6 June 1999
Mike Tueller
There's a lot of material in today's lesson, little of it sticking together in any significant way. So I've just picked a selection of it; we'll have to skip a lot.
(By the way, I hope this lesson all makes sense--this is its second iteration; the first, nearly completed, disappeared when my hard drive exploded, may it rest in peace.... Anyway, I hope I actually remember to include everything, and not just think it's here because it was in the last copy.)
1. The triumphal entry.
Jesus tells His disciples to fetch a donkey for His entry to Jerusalem. Matthew states that this was in fulfilment of prophecy:
Read Matt. 21:4-5.
Now, Matthew's citation "the prophet" of course means Isaiah. However, only the first phrase of verse 5 ("Tell ye the daughter of Sion") is actually in Isaiah (that's not much!). The rest is actually from Zechariah. It's always a good idea to look up the originals of Old Testament citations. It won't always tell you much, but sometimes, like here, it will. Let's look at the originals, which are referenced in footnote 5a.
Read Isa. 62:11, Zech. 9:9.
As you look at these verses, you can see that Matthew has left out a lot. He has quoted just enough to let you know the prophecy was fulfilled. What exactly it means that the prophecy was fulfilled he leaves to his readers to figure out. Since his readers presumably knew their Bible inside and out, that wouldn't have been too tough. What do these Old Testament verses have in common? (They both prophesy of Jesus in His role as Savior.)
So we must be thinking of Jesus as Savior here. Let's read on.
Read Matt. 21:8-9.
Does anyone recognize the setting in verse 8? To what ceremony that we have seen already this year is it similar? (It is very much like the procession from the pool of Siloam to the temple that occurred on the eighth day of Sukkot--see a previous lesson.)
By re-enacting this Sukkot ceremony, Jesus reinforces His position as the living water He declared Himself to be in the temple in John 7:37-38. We get confirmation that this is how the people understood the situation, because the procession at Sukkot was accompanied by the singing of the Hallel (Ps. 113-118), and some of the last verses of that song are quoted in Matt. 21:9.
Read Ps. 118:25-26.
You may not be able to see where verse 25 is quoted, but it is there--the phrase "save now" is, in Aramaic, "hosanna." Thus salvation continues to be the dominant theme.
By the way, "triumphal procession" is not really a very good name for what's going on here. A triumph usually implies that the victory has already been won, while Jesus here is clearly anticipating a victory in a battle yet to be fought--over death. Perhaps, given the emphasis of the surrounding scriptures, we should just call it the "salvation procession."
2. The cleansing of the temple.
As you remember, the Sukkot procession that Jesus is imitating here ended up at the temple, where the priest poured water over the altar. In our lesson on Sukkot and John 7 & 8, we talked about a number of things this could symbolize, but one that is so obvious it really need not bear mentioning is the idea that the water cleansed the altar. Thus, we should not be too surprise that the first thing Jesus does when He enters the city is He cleanses the temple. Let's see what He does:
Read Matt. 21:12-13.
What is interesting here is the words Jesus speaks. When He calls the temple "a den of thieves," he refers to famous words of Jeremiah, in his "temple sermon." (You may remember that we talked about this about six months ago.) Let's look at a little more of the context:
Read Jer. 7:11-12.
As you can see, Jeremiah's characterization of the temple in verse 11 is only a prelude to his ominous reference to the temple at Shiloh, which was destroyed. Jeremiah is prophesying that the temple at Jerusalem itself will be destroyed--a prophecy which came to pass in not many years. Those who heard Jesus could not mistake that He was at least implying a coming destruction of the temple, attributable to their own wickedness. In not many years, this implication would be borne out when the Romans destroyed the temple and sacked Jerusalem.
3. The parable of the two sons.
Let's move on a little later.
Read Matt. 21:28-31.
I love the last line of that story!
We often file this parable away as just another story about avoiding hypocrisy, but it is more than that. You notice that neither son goes to work at first, but that the first repents (v. 29). It seems that Jesus's story means that our initial state of commitment is not important; it's the repentance and subsequent obedience, even if late, that counts.
I have to add that this is a story that nearly didn't make it to us in this form. New Testament scribes had a habit of trying to suppress any story where an older son came out looking good (the Prodigal Son is another, more complex, example). This is because they understood these stories to refer, not to individuals and their choices (as Jesus surely meant them), but to salvation history--what people had chosen and rejected salvation. By that standard, the older son would have to be the Jews, and the scribes wanted to make sure the reader knew that they had rejected Jesus and would not be saved. I find it interesting (not to mention instructive) how these scribes allowed their own understanding of the gospel to drive them even to change scripture. Are we immune to this tendency?
4. The two great commandments.
Let's now go to the two great commandments. We're all used to this story in Matthew, so I'd like to turn to Mark for half of it, just to show you something interesting.
Read Mark 12:28-30.
If you remember the scripture in Matthew (22:37), then you can see that Jesus's quotation of the first commandment is longer here, including the statement, "Hear, O Israel." As you look at footnote a, you can see that Jesus is quoting Deuteronomy 6:4-5. This passage is referred to today as the shema, after the first word in it, "hear," which is shema in Hebrew. A great many rabbis consider it the most important passage in the whole Torah--and not without reason, because this is the passage that Moses ordered to be bound on the hands and forehead in prayer, and to be placed on the doorposts (Deut. 6:6-9). (We discussed this some last year.) Mark's citation of the entirety of a passage which a Jew could not help but remember every time he entered a house makes clear to us that Jesus is saying nothing surprising here. So we must wait for the second commandment to get Jesus's trademark twist.
Read Matt. 22:39-40.
I don't know whether the average Jew of Jesus's time would have put this commandment second (though at least one did--see Luke 10:25-27), but it in itself is not so surprising either. What is a surprise is Jesus's characterization of this commandment, "the second is like unto it." By saying that loving our neighbor is like loving God, Jesus makes the same point which is perhaps more clearly made by King Benjamin:
Read Mosiah 2:17.
5. Cleansing the inner vessel.
In Matthew 23, Jesus ends this sermon with a series of pronouncements of woe upon scribes and Pharisees for their hypocrisy. I'd like to look instead at the version of these woes that Luke gives, because I think it shows us some interesting things. Please turn to the second half of Luke 11.
Jesus enters into a Pharisee's house, and the Pharisee is amazed that Jesus doesn't follow Pharisaic purification ritual before eating. In Matthew (23:26), Jesus responds about how one must clean both the outside and the inside of a dish. In Luke, He is more explicit:
Read Luke 11:39-41.
First, see how in verse 39, Jesus is explicitly comparing the inside of a person to the outside of a cup. Then, in verse 41, he tells how to clean the inside. In Greek, it's fairly ambiguous exactly what inside he's talking about: it could be the inside of a container, of a person, or of one's treasury. But it is clear that He says, essentially, "when I say 'clean,' I mean, 'empty out and give to charity.'" The ambiguity is necessary to sustain the metaphor (there's no doubt--a completely empty cup is a clean one!), but the moral is also clear: our internal cleanliness is achieved through exhaustive giving of ourselves. (I should add that Joseph Smith's translation, seen in footnote 41a, while eliminating the necessary ambiguity, rightly brings out the clear intent of the verse.)
There's just one more part I'd like to look at here.
Read Luke 11:44.
You may remember that this thought turns up in Matthew (23:27-28) as "whited sepulchres" (i.e., whitewashed tombs). This is along the lines of the general intent of the sermon as Matthew understood it--it's about looking better on the outside than you are on the inside. In Luke, Jesus is more complex. You see, a grave was sacred ground, and to walk on it was to break the law and incur defilement. Thus, unmarked graves are particularly pernicious--they appear to be "safe ground," but are not. How are hypocrites like this? (I'm interested to hear what people say, but it seems to me that a hypocrite in the church often becomes the basis for the testimony of others--because he or she appears to be such a good example. Thus they are like safe ground. But, when the hypocrisy is revealed, the offense caused is enormous, often causing those who relied on the person to lose their faith.)
Just one more note on something in Matthew before we go on to the next section. No real doctrinal point here, I just wanted to point out a rather humorous translation problem.
Read Matt. 23:24.
I've got a hunch this part of the King James Version was dictated aloud, because the "strain at" in this verse should be "strain out": the passage is about removing minor flaws, but being willing to accept major ones. Isn't it amazing what a difference a diphthong makes!
6. Jesus is anointed.
We had a few verses from John 12 in today's reading assignment. Let's turn there now. Can anyone summarize the events in the first eight verses of this chapter? (Mary of Bethany anoints Jesus's feet with costly ointment. Judas complains that this money should have been given to the poor. But Jesus says that the anointing was done for His burial.)
This is one of the few stories in John which is also in the synoptic gospels, although with some different details.
What I find interesting here is that the anointing is done for Jesus's burial. Of course, the use of ointment in preparation for burial was common, but it was always--needless to say--done when the subject was already dead. The fact that Jesus is anointed for burial while He is still alive is very unusual. What is more, as you remember, He is not anointed after His death--He is buried too hastily for that, and the women have to come on the day after the Sabbath to anoint him. But even then, they find that He has already risen, so they never get to do it.
This anointing is a key part of the mourning process. Jesus, then, is never properly mourned. He is mourned in life, but not in death. Everything seems topsy-turvy: death and life seem reversed!
This sort of shifting or blurring of the boundaries between death and life reminds me of one of the most famous pagan "martyrs," namely Socrates. Most of you probably know some of the circumstances of Socrates' death, but I will recapitulate. Socrates, for constantly needling people about truth and justice, was charged with corrupting the youth of Athens and not recognizing the gods of the city. After a rather strange defense, he was sentenced to death. You may remember that he died by drinking hemlock. One of Plato's dialogues, the Phaedo, describes the events of his death. I'd just like to read through some parts of it.
First, you should know that the ordinary Greek belief at the time was that death (except for the ancient heroes) was what we today call "annihilation"--there was no part of the self that lived on afterwards. Socrates, however (following, to some degree, Pythagorean precedent) claimed that there was life after death, and that he was going to go to a happier place. He tried to show by the manner of his own death that he really believed this. The way he did so is interesting.
Crito asked Socrates...
"But how shall we bury you?""Any way you like," replied Socrates, "that is, if you can catch me and I don't slip through your fingers." He laughed gently as he spoke, and turning to us went on: "I can't persuade Crito that I am this Socrates here who is talking to you now and marshalling all the arguments; he thinks I am the one whom he will see presently lying dead; and he asks how he is to bury me!"
Socrates went on in this vein for a little while more, but you can see already that he makes a sharp distinction between the self that is his body and his spirit, which he considers to be immortal.
He then goes to take a bath before drinking the poison. Why? A little earlier he had said:
"I prefer to have a bath before drinking the poison, rather than give the women the trouble of washing me when I am dead."
Now, this washing of the body of the deceased by his female relatives was the first step in Greek ritual mourning. So Socrates here, just like Jesus was to do later, takes away the possibility of ritually correct mourning. Why? Because he insists that his death is not to be mourned--he is only passing into life!
To reinforce this teaching, Socrates' last words were:
"Crito, we ought to offer a cock to Asclepius. See to it, and don't forget."
Why? Because Asclepius was the god of healing, and Socrates fully expected and desired to be healed from death. He again reverses patterns, because the one person on whose behalf you would not sacrifice to Asclepius is a dead one.
Whether Jesus and Mary intentionally refer to Socrates' death or whether the anointing occurs simply with the same intent, I think it is fascinating to see how intensely this belief in resurrection influences ritual and mourning (perhaps the often rather light character of LDS funerals should be filed under the same heading): the boundaries of life and death have been completely broken down in Jesus. The fact that it is after His death that He is least in need of mourning gives us all hope for the resurrection.
Sources consulted for this lesson include:
Plato's Phaedo. I used pages 178-183 (the last few pages) of Hugh Tredennick's translation for the Penguin Classics series (the title is actually The Last Days of Socrates, London 1954). If you are interested, there is an older translation, by Benjamin Jowett, on-line at The Internet Classics Archive at MIT.
Last update: 13 May 1999