Below is a rough translation and some preliminary comments regarding Luke 19:28-40, Luke’s account of Jesus’ entry into Jerusalem. To see a brief overview of how Jesus works as a Community Organizer/Event Planner in this story and the story of the Last Supper, visit here.
28 Καὶ εἰπὼν ταῦτα ἐπορεύετο ἔμπροσθεν ἀναβαίνων εἰς Ἱεροσόλυμα.
And having said these things
he was going ahead going up into Jerusalem.
εἰπὼν: AAPart
nsm, λέγω,
1) to say, to speak
ἐπορεύετο: IMI
3s, πορεύομαι,
1) to lead over, carry over, transfer
ἀναβαίνων: PAPart
nsm, ἀναβαίνω,
1) ascend 1a) to go up
1. This pericope references the previous story, a parable that begins
with this ominous introduction in v.11: “As they were listening to this, he
went on to tell a parable, because he was near Jerusalem, and because they
supposed that the kingdom of God was to appear immediately.”
2. Verse 11 foreshadows our story, which I think warrants reflection.
Does the crowd of our story share this supposition? The parable that precedes
our pericope addresses the supposition – which, it seems to me, is a wrong supposition. So, what is the
parable in vv.12-27? Well, I think what we name the parable reflects how we
interpret the parable: “The Parable of the Wicked Slave”? That would imply that
the slave who refused to participate in increasing the king’s money was wicked
and lazy, just as the king describes him. “The Parable of the Wicked Nobleman”?
That would imply that the nobleman-become-king himself is a tyrant, exactly as
the slave and the people who despise him describe him. “The Parable of the Ten
Pounds”? That is a neutral title that leaves the interpretation open.
3. Part of the parable is the dynamic that the Nobleman (literally
“a man who was well-born” v.12) had gone away in order to gain a kingdom and
the people who would be under his rule hated him and sent a delegation urging
whomever not to let him be a king. Alas, the man became a king and – after the
business of the pounds – demanded for those people who spoke against his rule
to be slaughtered.
I gotta say, it’s a perfect parable to describe Herod, but Jesus? I
can’t go there.
4. Should vv.11-27 be included in the reading this week, in order
to give shape to the joyous procession into Jerusalem? Or, would that
complicate matters too much?
29 Καὶ ἐγένετο ὡς ἤγγισεν εἰς Βηθφαγὴ καὶ Βηθανία[ν] πρὸς τὸ ὄρος τὸ καλούμενον Ἐλαιῶν, ἀπέστειλεν δύο τῶν μαθητῶν
And it was as he drew near to
Bethphage and Bethany to the mountain which is called Olives, he sent two of
the disciples
ἐγένετο: AMI
3s, γίνομαι,
1) to become, i.e. to come into existence, begin to be, receive being
ἤγγισεν: AAI
3s, ἐγγίζω,
1) to bring near, to join one thing to another
καλούμενον: PPPart
asn, καλέω,
1) to call
ἀπέστειλεν: AAI
3s, ἀποστέλλω,
1) to order (one) to go to a place appointed 2) to send away,
dismiss
1. I never quite know what to do with Καὶ ἐγένετο. The best translation I know is
actually the King James’ quaint, “And it came to pass.” I’m
going with “And it was …”
2. Why this verse is chopped up mid-sentence is beyond me.
30 λέγων, Ὑπάγετε εἰς τὴν κατέναντι κώμην, ἐν ἧ εἰσπορευόμενοι εὑρήσετε πῶλον δεδεμένον, ἐφ' ὃν οὐδεὶς πώποτε ἀνθρώπων ἐκάθισεν, καὶ λύσαντες αὐτὸν ἀγάγετε.
Saying, “Slip into the opposite
village, in which on entering you will find a colt that has been fastened, on
which no one of men ever sat, and having loosed it bring [it].”
λέγων: PAPart
nsm, λέγω,
1) to say, to speak
Ὑπάγετε: PAInf
2p, ὑπάγω,
1) to lead under, 2) with the idea of stealth, without noise or notice,
hence, generally, to go away, depart so as to be under cover, out of sight.
εἰσπορευόμενοι: PMPart
npm, εἰσπορεύομαι,
1) to go into, enter
εὑρήσετε: FAI
2p, εὑρίσκω,
1) to come upon, hit upon, to meet with
δεδεμένον: PerfPPart
asm, δέω,
1) to bind tie, fasten
ἐκάθισεν: AAI
3s, καθίζω,
1) to make to sit down
λύσαντες: AAPart
npm, λύω,
1) to loose any person
ἀγάγετε: AAImpv
2p, ἄγω,1)
to lead, take with one
1. Yes, I said “Slip,” instead of the more neutral, “Go.” There are
plenty of verbs that could have sufficed for “go.” ὑπάγω, as the secondary
definition suggests above, can have the overtone of stealth. I might even go
with “sneak,” but I remember how forcefully a British friend of mine reacted to
that word once – much like Gollum reacts strongly to it in the LOTR. So, maybe
that would be overstating the case.
2. However, IF WE ONLY HAD THIS VERSE AND THE NEXT TO GO ON, it
would seem that Jesus is sending the two disciples into the village to steal a
colt and to lie to whomever asks that the colt’s owner needs it. (See next
verse).
3. But, when this plan is executed, it is the colt’s owners who ask, “Why are you untying the
colt?” So, … hmm…
4. If this is a matter of stealth, why? We have no other account of
Jesus riding a steed in the gospels, so maybe it was not a common activity for
a non-rich man. And maybe horses weren’t just plentifully hanging around
hitching posts, like in an Old Western Town of cowboy movies. For two of Jesus’
disciples to go into town and fetch a colt might have raises suspicions from
Jesus’ enemies.
31 καὶ ἐάν τις ὑμᾶς ἐρωτᾷ, Διὰ τί λύετε; οὕτως ἐρεῖτε ὅτι Ὁ κύριος αὐτοῦ χρείαν ἔχει.
And if anyone should ask
you, “Why are you loosing?” say to them “Its owner has need.” [Or, “Its Lord has need” or “The Lord has need of it.]
ἐρωτᾷ: PASubj
3s, ἐρωτάω,
1) to question 2) to ask
λύετε: PAI
2p, λύω,
1) to loose any person (or thing) tied or fastened
ἐρεῖτε: FAI
2p, λέγω,
1) to say, to speak
ἔχει: PAI
3s, ἔχω,
1) to have, i.e. to hold
1. There is a choice for the interpreter here. The response could
read, “The Lord has need of it,” or “Its Lord has need.” The genitive pronoun αὐτοῦ could
be either identifying Jesu as “Its [the colt’s] Lord/owner” or it could
elaborate the “need” as what “the Lord” needs. The only reason I want to opt
for “Its owner has need” instead of going with virtually every other
translations’ interpretation is because the construction Ὁ κύριος αὐτοῦ also appears in v.33, with reference to the
colt’s “Lords,” except that it is plural there. They are described as “οἱ κύριοι αὐτοῦ” and virtually every
other translation called them “its owners.”
2.
Of course, the word “Lord” can mean owner, gentleman, “Sir”, etc. and does not
necessarily imply the singular lordship of Christ (think “Señor” in Spanish). So, the
translations are trying not to confuse the common meaning of Lord with the
specific meaning of it when speaking of Jesus. However, it seems a bit
deceptive to translated Ὁ κύριος as “The Lord” and οἱ κύριοι as “the owners” without at least some annotation signifying
that the same word is being taken into two very different directions. For
consistency’s sake, I’m going with “owner” in these sentences. The decision to
distinguish between “Lord” and “owner” may be right, but it seems that the
interpreters are sparing the English Bible readers the trouble of making the
interpretive judgment for themselves.
32 ἀπελθόντες δὲ οἱ ἀπεσταλμένοι εὗρον καθὼς εἶπεν αὐτοῖς.
Then having gone the sent
ones found just as he said to them.
ἀπελθόντες: AAPart
npm, ἀπέρχομαι,
1) to go away, depart
ἀπεσταλμένοι:
PerfPPart npm, ἀποστέλλω, 1) to order (one) to go to a place appointed 2)
to send away, dismiss
εὗρον: AAI
3p, εὑρίσκω,
1) to come upon, hit upon, to meet with
εἶπεν: AAI
3s, λέγω,
1) to say, to speak
1. Jesus seems to be orchestrating the events here and this verse
sounds like it is no random colt but a specific one that they were to bring
back. Did Jesus know of the colt’s presence by super knowledge? Or, had he
arranged the colt’s presence beforehand, perhaps along with the password for
allowing the two disciples to take it?
33 λυόντων δὲ αὐτῶν τὸν πῶλον εἶπαν οἱ κύριοι αὐτοῦ πρὸς αὐτούς, Τί λύετε τὸν πῶλον;
Then while they were untying the colt its owners
said to them, “Why are you untying the colt?”
λυόντων: PAPart gpm, λύω, 1) to loose any
person (or thing) tied or fastened
εἶπαν: AAI 3p, λέγω, 1) to say, to
speak
λύετε: PAI 2p, λύω, 1) to loose any
person (or thing) tied or fastened
1. Not to belabor the point, but this is where the colts’
owners/lords are identified.
34 οἱ δὲ εἶπαν ὅτι Ὁ κύριος αὐτοῦ χρείαν ἔχει.
Then they said, “Its owner has need.” [Or, “Its Lord has need," or "The
Lord has need of it".]
εἶπαν: λέγω, 1) to say, to
speak
ἔχει: PAI
3s, ἔχω,
1) to have, i.e. to hold
1. One wonders why the colt’s owners don’t protest and say, “But
we’re the owners!” I suspect this has all been laid out ahead of time and this
response a password. Maybe I’m making way too much out of the ‘stealth’
possibilities of ὑπάγω back in v.30.
2. And perhaps I'm making too much of "owner" as a possibility of κύριος. If we just said "caregiver," or "tender," we would still have the dual identifications of the caregivers who are asking this question and the caregiver who needs it. So, it's not the word choice but that duality that seems interesting to me in this story.
35 καὶ ἤγαγον αὐτὸν πρὸς τὸν Ἰησοῦν, καὶ ἐπιρίψαντες αὐτῶν τὰ ἱμάτια ἐπὶ τὸν
πῶλον ἐπεβίβασαν τὸν Ἰησοῦν.
And they led it to Jesus, and
having thrown their clothes on the colt they set Jesus [on the colt].
ἤγαγον: AAI
3p, ἄγω,
1) to lead, take with one
ἐπιρίψαντες: AAPart
npm, ἐπιρρίπτω, to throw or cast upon.
ἐπεβίβασαν: AAI
3p, ἐπιβιβάζω,
1) to cause to mount 2) to place upon
1. It’s kind of curious how the agency changes here. After Jesus
orchestrated the journey to obtain the colt, it is “they” who bring the colt to
Jesus, fashion a peasant’s saddle, and set Jesus on it. Jesus seems passive and
pliable in this and the following verses.
2. I am assuming that the “they” of this verse still refers to the
two disciples. But, I don’t know if it is reasonable to continue that thread
into the next verse. So, somewhere along the way the “they” (either signified
by a pronoun or implied in the plurality of the verbs) seems to change from
just the two sent disciples to many more folks.
36 πορευομένου δὲ αὐτοῦ ὑπεστρώννυον τὰ ἱμάτια αὐτῶν ἐν τῇ ὁδῷ.
Then as he was going they
were spreading out their clothes in the road.
πορευομένου: PMPart
gsm, πορεύομαι,
1) to lead over, carry over, transfer
ὑπεστρώννυον: IAI 3p
ὑποστρώννυμι,
to strow
or spread underneath
1. I don’t know what the point of littering the road with garments
is. Having grown up hearing the myth of Sir Walter Raleigh gallantly throwing
his cloak over a mud puddle so the queen would not soil her royal toesies, I
hear this as a sign of profound respect and subservience.
37 Ἐγγίζοντος δὲ αὐτοῦ ἤδη πρὸς τῇ καταβάσει τοῦ Ὄρους τῶν Ἐλαιῶν ἤρξαντο
ἅπαν τὸ πλῆθος τῶν μαθητῶν χαίροντες αἰνεῖν τὸν θεὸν φωνῇ μεγάλῃ περὶ πασῶν ὧν εἶδον δυνάμεων,
Then as he is coming near
now to the descent of the Mountain of Olives all the multitude of the disciples
began rejoicing to praise God in a loud voice for all of the powers which they
had seen.
Ἐγγίζοντος: PAPart
gsm, ἐγγίζω,
1) to bring near, to join one thing to another
ἤρξαντο: AMI
3p, ἄρχω,
1) to be chief, to lead, to rule
χαίροντες: PAPart
npm, χαίρω,
1) to rejoice, be glad
αἰνεῖν: PAInf,
αἰνέω,
1) to praise, extol, to sing praises in honour to God
εἶδον: AAI
3p, ὁράω,
1) to see with the eyes
1. Phew, this sentence is a
mouthful! It is interesting how Luke suddenly gets in real time, using the
present participle and the conjunction “now.” This is excitable storytelling.
2. The noun δυνάμεων (powers) is
plural.
3.
Now there is no question that the two disciples had done their job and the
whole plethora or disciples are joining the parade.
38 λέγοντες, Εὐλογημένος ὁ ἐρχόμενος ὁ βασιλεὺς ἐν ὀ νόματι κυρίου: ἐν οὐρανῷ εἰρήνη καὶ δόξα ἐν ὑψίστοις.
Saying, “Blessed the king
who comes in the name of the Lord; Peace in heaven and glory in the heights.”
λέγοντες: PAPart
npm, λέγω,
1) to say, to speak
Εὐλογημένος: PerfPPart
nsm, εὐλογέω,
1) to praise, celebrate with praises
ἐρχόμενος: PMPart
nsm, ἔρχομαι,
1) to come
1. If some of this language sounds familiar from the
Christmas story, it should! Both the angels voices and Simeon’s blessing invoke
much of this same language.
2. Again, Jesus is doing very little here. He is letting it
happen and is along for the ride, so to speak.
39 καί τινες τῶν Φαρισαίων ἀπὸ τοῦ ὄχλου εἶπαν πρὸς αὐτόν, Διδάσκαλε, ἐπιτίμησον τοῖς μαθηταῖς σου.
And some of the Pharisees
from the crowd said to him, “Teacher, rebuke your disciples.”
εἶπαν: AAI
3p, λέγω,
1) to say, to speak
ἐπιτίμησον: AAImpv
2s, ἐπιτιμάω,
1) to show honor to, to honor, 2) to raise the price of 3) to
adjudge, award, in the sense of merited penalty 4) to tax with fault,
rate, chide, rebuke, reprove, censure severely 4a) to admonish or charge
sharply
1. The word ἐπιτιμάω can mean ‘rebuke’ or ‘honor.’ Weird.
40 καὶ ἀποκριθεὶς εἶπεν, Λέγω ὑμῖν, ἐὰν οὗτοι σιωπήσουσιν, οἱ λίθοι κράξουσιν.
And having answered he said, “I say to you, if these will
be silenced, the stones would cry out.”
ἀποκριθεὶς: APPart nsm, ἀποκρίνομαι, 1) to give an answer to a
question proposed, to answer
εἶπεν: AAI
3s, λέγω,
1) to say, to speak
Λέγω: PAI 1s, λέγω, 1) to say, to speak
σιωπήσουσιν: FAI 3p, σιωπάω, 1) to be silent, hold one's
peace
κράξουσιν: FAI 3p, κράζω, 1) to croak 1a) of the cry of a
raven 1b) hence, to cry out, cry aloud
1. I’m going to step out on a limb here and suspect that the
Pharisee critics would probably prefer a rambunctious crowd crying out more
than stones.
2. The verb for “cry out” typically describes demons and desperate
people in Luke. See 4:41, 9:39, and 18:39. It seems to be an onomatopoeia for something like a raven's croak. "Squawk" would be a nice English equivalent, I think.
Rehash:
So, circling back to the story that precedes this one, and
especially v.11 that introduces it, Jesus is approaching Jerusalem and tells a
parable because “they supposed that the kingdom of God was to appear
immediately.” Does that supposition shape this event? Is the crowd, however much
Jesus refuses to rebuke them, doing the wrong thing here? Certainly if they imagine that Jesus is going to
ride right up to the temple and become the next King David after the manner of
the Caesars or Herod, then their supposition is wrong.
What, then, is this procession?
Fascinating stuff here! Thank you for your work. I am playing with the idea of sovereignty and fealty--a theme few Americans understand or embrace for obvious historical reasons. The passivity you mention in verse 35 reminds me of a nobleman being served by a footman or a valet. You have certainly helped me explore this idea more deeply. Thanks!
ReplyDeleteExcellent, Kristin! Thanks for the feedback. I hadn't thought of the 'footman' or 'valet' angle, even as devoted as I have been to Downton Abbey!
DeleteBrilliant as always brother!
ReplyDeleteThank you, my man! A Blessed Holy Week to you and your congregation!
DeleteI am left wondering about two features that are commonly integrated with this story in the same way that people still drag every image and element to create one large and messy Nativity story. Luke has no mention of palms and no Hosanna in their song. Very different messages coming through to the more familiar renditions of Matthew and Mark!
ReplyDeleteBut the children, Kim. How would our children know it's almost Easter without sword-fighting with palm branches the prior week? It would be like telling Luke's Christmas story without a Magi role for the really tall kid.
DeleteI'm kidding and you're right, of course.
To some extent, I do believe there is a difference between the kind of study that a particular text deserves and trans-textual celebrations that mark Christian worship. On Palm Sunday, we are remembering Jesus' entry into Jerusalem. We read Luke's or Mark's story to remember it, but it's the entry itself that is of importance. While the uniqueness of a text is important in some respects, I think it's also important to let the texts point beyond themselves to a reality, which happens to be presented in several different ways.
To your point, however, it is important to let Luke contribute what Luke has to contribute to the way we conceive the event.
Thanks for your note.
MD
Yet another interesting episode in an interesting context. It's not an entry - Jesus only descends down the hill (the crowds have left him by the time he ascends to the 'top'?). Jesus' weeping over the city says pretty clearly that he is going there not as a king but as a prophet to be killed. The descent song will have a contrary tune on ascent.
ReplyDeleteBit of a parody on Roman triumphs as well, altho Luke seems to remove the political dimension here, as he does elsewhere. No 'peace on earth'!
Elements of the Passover Psalms here too (Pss 113-118) but again slightly subdued. No mention of 'David' as in other Gospels
The clothes stuff echoes Jehu's coronation (2 Kgs 9) as well as Raleigh's noble gesture.
Will the stones cry out if the crowds are silent or because they are?
Wow, that's a great point, Rick, about the stones. Thanks!
Deleteconcerning v. 36, Rick is correct in pointing out that it is a connection to 2 Kings 9.
ReplyDeleteThough I believe that this is not removing the political dimension. I do not know how an allusion to a coup, as well as an allusion to Habbakuk 2 can de-politicize it. I think this passage is HIGHLY political. It is taking to task any ruler or leader who takes care of himself, who robs and steals, or even uses legal means to gain. This is clearly a rebuke of the Pharisees and it is a rebuke of Herod, Pilate, and Caesar. They all stand condemned compared to the king who rides a donkey.
Rick and Ryan,
ReplyDeleteThanks for your notes. In a fascinating and very heavily annotated article, "Reading the Potentials of Jesus' 'Triumphal Entry,'" Michal Beth Dinkler shows how there are many biblical scholars who feel that Luke's version of this story is presented as a threat to the Empire and many who present it as conciliatory to the Empire. Then, using the insights of postcolonial studies, she shows how the text can display some ambivalence. To wit: "Homi Bhabha’s concept of colonial ambivalence has helped to destabilize an overly simplistic colonizer/colonized binary by highlighting the oscillation between desire and denigration that occurs within both colonizer and colonized, and that invariably implicates both in contested discourses of identity." For Dinkler, the fact that biblical scholars can vigorously defend this story as both a threat and a conciliatory act show that both pro- and anti- colonialism are present in the text itself, therefore bringing the reader into a specific interpretive relationship with it.
I find myself vacillating between the imitative qualities and the defiant qualities of Jesus' ride toward Jerusalem. I can see it both as an indication and an irony. And, I think I can find a way to cheer it as such.
That said, I still cannot read this story apart from the one that precedes it (vv.11-27), told specifically for those who thought the Reign of God was going to come immediately. Again, one's interpretation of that story (even what to call it) may set a course for interpreting the story of the ride toward Jerusalem.
Thanks again for your notes,
MD
I have always thought of throwing off one's cloak as throwing off oppression and what better symbol that overthrowing the Roman government with the arrival of God's Son.
ReplyDelete