Palm Sunday – 2021
Mark 11:1-11
Marian Free
May I speak in the name of God, Earthmaker, Painbearer, Lifegiver. Amen.
I grew up in the era of protest – primarily protests against apartheid and against the Vietnam war. We lived a stone’s throw from the University and the marchers would often pass our street on their way to the city. Among our church congregation were students who felt strongly enough that they joined the marches and among our acquaintances was a long-serving police officer who was brought in to enforce the law. In any situation of unrest there are at least two narratives – that of the government and the status quo and that of those who believe that they are standing up against injustice, oppression and/or evil. Depending on the lens through which we observe the situation, we will have more sympathy for one side or the other. We will see the police/the armed forces as brutes or defenders of the peace and the protestors as courageous truth-sayers or radical disturbers of the peace.
To take two recent examples. In Myanmar today, the army will be asserting that they are simply trying to maintain order, fight corruption and build a stable government. On the other hand, the protesters, incensed at the removal of a democratically elected government, are voicing their opposition to the coup. Whose side do you take – that of the protesters who are willing to lose their lives for what they believe to be right, or the government which is determined that right is on their side? In the UK recently, police were accused of using force to break up a protest related to the death of Sarah Eve are and violence against women. Police were anxious to prevent the spread of COVID, the women were making the point that violence against women needs to stop. Which narrative do we hold to be true? Sometimes it is easy to make a decision as to who is in the right, but sometimes we, the onlookers find ourselves conflicted – both sides are right at least in part.
I wonder where we would stand if we found ourselves in first century Jerusalem during Passover?
One could be forgiven if one thought that Jesus was being deliberately provocative when he arrived in Jerusalem for the feast. His actions seem to be deliberate and well thought out, not spur of the moment reactions to what he sees.
A closer look at the narrative reveals that Jesus has planned his entry. Whether or not he has warned the owner of the donkey that he will send his disciples to borrow the colt, Jesus has obviously determined that he will ride into Jerusalem in the manner of a King (as described in Zechariah 9). Most people will have ascended into Jerusalem on foot, but Jesus has chosen to ride. He was not only arriving in the manner of the expected King, but he was also ensuring that he stood out from the crowd. His action assured that he was noticed by the people who have thronged to Jerusalem for the Passover and it is little surprise that they interpreted his arrival as that the one who comes in the name of the Lord, the one who will save Israel.
What is interesting is that Jesus doesn’t press his advantage. He doesn’t immediately gather the crowds and form a movement. When it gets late, he simply leaves the city and returns to Bethany.
We are left to wonder what he does overnight. Was he incensed by what he sees as the corruption and hypocrisy of the Temple priests? Does he stew over what he has seen? We will never know. What we do know is that the next day, he is in anything but a good mood. On his way back to Jerusalem in the morning he saw a fig which had no fruit and – even though it was probably the wrong time of year for figs – he cursed the tree – which will never bear fruit again. When he re- entered Jerusalem, he went straight to the Temple where, as we know, he overturned the tables of the money changers and drove the animals from the Temple precincts. Again, this does not seem to be a spur of the moment action – after all he was in the Temple the previous day. It appears as though he has deliberately come to challenge the use of the Temple as a marketplace. Then having antagonised those in power in Jerusalem – Jew and Roman alike – Jesus leaves the city once more.
On the third day he returned to Jerusalem and the Temple and when, the religious leaders engaged him in debate, he not only defeated them, but he further angered them by telling a parable against them.
In this scenario, Jesus is presented as anything but a peacemaker. In fact, he seems to be deliberately antagonising the religious and secular leaders. It is as if he has no time to lose – his critique of the system cannot wait, he must confront it head on. It is as if he is trying to force their hands, to expose their hypocrisy, to bring things to a head. In this, as we know, he succeeded. Before the week was out he had been arrested, tried and crucified. An innocent man murdered – or was he?
How one views Jesus’ death depends on the narrative that we choose to believe. Was he – as the leaders of the time thought – the subversive radical who needed to be destroyed? Or was he – as we now believe to be true – the Saviour of the world? Before we judge the first century crowds too harshly we must ask ourselves which narrative would we have believed had we been there – that of the leaders or that of Jesus?
In today’s world when people speak truth to power, we must open our minds and hearts so that when we are disquieted and the status quo is threatened we don’t jump to the conclusion that they are radicals, trouble-makers or subversives or we may find that we too quickly join the voices that call for their (Jesus’) destruction.
Swallowsrest 