]]> By: Dick Wolff http://lectionary.wolsblog.com/2009/03/31/commentary-and-reflections-liturgy-of-the-palms-b/comment-page-1/#comment-23151 Dick Wolff Thu, 02 Apr 2009 10:42:32 +0000 http://lectionary.wolsblog.com/?p=556#comment-23151 Thanks, Lawrence. Something to add, though : a lot of stress on Messiahship here, but in the next section to <i>vs</i>28 we have a very significant discourse on the Temple as the barren fig tree, on the Temple mount and all on it as having no power over those who have faith, and (most radical of all) the investiture of a new temple in the Jesus community where God's forgiveness is mediated not through Temple ritual but as people forgive one another. The authority that is questioned (<i>vs</i>28) is the <priestly authority to forgive sins (<i>cf vs</i>15:58). Claiming Messiahship - as you say, a <i>political</i> claim is offensive to Roman imperial authority, but not 'blasphemy' as suggested in 15:64. Claiming the high <i>priesthood</i> might not be so difficult for Pilate, but <i>would</i> entail blasphemy - claiming God's authority to forgive sins. Quite why Mark doesn't spell out the Christian claim to be the new Temple (or, as Margaret Barker has persuasively argued, the restored <i>first</i> Temple) is a bit curious, and may be to do with his non-Jewish Christian audience; he majors instead on redefined Messiahship - a political hot potato in the Roman world given when Mark's Gospel is composed. Thanks, Lawrence. Something to add, though : a lot of stress on Messiahship here, but in the next section to vs28 we have a very significant discourse on the Temple as the barren fig tree, on the Temple mount and all on it as having no power over those who have faith, and (most radical of all) the investiture of a new temple in the Jesus community where God’s forgiveness is mediated not through Temple ritual but as people forgive one another. The authority that is questioned (vs28) is the <priestly authority to forgive sins (cf vs15:58).

Claiming Messiahship – as you say, a political claim is offensive to Roman imperial authority, but not ‘blasphemy’ as suggested in 15:64. Claiming the high priesthood might not be so difficult for Pilate, but would entail blasphemy – claiming God’s authority to forgive sins.

Quite why Mark doesn’t spell out the Christian claim to be the new Temple (or, as Margaret Barker has persuasively argued, the restored first Temple) is a bit curious, and may be to do with his non-Jewish Christian audience; he majors instead on redefined Messiahship – a political hot potato in the Roman world given when Mark’s Gospel is composed.

]]> By: Lance Stone http://lectionary.wolsblog.com/2009/03/31/commentary-and-reflections-liturgy-of-the-palms-b/comment-page-1/#comment-23122 Lance Stone Tue, 31 Mar 2009 14:13:39 +0000 http://lectionary.wolsblog.com/?p=556#comment-23122 Lawrence, Thanks as ever. I'm no Greek scholar but feel I should point out that according to Tom Wright the word for 'colt' in verse 2 does not necessarily refer to an ass or donkey and can just as well be used for a horse. Mark doesn't seem to want to emphasise the humility bit and if we didn't have Matthew we wouldn't have the Zechariah image. Keep up the good work! Lance Lawrence,
Thanks as ever. I’m no Greek scholar but feel I should point out that according to Tom Wright the word for ‘colt’ in verse 2 does not necessarily refer to an ass or donkey and can just as well be used for a horse. Mark doesn’t seem to want to emphasise the humility bit and if we didn’t have Matthew we wouldn’t have the Zechariah image.
Keep up the good work!
Lance

]]>