Sermon: Natures of Power

Lectionary: Palm/Passion Sunday Year A

Texts: Philippians 2:5-11; Matthew 21:1-11

A Choice
Lauren Wright Pittman, 2018

Jesus directs a couple of his disciples to fetch a donkey and a colt and bring it back to him. This isn’t some random request or an impromptu activity. This is prearranged. What Jesus is about to perform is a deliberate demonstration – a parody of a Roman imperial procession. Through this parody, Jesus contrasts two different kinds of power and rule, two differing ways of defining kingship.

This procession instigated by Jesus, on the Sunday prior to his crucifixion, is often referred to as the triumphal entry, but that is a misnomer. It is a triumphal entry only in its parody of the Roman version. Those following Jesus likely would have expected him to use the opportunity to seize power, and at least for a few days it seems like Jesus continues to increase his power and influence. But the week finishes in dishonor, shame, and defeat… at least when judged by human standards of triumph and victory.

There are a couple of small, but important, textual details in the Palm Sunday narrative. The first to point out is that the text describes two different crowds: one is mostly Galileans who followed Jesus and sang his praises; the other is the Judean crowds of Jerusalem who ask, “Who is this?” These are two distinct crowds. When later in the week the crowd turns against Jesus, it is the Jerusalem crowd.

The second point to note is that the procession ends before Jesus enters Jerusalem proper. The procession and acclamations are finished in Matthew 21:9. Jesus enters Jerusalem in verse 10. This sequence rendered more precisely in Mark 11.

When the processional crowd shouts “Hosanna”, they are praising Jesus as the son of David who they expect will bring salvation to them. But how that salvation is inaugurated is utterly unexpected and despicable.

Christianity has sanitized the symbol of the cross. Many wear it as a sign of honor and respect. Some may wear it with pride. And there are some who wear it shamelessly even when their actions contradict the values of Jesus. But hardly anyone feels shame to be associated with it.

For the early followers of Christ, it held mixed messages. On one hand, it was a symbol of the worst kind of suffering and shame that the imperial powers could inflict on who they considered worthless and utterly disposable. On the other hand, because Jesus had accepted his lot with the worthless and disposable and died in shame and dishonor, Christians could be assured of their worth in the sight of God.

In deliberately presenting himself before Jerusalem as its messianic king, Jesus has chosen an OT model which subverts any popular militaristic idea of kingship. The meek, peaceful donkey-rider of Zech 9:9 is not a potential leader of an anti-Roman insurrection. In [Matthew] 20:25–28 Jesus has spoken of a type of leadership which is completely opposed to the world’s notions of kingship and authority, and now he models it in the “meekness” of his royal procession to the city. (France, 2007)

Our text from Philippians is what many scholars believe is one of the earliest Christian hymns about Christ. Paul is probably not its author, but he included it because it spoke to what he was trying to convey. To understand why, we need to back up in the letter to chapter 1, verse 27, and begin reading from there.

Here it is from The Message translation:

^27-30 Meanwhile, live in such a way that you are a credit to the Message of Christ. Let nothing in your conduct hang on whether I come or not. Your conduct must be the same whether I show up to see things for myself or hear of it from a distance. Stand united, singular in vision, contending for people’s trust in the Message, the good news, not flinching or dodging in the slightest before the opposition. Your courage and unity will show them what they’re up against: defeat for them, victory for you—and both because of God. There’s far more to this life than trusting in Christ. There’s also suffering for him. And the suffering is as much a gift as the trusting. You’re involved in the same kind of struggle you saw me go through, on which you are now getting an updated report in this letter.

2 ^1-4 If you’ve gotten anything at all out of following Christ, if his love has made any difference in your life, if being in a community of the Spirit means anything to you, if you have a heart, if you care—then do me a favor: Agree with each other, love each other, be deep-spirited friends. Don’t push your way to the front; don’t sweet-talk your way to the top. Put yourself aside, and help others get ahead. Don’t be obsessed with getting your own advantage. Forget yourselves long enough to lend a helping hand.

^5-8 Think of yourselves the way Christ Jesus thought of himself. He had equal status with God but didn’t think so much of himself that he had to cling to the advantages of that status no matter what. Not at all. When the time came, he set aside the privileges of deity and took on the status of a slave, became human! Having become human, he stayed human. It was an incredibly humbling process. He didn’t claim special privileges. Instead, he lived a selfless, obedient life and then died a selfless, obedient death—and the worst kind of death at that—a crucifixion.

^9-11 Because of that obedience, God lifted him high and honored him far beyond anyone or anything, ever, so that all created beings in heaven and on earth—even those long ago dead and buried—will bow in worship before this Jesus Christ, and call out in praise that he is the Master of all, to the glorious honor of God the Father. (Philippians 2:5-11, The Message)

John Van De Laar writes this about the city of Philippi:

The city of Philippi “prided itself on its loyalty to the Roman Empire and its ‘Lord,’ Caesar”. As a Roman colony, it held a privileged place in the Empire; its citizens enjoyed the same status as those who lived in Rome itself, and the population included many veteran Roman soldiers. In this society, honour, status, and power held great value, and it seems that this culture had infiltrated the church. Paul’s letter reveals that there was competition, rivalry, and dissension in the community. And so Paul wrote to the believers and pleaded with them to “adopt the attitude that was in Christ Jesus” (2:5). (Van De Laar, 2026)

Paul is trying to get across to his audience that the glory and honor of Christ Jesus is not like that of the Roman Emperor. The Roman Emperor is considered godlike because “he rules mercilessly over the violently conquered territories.” (Van De Laar, 2026) This is the default view of gods through human history. Even today, Christians have a difficult time abandoning this view of God. Many Christians seek to walk the halls and chambers of power, to amass material wealth, recognition, and honor, and justify the use of violence and war in the name of God. “When we cling to an image of God that is defined by power and domination, we have to ignore most of Jesus’ life and message.” (Van De Laar, 2026)

On Palm Sunday, Jesus began the demonstration of the stark difference in what he valued vs. what the world values. The demonstration will continue through the week and end at the cross, when the world crucified Jesus to silence the voice that announced an alternate kingdom, a kingdom where no one held power over another, a kingdom that threatened all other kingdoms based on holding on to power over.

On Palm Sunday, Jesus comically showed what it looks like to renounce “power-by-dominance and join the dance of true freedom.” (Van De Laar, 2026) Jesus showed that what looks like mundane or even failure to the world is where the power of divinity can be found.

By becoming human, and remaining one, Jesus raised humanity along with himself. We do not have to become something else to have worth and value. Honor and glory are not found by pursuing it. Rather, to mutually give to and serve one another in humility and love is how we join the work of Christ in building his kingdom and share in Christ’s honor and glory.

In the name of God who Creates,

In the name of God who Loves,

In the name of God who exposes our desire for illicit power, Amen.

References

Bartlett, D. L., & Brown Taylor, B. (2010). Feasting on the Word: Year A, Volume 2. Louisville, KY: Westminster John Knox Press.

Cousar, C. B. (2013). Reading Galatians, Philippians, and 1 Thessalonians: A Literary and Theological Commentary. Macon, GA: Smyth & Helwys Publishing, Inc.

Craddock, F. B. (1985). Philippians: Interpretation - A Bible Commentary for Teaching and Preaching. Louisville, KY: John Knox Press.

France, R. T. (2007). New International Commentary on the New Testament: Matthew. Grand Rapids, MI: Wm. B. Eerdmans Publishing Co.

Van De Laar, J. (2026, March 23). Lectionary Reflection for Palm-Passion Sunday A on Philippians 2:5-11. Retrieved from Sacredise Your Life!: https://sacredise.substack.com/p/lectionary-reflection-for-palm-passion

William B. Eerdmans. (2003). Eerdman's Commentary on the Bible. Grand Rapids, MI: Wm. B. Eerdmans.

 

 

Sermon: Procession, Politics, Parody

Lectionary: Palm Sunday (A)
Text: Matthew 21:1-11

Parades!

Parades are a common feature in many societies and cultures. In America parades are frequently associated with celebratory events and holidays. They represent a coming together of communities, a display of diversity, pride in community, and an expression of joy and celebration.

In certain other parts of the world, parades are often militaristic in nature. They are a means by which authoritarian regimes seek to retain power by threat and intimidation, both against their own citizens and to the watching world.

And after a long but victorious conflict, nearly all nations honor those who fought and served by hosting a parade in which the victors march and are given accolades.

In our small community, we have parades in which all are welcome to participate. We have a parade for the Christmas Tree lighting, for St. Patrick’s Day, during the Little Norway Festival, and for Fourth of July. We also have parades that honor achievements by students: for sports teams that return with championships and for the graduation class.

When Elise and I visited New Orleans several years ago, we learned about the “Second Line” that forms after nearly all parades and processions in that city. The parade might be for a festival, it might be for a wedding, or it might be for a funeral. Whatever the reason for the parade, there is celebration, even for a funeral, and anyone is allowed to join the Second Line to participate in the occasion.

When I thought about parades and New Orleans, my mind next went to Mardi Gras. Mardi Gras is most frequently associated now with drinking and debauchery, but there are colorful parades, costumes, and masks. The name and the event came from the French and their celebration of Fat Tuesday. And then with the virtual hop to France, it isn’t difficult to think about the elaborate costumes and masks and imagine the Carnival in Venice, Italy, which Elise and I both visited and saw some of these in person.

Costumes, Masks, Reversals

A theme runs through celebrations and festivals predating Christian Carnival, through medieval Carnival, and into today’s expressions of the festival. The theme is a part of the costumes and masks that are frequently used during the festivities. This theme is that of reversal of social roles and norms, that of equalizing social status, and through theatrics expose issues found in maintaining the status quo. Many festivals, at least for one day a year, through use of costumes and masks remove the usual social status markers, allowing some semblance of equality to occur, from slaves to kings.

One can find similar themes in the Jewish celebration of Purim, which coincidentally or not, occurs around the same time of year. Masks and costumes may be seen. Men dressing as women, and women dressing as men may be part of some celebrations. Encouraged too, was drinking to excess so that one could no longer distinguish between Haman and Mordecai. These means of celebrating may sound odd to our ears, but they can each be (arguably) traced to themes found in the story of Esther and how justice eventually prevails.[1],[2]

The idea of reversal of social structures and the status quo as a means of finding a path to justice, thus, is not unique to a single culture or religion, but could be understood as a common theme across many of them.

Palm Sunday Entry as a Parody

In the Palm Sunday story of Jesus entering Jerusalem, he too, employs theatrics to parody the social structures, religious systems, and political powers emanating from this city to support them.[3]

Secrecy of a Planned Act

First, when we read carefully, we can see that the precise details of Jesus’ entry into Jerusalem was most likely a planned action. When we read that Jesus sent a couple of his disciples on ahead to bring back a donkey and a colt, it could be divine foreknowledge, but a more obvious interpretation is that this was prearranged, with code phrases and a cloak of secrecy around it.

Why so much secrecy? If word got out too early and to too many, the activity happening could be misinterpreted and misunderstood. Those who had had been following Jesus for the past few years seem to have gotten to the understanding that Jesus was likely not going to overthrow the Romans and their Jewish collaborators as the coming conquering king. So, their response to, “Who is Jesus?”, from the inhabitants of Jerusalem was, “This is the prophet [emphasis mine] Jesus from Nazareth in Galilee.”

There were at least two very different visions of what the Messiah might be when he arrived. The first was as a Davidic king to take back the throne and reign over the Jews. But there was another Messianic expectation, that he would be more in the lines of a prophet or a priest. Jesus proclaimed a kingdom of God, but it would not have as its head a traditional king in the ways of human expectations.

Thus, to reduce the risk of any kind of false expectations of Jesus arriving into Jerusalem as a conquering king might have triggered, he kept things quiet and hidden until the last possible moment. For anyone parading into Jerusalem riding an animal such as a horse or even a donkey could be interpreted as an entry of a king. When the succession of Solomon from David was in question, one of the acts employed to legitimate David’s choice was to have Solomon ride one of David’s mules to the location of his anointing as the new king.[4]

A Political Act

The riding of an animal into Jerusalem was a political act. But the manner of doing so, without an army and instead, only peasants, can be seen as a parody of the dominant powers and practices of that time. For around the same time, perhaps even on the same day, Pontius Pilate would have also arrived in Jerusalem. This was Passover week, the week in which Jews celebrated the long-ago deliverance from Egyptian oppressors. The air would be pregnant with unspoken “what if?” and “when?” questions by the Jews. Pilate’s arrival was to enforce Roman authority, to keep the peace (through threats, force, and violence), discourage any would-be rebellion, and quell any disturbances as quickly and efficiently as possible. He would have arrived on a horse, at the head of his imperial cavalry and soldiers. It would have been an impressive sight of Roman might, armor and weapons, and sure to discourage anyone from carrying out nefarious plans. Most of the city would likely have been quiet while the procession passed, with only the beating of drums, the clip-clop of the hooves, the pounding of the ground, and sounds of armor against armor.[5]

Jesus’ entry, while following a pattern of a royal entry, mocks the reigning powers and domination systems. There is nothing grand or impressive about it. Yet there was celebration and expectations and shouts of acclamation, quite unlike that of Pilate’s arrival.

As a side note, Matthew makes a distinction between the crowds that followed Jesus into Jerusalem and the inhabitants of the city. Commonly, the crowd that turned against Jesus at the trial is equated with the crowd that shouted acclamations to Jesus, but that may not be the case, as many recent biblical scholars have pointed out.

The Messiah's Rule, According to Matthew

Matthew includes a quotation that is derived from Zechariah 9:9. We read this during the readings. I am reading it again to remind us of what this prophetic text says about the kind of Messiah that Matthew wants his readers to see and understand about Jesus:

⁹ Rejoice greatly, O daughter Zion!
    Shout aloud, O daughter Jerusalem!
See, your king comes to you;
    triumphant and victorious is he,
humble and riding on a donkey,
    on a colt, the foal of a donkey.
¹⁰ He will cut off the chariot from Ephraim
    and the war horse from Jerusalem;
and the battle bow shall be cut off,
    and he shall command peace to the nations;
his dominion shall be from sea to sea
    and from the River to the ends of the earth. (Zechariah 9:9-10 NRSVue)

The Messiah does rule, but not with any of the conventional methods and tools employed by human rulers. His attitude is humility. He does away with war, violence, and the tools used to make war and cause violence. By extension, too, because these tools are done away, there can be no threats and coercion as means to rule and maintain authority. Peace is the only tool and method employed by the Messiah.

Fools and Foolishness

I think that “What kind of a fool is this Messiah?” is a legitimate question.

When you and I think “fool”, it could mean someone who does or says things even when they should know better, someone who is unwise, and someone who acts unintelligently. That’s probably the most common present-day understanding of a fool.

But a fool could be a (capital-)Fool, a position held in some medieval royal courts, also known as the Jester. This Fool was at the court to entertain, but they generally enjoyed what was held as Jester’s Privilege. This privilege allowed the Jester or the Fool to parody those in authority, including the monarch, without fear of punishment. This meant that the Fool was in a unique position to speak truth to power, through the use of theatrics and comedy, that no one else could. This Fool was no unwise person, nor someone unintelligent. This individual had to be extremely wise, intelligent, and creative. Shakespeare’s King Lear has the character of a Fool who is the only one able to speak the truth to Lear, but the real fool (using our more common definition) is Lear who refuses to listen to the Fool.

It could be said that Jesus played the part of the Fool in the Palm Sunday theatrics. He parodied the reigning powers of Rome, and the authorities in Jerusalem that collaborated with Rome. He rode into Jerusalem, ahead of a procession, with an alternative kingdom vision. But Jesus did not enjoy the Jester’s Privilege, for his alternative vision collided with the status quo, and by the end of the week the status quo determined that their place in society and history must remain and Jesus must go.

But the foolishness that Jesus embodied and the foolishness of the gospel would outlast the Roman empire. We aren’t told where Pharisee Saul, who would later become known as Apostle Paul, was at the trial of Jesus. But if he was there, he most certainly would have been forcefully demanding the execution of Jesus.

But by the time Paul writes the First Letter to the Corinthians, his tune had completely changed. In the first part of the letter he writes,

¹⁸ For the message about the cross is foolishness to those who are perishing, but to us who are being saved it is the power of God. ¹⁹ For it is written,

“I will destroy the wisdom of the wise,
    and the discernment of the discerning I will thwart.”

²⁰ Where is the one who is wise? Where is the scholar? Where is the debater of this age? Has not God made foolish the wisdom of the world? ²¹ For since, in the wisdom of God, the world did not know God through wisdom, God decided, through the foolishness of the proclamation, to save those who believe. ²² For Jews ask for signs and Greeks desire wisdom, ²³ but we proclaim Christ crucified, a stumbling block to Jews and foolishness to gentiles, ²⁴ but to those who are the called, both Jews and Greeks, Christ the power of God and the wisdom of God. ²⁵ For God’s foolishness is wiser than human wisdom, and God’s weakness is stronger than human strength. (1 Corinthians 1:18-25 NRSVue)

Reversals as the Gospel's Foolishness

The gospel and the kingdom of God is foolishness because it is a complete reversal of the world’s structures and systems. To any reasonable mind, if the gospel is fully embraced, it cannot work. The idea that there is no hierarchy, there are no power differentials, everyone receives what they need and give everything else away, etc. makes no sense in this world. The principles of the kingdom simply cannot work. Anyone trying it would become impoverished, taken advantage of, and become a laughingstock.

Yet… That is what Jesus is calling for his followers to do.

 ²⁴ Then Jesus told his disciples, “If any wish to come after me, let them deny themselves and take up their cross and follow me. ²⁵ For those who want to save their life will lose it, and those who lose their life for my sake will find it. (Matthew 16:24-25 NRSVue)

Jesus, in very clear terms, states that to follow him is to take up the cross, embrace its foolishness and become a Fool.

Called to be Fools?

And once again, I don’t have answers, because like you I’m attached to this world. I have a life here, that even if not perfect, is pretty good. I find it mostly easy to refuse to succumb to using violence and its tools to get my way. But going down the list, I find that coercion and threats can be useful at times. And then I get to the more socially acceptable power structures based on wealth, position, and social status. And using those methods to advance my agenda is far more difficult to reject and avoid.

And yet Jesus, in the hours leading up to his crucifixion and death refused to employ any of them to save himself. Jesus responded to violence with forgiveness. Jesus refused to defend himself with any kind of threats or coercion. Jesus could have called on his divine powers and asserted his position and status, yet he did not.

As we enter Holy Week, let us look to Jesus and how he navigated the tension of living in this world yet living by the principles of God’s kingdom. May our thoughts be guided by God’s Spirit as we examine our own lives and perhaps find those places where we are too attached to this world and its ways.

After his entry into Jerusalem, Jesus overturned tables at the Temple. Do we have the courage to allow God to overturn our attachments to the ways of the world and instead become wise, intelligent, and creative (capital letter-F) Fools for the gospel of Jesus Christ and the kingdom of God?

---

[1] Episode 235: Aaron Koller - Biblicizing Esther - The Bible For Normal People (https://thebiblefornormalpeople.com/episode-235-aaron-koller-biblicizing-esther/)  

[2] A History of Purim | My Jewish Learning (https://www.myjewishlearning.com/article/purim-parody-and-pilpul/)

[3] See Bible Study: Parody and Subversion in Matthew's Gospel: Episode 53: Palm Sunday, Making an Ass Out of Rome, Matthew 21:1-11 on Apple Podcasts for a full discussion on this approach to reading Jesus’ entry into Jerusalem.

[4] 1 Kings 1.

[5] Borg, Marcus and Crossan, John Dominic. The Last Week, chapter 1, “Palm Sunday”. This chapter contains an imagined account of Jesus’ entry and Pilate’s entry into Jerusalem occurring on the same day.

Sermon: Authority for a New Kingdom

Text: Matthew 21:23-32

Lectionary Year A, Proper 21

If a three-legged stool is more stable, why do most chairs (and tables) have four legs?

Mathematically, a three-legged stool will always sit on a plane and not wobble. No matter how uneven or sloped, the legs will find contact points at the bottom. A four-legged stool or chair, if the legs are perfectly even, can only be without wobbles if the plane it rests on is also perfectly even. A chair with uneven legs will always wobble, unless the surface that it sits on is uneven to match the unevenness in the legs.

But more stable sitting on a plane doesn’t mean more stable when weight is applied unevenly to the surface of the stool or chair. A three-legged stool is more likely to tip over if the weight at the top deviates too far from the center. A four-legged chair is better able to accommodate a non-centered weight on its top surface. And by extrapolation, the more legs, the better it can remain stable with shifting weight, but for practical reasons, four is sufficient.

By the way, a triangle table with three legs can be just as stable as a four-legged, rectangular table. It’s the shape of the top surface in relation to the number of legs that is important.

[https://jborden.com/2017/07/20/a-real-world-example-of-math-concepts-at-work/]

That concludes this morning’s spatial geometry lesson. Now on to some 18^th century theology, specifically the Methodists.

John Wesley developed a framework for doing theology. It has come to be known as the Wesleyan Quadrilateral (here’s the connection with the math lesson). The Quadrilateral consists of Scripture, Tradition, Reason, and Experience.

Scripture is, obviously, the Christian Bible. Wesley saw Scripture as the primary means of determining Christian faith and doctrine.

Tradition includes church teachings and practices through the centuries, but it also includes beliefs and practices of the contemporary church, groups of Christians, and family units. It includes not just one’s own culture and society, but tradition as handed down and practiced globally.

As for Reason, Wesley questioned why God would give humans the ability to reason if they were to simply take Scripture without any additional thinking on it. Logic and disagreements are essential to developing better theology.

For Wesley, Experience was seen as a validator of genuine belief and practices. Experience brings to real life the beliefs appropriated through the other three “legs.”

[https://www.umc.org/en/content/glossary-wesleyan-quadrilateral-the and https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wesleyan_Quadrilateral]

All four legs are vital and play a part in the development and practice of Christian theology. Going back to the geometry illustration earlier, too much reliance on one will cause the thing sitting on it tumble. A four-legged chair can accommodate some unevenness, but not extremes.

Although Wesley himself placed Scripture as the top and experience as more a validator of existing beliefs, he had some different thoughts when it came to his screed against slavery, Thoughts Upon Slavery.

He ignores Tradition, which was completely on the side of slavery.

He appeals little to Scripture, which again, is more easily used to defend slavery.

Instead he relies on Reason and Experience, which now includes the reality of slavery and the treatment of slaves, and his own reaction to it, as primary reasons to argue that Christians must be against slavery. 

[https://medium.com/solus-jesus/as-methodism-unravels-remember-john-wesley-disregarded-his-own-quadrilateral-when-he-changed-his-42f3045a97e6]

In other words, when Scripture and Tradition appeared in conflict with Reason and Experience, Wesley changed his mind. It should be noted also, that early in life, Wesley argued for the legitimacy of slavery based on Scripture. So Wesley does a complete 180 reversal of his former position based primarily on Experience.

In the 19^th century, American Christians grappled with the issue of slavery and both sides argued from Scripture. The plain reading of and the weight of evidence in Scripture is that it supports slavery. The Abolitionists had to turn to creative imagining and re-interpretations of scripture in order to infer that the trajectory of scripture was against slavery.

In more recent times, the role and authority of women in the church has been, and is still being, argued. All sides claim scripture on their side. All sides can point to various historical examples supporting their position.

And all sides use reason and experience to argue their positions.

Whether someone is familiar with the Wesleyan Quadrilateral or not, it is descriptive of how theology is practically accomplished by Christians. Some may say they use only one, or perhaps two, and state that the others are suspect, but the reality is that all four always play a part in practical theology.

The central themes of this morning’s gospel text are authority and repentance. From where or from whom does authority originate? And what separates those who are a part of the kingdom vs. those who are not is repentance.

The gospel text takes place immediately after the prior day’s Triumphal Entry and the Cleansing of the Temple. After the commercial businesses in the temple court are driven out, Jesus allows himself, in that place, to be surrounded by children and all manner of people wanting healing from Jesus. The next morning Jesus while making his way back to the temple, he sees a fig tree, is hungry, doesn’t see any figs, so he curses the tree and it dies.

All these have gotten the attention of the temple authorities, the chief priests and the elders of the people, who, when they find Jesus back at the temple, question him in regards to where he received authority to do what he has been doing. They certainly have not given him authority, so if not them, who?

Jesus responds to the question with a question of his own, a completely acceptable form of continuing the debate. Jesus’ question centers on the authority of John the Baptist to baptize. We modern Christians think of baptism as purely a religious ritual, but at the time of Matthew’s writing, baptism was a ceremonial cleansing that not only Jews practiced, but was found all over the ancient world. It was not merely religious. It signified the removal of uncleanliness and a return to ritual purity which included a return to full social and political inclusion in the community.

The temple authorities, specifically the priests, based on tradition, held the power to confer purity onto another. (C.f., Luke 17:14.) The ritual could involve sacrifices and other offerings, placing ritual purity and full inclusion in community out of reach for many people.

John’s actions to offer baptism and entry into a new society with associated full inclusion was a direct challenge to the religious, social, and political authority of the priests. The only requirement was repentance. Many came to John to be initiated into this new society and social order. The priests and elders came too, but John called them out for their mere profession. John demanded that they show actual fruit of repentance and not merely rely on their tradition, their ancestry to Abraham.

Matthew does not explicitly offer what this fruit might look like, but Luke’s parallel account shows that the fruit is what Jesus would describe in the Sermon on the Mount, his manifesto for the kingdom of heaven, the new society. The motifs found in the final paragraphs of the Sermon (starting about 7:15) are echoed in today’s gospel reading.

In Matthew’s gospel account, both John and Jesus proclaim the same message, “Repent, for the kingdom of heaven has come near.” (Matthew 3:2; 4:17.) What John has started, Jesus completes. Repentance is the way into the kingdom. Jesus welcomes the children, the sick, the tax collectors, and the prostitutes to be a part of his social circle, the beginning of a new kingdom. While Jesus drives out the powerful and privileged from the temple courts, he welcomes these others into his presence. Just as John the Baptist infuriated the authorities, Jesus’ actions does the same.

Jesus goes on to tell the priests and elders a very short parable, which at first glance doesn’t seem to have much to do with the current debate.

A father, two sons, and a vineyard. These are common Jewish motifs. Key here is that the vineyard represents Israel. The father commands both his sons to go tend the vineyard. The first says no, but changes his mind and does what was commanded. The second son respectfully addresses his father and says that he will go; but he does not.

To the Middle Eastern audience, the expected questions would have been, “Which of these sons showed the father honor?” But that is not the question Jesus asked. Instead he asked, “Which of these did the will of the father?” The second son, who was respectful, showed honor. The first son did the will of the father. In an honor-shame society, honor, especially public honor, is often more important than actual actions.

At this point, the audience might be slightly confused. Where is Jesus going with this? Jesus doesn’t mince words in his explanation and condemnation. Addressing them (the priests and elders) he bluntly states that the tax collectors and prostitutes will enter the kingdom of God ahead of them because they believed John and did what he commanded – and by inference and extension, believing Jesus and doing what Jesus commands – but they did not and to this point have neither believed Jesus yet.

The first son realized his position and words were wrong, changed his mind – repented – and did the work that his father commanded. The tax collectors and prostitutes realized what they had been doing was wrong, changed their minds – repented – and began to live out the principles of the new society.

The chief priests and the elders, even though they could see the lives changed, they could not accept that John’s and Jesus’ teachings were more in line with God’s will than what they wanted to believe from their traditions and interpretations of scripture.

Jesus took the scriptures seriously. But that also meant hugely creative re-imaginings and re-interpretations that often went against accepted tradition. The apostles and the early church too, had to re-imagine and re-interpret scripture numerous times to expand the vision of inclusion and egalitarianism taught and demonstrated by Jesus.

John Wesley had to change his mind – repent – about what he thought scripture and tradition taught about slavery.

Practical theology needs scripture, tradition, reason, and experience. As new challenges face the church, as the metaphorical terrain changes, the legs will need to be adjusted and readjusted. Sometimes the emphasis might be on one or two legs. It doesn’t mean the other are ignored, but it might mean re-evaluating what has always been accepted. It might mean upsetting the status quo. Minds might need to be changed. Repentance may be necessary.

Our mission is to keep the gospel, the kingdom manifesto, the principles of the Sermon on the Mount moving ever forward to more and more people in the world. The terrain is always changing and it is almost never even. How shall we balance the use of Scripture, Tradition, Reason, and Experience to offer a steady kingdom to an unsteady world? Are we open to changing our minds – repentance – even of long-held traditions and beliefs if they are found to be insufficient or even wrong?

Are our minds willing to be changed, to repent, for the sake of the gospel?

Does Jesus Offend You?

Revised Common Lectionary, Advent Year 3A

• OT Reading: Isaiah 35:1-10
• Gospel Reading: Matthew 11:2-10

Jesus wasn’t exactly what John the Baptist expected. Or more likely, very little what he expected. When announcing Jesus, John had spoken of the Messiah/Christ as one coming in judgment against evildoers and oppressors (Matthew 3:7-12). But John had been imprisoned before he had a chance to observe Jesus. All he had to go on was what he was told and rumors that he overheard. And what he heard didn’t seem to be very good news. He may have wondered when was Jesus going to overthrow Herod and get him out of this dungeon, but Jesus didn’t seem to be in a hurry to do any such thing. The Messiah – wasn’t he supposed to “come with vengeance, with the recompense of God. He will come and save you” (Isaiah 35:4b ESV)?

John sends some of his disciples to Jesus to ask whether he (Jesus) is the Messiah, or whether he (John) should wait for someone else. Jesus doesn’t respond unequivocally but rather refers the disciples to his actions, his signs.

And Jesus answered them, "Go and tell John what you hear and see: the blind receive their sight and the lame walk, lepers are cleansed and the deaf hear, and the dead are raised up, and the poor have good news preached to them. And blessed is the one who is not offended by me." (Matthew 11:4-6)

Jesus reminds John that the same prophecies that speak of judgment also speak of signs of mercy.

Then the eyes of the blind shall be opened, and the ears of the deaf unstopped; then shall the lame man leap like a deer, and the tongue of the mute sing for joy. (Isaiah 35:5-6)

When we read these texts we might be tempted to interpret them as Jesus simply ministering to individuals and healing their immediate afflictions. But when the entire chapter of Matthew 11 is seen, I believe these examples of healings are symbols of his judgment against oppressive systems of power.

Let me explain. When Jesus refers to “reed shaken by the wind” (v.7) and “a man [singular] dressed in soft clothing” (v.8) he is referring to Herod Antipas^[1]. Then immediately afterwards, Matthew has Jesus speaking woe against a number of cities in which he had performed signs but did not repent. We tend to read into “repentance” individual repentance, but there is nothing in this pericope about individual repentance. In its context it seems best to read it as repentance (change) of abusive systems of power, as the example of Nineveh following the preaching of Jonah illustrates.

The end of the chapter is one with which most Christians are familiar: Jesus offering an easy yoke and rest to those who come to him. What is this rest? Common people were probably living in fear of political, economic, and religious abuses of power. They were suffering under onerous obligations of traditions. They were living under a system in which the sick, the maimed, and the poor were considered less than human and under judgment from God. I believe Jesus was offering a different way. The abuses might not go away immediately, but at least they could be free from fear. They could be free from the onerous traditions to be right with God. And the system that considered some less and some better would be abolished.

I found it instructive and helpful to read Matthew 21 alongside Matthew 11. Both chapters share a number of similar themes:

• Question: Who is Jesus?
• Question: Who is/was John the Baptist?
• What are the signs of the Christ?
• Jesus’ judgment against systemic and institutionalized abuses
• Fulfillment of OT prophecies
• The nature of the Kingdom of Heaven/God
• How “children” and “sinners” understand Jesus whereas the “wise” and “learned” cannot

The questions for us:

• How are we so acclimatized to systemic and institutionalized abuses of power that we believe them necessary to maintain for our own well-being and livelihood?
• How is Jesus calling upon us to give them up and join his kingdom?
• Are we offended by Jesus and his priorities?

I also refer you to the post, “Jesus used to be offensive—What changed?” at Question the Text on this topic that helped me work through my discussion.

---

^[1] Reading the New Testament Series: Matthew, section “Doubt, Indifference, and Dissent – Matthew 11:2-12:45”