|
Source: (consider it)
|
Thread: Entries into Jerusalem
|
Tukai
Shipmate
# 12960
|
Posted
On Palm Sunday, our Minister preached on Mark 11 (Jesus' entry into Jerusalem). No surprise in that!
But what did surprise me was his suggestion that Jesus entry on a donkey (pre-arranged according to Mark) was a deliberate "satirical" contrast to the much more triumphal entry via another gate by the Roman Governor (Pilate), the purpose of which was to show the Jews, gathered in Jerusalem for Passover, just who was boss. In short Jesus was making what we would now call a demonstration. He attributed this interpretation to the biblical scholar Fr Crossin.
Would any of the ship's bible scholars care to comment on this interpretation?
Tangent: all over Australia there were "palm Sunday" demonstrations against the Government's inhumane treatment of refugees. Although our Minster forgot to allude to these, I went to the one in in our city, along with at least one Bishop and the Head of the Uniting Chuch.
[ 30. March 2015, 08:44: Message edited by: Tukai ]
--------------------
A government that panders to the worst instincts of its people degrades the whole country for years to come.
Posts: 594 | From: Oz | Registered: Sep 2007
| IP: Logged
|
|
|
|
Alan Cresswell
Mad Scientist 先生
# 31
|
Posted
We were discussing it in fellowship on Sunday morning (no idea what sensei preached on, as my Japanese isn't good enough to follow the sermon). We reached the conclusion that Jesus is very deliberate in all His actions in Holy Week. He had a particular agenda, an appointment to keep and a variety of tasks that needed to be fulfilled so that everything would happen as it should, and that the disciples would have a bunch of activities around that to give the events of Good Friday and Sunday in the right context.
He has arranged for the donkey to be there, He has arranged the room for the Passover meal which will be His Last Supper, He makes sure that everything carries a whole load of meaning. Nothing is left to chance. So, the Triumphal Entry is designed to remind people of the old prophecies, He times it to be on the day when lots of pilgrims are arriving, a ready made crowd descending on Jerusalem, some whom would be from Galilee and know who He is, many from beyond Judea who may have heard rumours of Jesus, if that. If that also coincided with a Roman display of military strength, then that would be entirely consistent with Him making a deliberate point.
He goes straight to the Temple, which is exactly what the crowd would have expected. Where else would the Messiah go to start the revolution that would free the people? He would start by getting the religion of the people right. In Matthew and Luke He proceeds to cleanse the Temple of the market that had been established there, again in the classic Messiah role. It's interesting that Mark has Him looking around then going back out of the city - leaving the crowds presumably in a "what was that all about then?" mood.
He comes into Jerusalem with all the authority of Messiah, the all-conquering hero of God come to set the people free. But, then quite deliberately it seems, once the Temple is cleansed all He does is sit and teach, engage in debate with the teachers of the Law like any other rabbi. He raises the anger of the priests and religious leaders with what He teaches, but no further displays of any sort of authority. Which probably upset Judas no end as well, nothing more unsettling than someone starting off on a predictable path and then just sitting down doing nothing.
--------------------
Don't cling to a mistake just because you spent a lot of time making it.
Posts: 32413 | From: East Kilbride (Scotland) or 福島 | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Gee D
Shipmate
# 13815
|
Posted
Yes, Alan, but who does the legwork of the arranging? Who is it who speaks to the donkey-hire man and gives him the denarii or 2 needed to get a donkey to that exact specification - none of this "or similar" that Avis and Hertz say. Who makes arrangements with the owner of the upper room, the equivalent of the wedding venues we have, to make sure that the room will be set up and that all the disciples have to do is get a side of sacrificed lamb and wash the bitter herbs. The 12 are busy elsewhere.
--------------------
Not every Anglican in Sydney is Sydney Anglican
Posts: 7028 | From: Warrawee NSW Australia | Registered: Jun 2008
| IP: Logged
|
|
Alan Cresswell
Mad Scientist 先生
# 31
|
Posted
And, the 12 seemed to be impressed that everything was exactly as Jesus said it would be.
But, there were more than the 12. We know quite a few women travelled with Jesus. Maybe Martha, she's organised and practical. You wouldn't want a man to make sure the room for the Passover was the right size and had access to a suitable kitchen, would you?
--------------------
Don't cling to a mistake just because you spent a lot of time making it.
Posts: 32413 | From: East Kilbride (Scotland) or 福島 | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Gee D
Shipmate
# 13815
|
Posted
I'd say that they were more than impressed and that they spread their reaction to others. Martha is a prime candidate of course.
--------------------
Not every Anglican in Sydney is Sydney Anglican
Posts: 7028 | From: Warrawee NSW Australia | Registered: Jun 2008
| IP: Logged
|
|
HCH
Shipmate
# 14313
|
Posted
Admittedly a tangent:
It seems likely that the dishes and bowls (and the food) for the Passover meal--the Last Supper--were provided by whoever owned the house with the upper room. We are told it was a large room and that it was furnished. It seems unlikely that the disciples were carrying around a collection of plates, bowls, cups, etc. They almost certainly did not carry around a lamb to slaughter.
An interesting question is whether there were more people present than Jesus and the twelve; this has been discussed in other threads in the past.
Posts: 1540 | From: Illinois, USA | Registered: Nov 2008
| IP: Logged
|
|
Oscar the Grouch
Adopted Cascadian
# 1916
|
Posted
I've been reading The Last Week by Borg and Crossan, which I have found mostly fascinating.
They both certainly go for the line that the entry into Jerusalem was a deliberate challenge/contrast to Pilate's entry into the city, which would have been happening at pretty much the same time. And that seems reasonable to me. There seems to be no doubt (especially in Mark's gospel) that Jesus has carefully prepared a lot of things - the colt (to be found in Bethany, home of Martha and Mary) and then the almost "secret agent" nature of the preparations for the Passover.
(It has only been this past few weeks that this has really struck me afresh. The instructions to the two disciples appear to be deliberately obtuse. And when did a MAN carry a water jar??? This is straight out of MI6)
It was interesting (to me, anyway) that Borg and Crossan make something of the fact that in Mark's gospel, the Cleansing of the Temple happens the day AFTER Palm Sunday. They suggest that Jesus deliberately chooses to make this prophetic demonstration at a time when the Temple would be full, rather than at the end of the Sunday as the sun was going down.
It seems to me that all three "incidents" (Entry into Jerusalem, Cleansing of the Temple, Passover Meal) were not in any way accidental. Jesus was deliberate about what he did. Whilst I have always thought this about the Entry and the Passover, I've previously tended to regard the cleansing as possibly an unpremeditated action arising out of the passion of Jesus. But having read Borg & Crossan's book, I'm more convinced now by the argument that even this was deliberate and premeditated.
--------------------
Faradiu, dundeibáwa weyu lárigi weyu
Posts: 3871 | From: Gamma Quadrant, just to the left of Galifrey | Registered: Dec 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
|
|
Brenda Clough
Shipmate
# 18061
|
Posted
The sermon at my church yesterday went into the significance of that donkey. A colt, remember, 'upon which no man had yet sat.' So you have an unbroken animal, possibly not even full grown, pressed into service as a mount.
If you are a conquering hero you do not do this. You ride a Bucephalus, a trained war horse, and sit way up there about the hoi polloi in your armor with a banner over your head. A donkey is the mount of someone who does not intend war. A young and unbroken animal is a stunt, a magical trick -- impossible for ordinary people. It demonstrates the kind of kingdom it is going to be -- not by might, nor by power, but by Jesus's inherent power and charisma.
--------------------
Science fiction and fantasy writer with a Patreon page
Posts: 6378 | From: Washington DC | Registered: Mar 2014
| IP: Logged
|
|
Lamb Chopped
Ship's kebab
# 5528
|
Posted
Donkeys--or rather mules--were used as royal mounts in David's time, though I'm sure they were trained to saddle first. I suspect the colt's lack of training was the main reason Jesus had them bring the mother along as well--the young animal would be calmer with her around and follow where she went.
--------------------
Er, this is what I've been up to (book).
Oh, that you would rend the heavens and come down!
Posts: 20059 | From: off in left field somewhere | Registered: Feb 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
Mamacita
Lakefront liberal
# 3659
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Oscar the Grouch:
I've been reading The Last Week by Borg and Crossan, which I have found mostly fascinating.
They both certainly go for the line that the entry into Jerusalem was a deliberate challenge/contrast to Pilate's entry into the city, which would have been happening at pretty much the same time.
I concur that the Borg/Crossan book is quite interesting. They go into some detail about the challenge/contrast to the entries being made by Pilate* and Jesus -- the former in full royal regalia with great displays of wealth and military might, leading reinforcements of soldiers to Fortress Antonia for the holiday. And Jesus entering at the opposite end of the city, in the manner described in the gospels, sending a completely different message about a different Kingdom. I find it interesting that Borg & Crossan's (who are generally thought of as liberal/progressive Christians) descriptions are not that different from those of the conservative source that Baptist Trainfan linked to upthread. They go on much more about the politics of the situation, but theologically, they're pretty much identical interpretations.
*It seems feasible to me that Pilate would be making such an entry at this time, but do we know this from other sources? Are the authors making an educated guess? [Just a random thought... no tangent intended.]
--------------------
Do not be daunted by the enormity of the world’s grief. Do justly, now. Love mercy, now. Walk humbly, now. You are not obligated to complete the work, but neither are you free to abandon it.
Posts: 20761 | From: where the purple line ends | Registered: Dec 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
Teufelchen
Shipmate
# 10158
|
Posted
How do we account for the fact that Passover is a spring festival, but palm branches and cries of 'hosanna' were associated with Sukkot (Tabernacles), which is an autumn festival?
t
--------------------
Little devil
Posts: 3894 | From: London area | Registered: Aug 2005
| IP: Logged
|
|
Lamb Chopped
Ship's kebab
# 5528
|
Posted
Hosanna means "save us, please," which is a perfectly natural thing to call out to the conquering hero you are welcoming to your city. I don't think it has to stick to one part of the year, and it wouldn't surprise me to learn it had been used of a secular leader.
Oh, and palm branches are always in season in Israel (or so I reason given the similarity to California). Nice handy things for a victory parade, all year round.
[ 31. March 2015, 02:26: Message edited by: Lamb Chopped ]
--------------------
Er, this is what I've been up to (book).
Oh, that you would rend the heavens and come down!
Posts: 20059 | From: off in left field somewhere | Registered: Feb 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
Gramps49
Shipmate
# 16378
|
Posted
My pastor pointed out that the custom of the palms not invented when Jesus rode into town; rather, it came from the time of Judas Maccabee. He was supposed to be the savior of Israel from horrors of Antiochus V. And for a brief time the Israelites were free.
But then the Romans came in
My pastor also pointed out that Jesus entry corresponded to the time when Pilate entered through the northern gate as a counter demonstration. That is why the people came out in droves waving Palms. They were recalling the time in Judas Maccabee came into town as a victor. They were hoping that this Jesus would also be a victor.
But they were disappointed. Within the week the people who had been singing hosanna to the (hoped for) victor were calling for his crucifixion. This person was a great disappointment. They would end up mocking him on Friday.
Posts: 2193 | From: Pullman WA | Registered: Apr 2011
| IP: Logged
|
|
Alan Cresswell
Mad Scientist 先生
# 31
|
Posted
According to Wikipedia, palm branches were used throughout the Greco-Roman world as a symbol of victory, given to winning athletes at games for example (along with an olive wreath). When the Maccabees entered Jerusalem as victors with palm branches in evidence this was just recreating the practice in Greece where victorious kings and military commanders returned home with palm branches waved in celebration. Not only did the Romans adopt this practice, it was also the practice of the triumphant emperor or general to put aside his armour and enter Rome wearing a toga, the clothing of peace - since a military victory ends a war and brings a time of peace.
So, the symbolism would have been of someone returning to Jerusalem not as a king to conquer the city, but as a triumphant king who has already won the victory.
--------------------
Don't cling to a mistake just because you spent a lot of time making it.
Posts: 32413 | From: East Kilbride (Scotland) or 福島 | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
|
|
Alan Cresswell
Mad Scientist 先生
# 31
|
Posted
The more I think about it, that last paragraph strikes me more and more.
We think of Jesus entering Jerusalem to engage in a final battle against sin and death on the Cross and bounding out of the Tomb. However we want to view what happened in the few days after this entry.
But, the Gospel writers all include an event that symbolically declares that even before He reached Jerusalem, Christ had already won so He enters the city as the Triumphant Victor. I'm just finding that fascinating.
--------------------
Don't cling to a mistake just because you spent a lot of time making it.
Posts: 32413 | From: East Kilbride (Scotland) or 福島 | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
pimple
Ship's Irruption
# 10635
|
Posted
If this was all so important to Jesus, why was it not important to John, the only evangelist who doesn't mention the triumphal entry into Jerusalem? Or perhaps he did and it was at the beginning of the book and not the end. After all, there's hardly anyone more triumphalist (I don't mean that in a derogatory way) than "John's" Jesus.
[ 31. March 2015, 22:01: Message edited by: pimple ]
--------------------
In other words, just because I made it all up, doesn't mean it isn't true (Reginald Hill)
Posts: 8018 | From: Wonderland | Registered: Nov 2005
| IP: Logged
|
|
|
|
goperryrevs
Shipmtae
# 13504
|
Posted
Does anyone know which gates are the ones that are being referenced, and where they were located? I've heard the theory before, that the gates were on opposite sides of the city. It's just helpful to be able to picture them in the wider geography of the city. The traditional site of the passover room is to the south of the city, just outside the current Zion gate. I'm just trying to imagine the journey Jesus and the disciples would have made through the city, on Easter week and if his actions were very intentional, what that signified. I mean, AFAIUI he'd come from Bethany, so logic would dictate he'd arrive from the East, so how much is practicalities and how much is intentional?
--------------------
"Keep your eye on the donut, not on the hole." - David Lynch
Posts: 2098 | From: Midlands | Registered: Mar 2008
| IP: Logged
|
|
Oscar the Grouch
Adopted Cascadian
# 1916
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Lamb Chopped:
Why should John repeat what the other three Gospels had long since done?
As part of our lent course this year, we read all of Mark one week, then all of Matthew, then Luke and finally John.
One outcome of this (for me, anyway) was that I became more convinced than ever that John's gospel presumes that its readers have knowledge of at least one of the others. John's gospel doesn't need to give us "the facts", as we already have those.
(As a corollary to this, I have become increasingly wary of the evangelistic practice of giving John's gospel to enquirers. This gospel only begins to make any real sense if you already know the Jesus story.)
--------------------
Faradiu, dundeibáwa weyu lárigi weyu
Posts: 3871 | From: Gamma Quadrant, just to the left of Galifrey | Registered: Dec 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
|
|
Gramps49
Shipmate
# 16378
|
Posted
Pilate would have entered through the North Gate or New Gate, since that was the gate on the road between Tiberias, the official seat of the Roman government. Jesus likely entered through the Golden Gate, which is to the south, nearer to Bethany where he had stayed overnight with Lazarus , Mary and Martha.
Posts: 2193 | From: Pullman WA | Registered: Apr 2011
| IP: Logged
|
|
Gramps49
Shipmate
# 16378
|
Posted
Interesting point: Mark says the people cut branches from the fields but it does not say what type of branches they used.
Luke says the people spread out their garments--does not say anything about using any type of branches.
Only John mentions the use of Palm Branches, but the nearest place that would have had Palm branches would have been Jericho since Palm trees were not native to Jerusalem.
Posts: 2193 | From: Pullman WA | Registered: Apr 2011
| IP: Logged
|
|
Oscar the Grouch
Adopted Cascadian
# 1916
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Gramps49:
Pilate would have entered through the North Gate or New Gate, since that was the gate on the road between Tiberias, the official seat of the Roman government. Jesus likely entered through the Golden Gate, which is to the south, nearer to Bethany where he had stayed overnight with Lazarus , Mary and Martha.
Which assumes that Pilate was coming from Tiberias. Do we know that? Borg and Crossan assert that Pilate (and the extra military forces needed for keeping order in Jerusalem during the Passover) would have been coming from Caesarea Maritima, and so would have entered the city from the west.
(This isn't a big deal, one way or the other. But it is one of those little details that I find fascinating.)
--------------------
Faradiu, dundeibáwa weyu lárigi weyu
Posts: 3871 | From: Gamma Quadrant, just to the left of Galifrey | Registered: Dec 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Lamb Chopped
Ship's kebab
# 5528
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Gramps49:
Only John mentions the use of Palm Branches, but the nearest place that would have had Palm branches would have been Jericho since Palm trees were not native to Jerusalem.
Seriously? I was not aware that they could be so narrowly confined. I mean, we're probably talking Judean date palms here, as they were popular for their fruit. In my experience fruit growers plant whatever they can get to grow on their land, regardless of whether it's native or no. (Don't ask me what fool tried to plant an allegedly-hardy fig tree in zone 6 last year. ![[Hot and Hormonal]](icon_redface.gif) ) I doubt the climate difference between the two cities was that great, they being so close together. In fact, I seem to recall the Judean date palm was planted all over Palestine.
Not, I suppose, that the tree owners would have been very happy with random people stripping leaves off their trees! But it wouldn't surprise me at all if the land on the approach to Jerusalem was planted almost all the way to the road. It was a relatively big city--someone had to feed it.
--------------------
Er, this is what I've been up to (book).
Oh, that you would rend the heavens and come down!
Posts: 20059 | From: off in left field somewhere | Registered: Feb 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
pimple
Ship's Irruption
# 10635
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Lamb Chopped:
Why should John repeat what the other three Gospels had long since done?
Like record the death and resurrection of Jesus, f'rinstance? Come on!
--------------------
In other words, just because I made it all up, doesn't mean it isn't true (Reginald Hill)
Posts: 8018 | From: Wonderland | Registered: Nov 2005
| IP: Logged
|
|
Gramps49
Shipmate
# 16378
|
Posted
YoIu're right. Pilate came from Ceserea. I hadn't had a full cup of coffee when I typed my first reply in the morning.
Posts: 2193 | From: Pullman WA | Registered: Apr 2011
| IP: Logged
|
|
balaam
Making an ass of myself
# 4543
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Lamb Chopped:
[QUOTE]I doubt the climate difference between the two cities was that great, they being so close together. In fact, I seem to recall the Judean date palm was planted all over Palestine.
The land distance may not be much but the altitude difference is substantial.
--------------------
Last ever sig ...
blog
Posts: 9049 | From: Hen Ogledd | Registered: May 2003
| IP: Logged
|
|
Mamacita
Lakefront liberal
# 3659
|
Posted
Nice to see a donkey posting on this thread. Very appropriate. ![[Biased]](wink.gif)
--------------------
Do not be daunted by the enormity of the world’s grief. Do justly, now. Love mercy, now. Walk humbly, now. You are not obligated to complete the work, but neither are you free to abandon it.
Posts: 20761 | From: where the purple line ends | Registered: Dec 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
Lamb Chopped
Ship's kebab
# 5528
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by balaam:
quote:
Originally posted by Lamb Chopped:
[QUOTE]I doubt the climate difference between the two cities was that great, they being so close together. In fact, I seem to recall the Judean date palm was planted all over Palestine.
The land distance may not be much but the altitude difference is substantial.
That's very true. Must remember to look up altitude requirements after I get back from class...
--------------------
Er, this is what I've been up to (book).
Oh, that you would rend the heavens and come down!
Posts: 20059 | From: off in left field somewhere | Registered: Feb 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
Lamb Chopped
Ship's kebab
# 5528
|
Posted
There's a discussion here of palms growing at higher altitudes, and one poster in particular mentions the date palm as growing in his town at an altitude more than 1000 ft higher than Jerusalem.
--------------------
Er, this is what I've been up to (book).
Oh, that you would rend the heavens and come down!
Posts: 20059 | From: off in left field somewhere | Registered: Feb 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
Oscar the Grouch
Adopted Cascadian
# 1916
|
Posted
To be honest, I wonder if it may not be an irrelevance to inquire about whether palm trees grow in or near Jerusalem.
Only John's Gospel mentions palms. So why did this gospel need to mention it?
a) It was a small, factual detail that the other gospels had omitted. That's not impossible, though I am not sure how likely it is.
b) It was a detail that had some significance - in much the same way that John's gospel has Jesus being crucified at the same time as the Passover lambs were being sacrificed. That seems more likely to me. And if we know that palm branches had a significance to the Jews in terms of triumphal entry of a king, then it becomes just the kind of subtle embellishment that John's gospel loves.
--------------------
Faradiu, dundeibáwa weyu lárigi weyu
Posts: 3871 | From: Gamma Quadrant, just to the left of Galifrey | Registered: Dec 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Sarah G
Shipmate
# 11669
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Lamb Chopped:
Donkeys--or rather mules--were used as royal mounts in David's time
This.
Riding donkeys was what Kings of Israel did.
King Solomon rode to his messianic coronation on a donkey that had belonged to David (1 Kings 1:33-44). There is a royal reference to Genesis 49:8-12 in there. Also Judges 5:10; 10:4; 12:14; and 2 Samuel 16:2.
The allusion to Zechariah 9 is crucial, especially 9:9 (note also 9:11). Jesus was proclaiming himself as the King of Israel. He was making a clear, symbolic messianic claim, given the culture and time. He was positioning himself in the royal line of David. This at least partly explains the crowds response, and the authorities counter-challenge.
It is controversial, but some exegetes see a reference to Donkey in Shrek 3; others point out that Shrek was only ever acting as Regent of Far Far Away, and not as King.
Posts: 514 | Registered: Jul 2006
| IP: Logged
|
|
Gramps49
Shipmate
# 16378
|
Posted
Just a little side bar, my son married a woman from Palo Alto. She actually lived just a couple of blocks from Dreamworks. As it turned out there was a small farm in the neighborhood which had a donkey which was the model for the donkey in Shrek. The day after the wedding most of the wedding party had a picnic in a park between Dreamworks and the farm. While we were there one of the farmhands brought the donkey out to the park for the kids in the party to pet. We were all very impressed that we got to personally meet the donkey of Shrek.
Posts: 2193 | From: Pullman WA | Registered: Apr 2011
| IP: Logged
|
|
georgiaboy
Shipmate
# 11294
|
Posted
For a fictional, but thoroughly Gospel-based and supported by scholarship treatment, Dorothy L. Sayers' radio play series 'The Man Born to Be King' supplies interesting thoughts about the Triumphal Entry, including some thoughts about the donkey.
She also has Jesus and Pilate entering the city at the same time and by the same gate, by which she gives Claudia Pilate a look at Jesus, and so sets up her dream in Matthew's account.
I believe (but am not certain and don't have the book handy) that the episode is titled 'The King Comes Into His Own'.
Sayers (as I am sure most of you know) was a gifted writer and translator, though not trained formally as a theologian.
--------------------
You can't retire from a calling.
Posts: 1675 | From: saint meinrad, IN | Registered: Apr 2006
| IP: Logged
|
|
Waw consecutivum
Apprentice
# 18120
|
Posted
quote:
Donkeys--or rather mules--were used as royal mounts in David's time, though I'm sure they were trained to saddle first. I suspect the colt's lack of training was the main reason Jesus had them bring the mother along as well--the young animal would be calmer with her around and follow where she went.
## That would explain a lot, and clear St Matthew of the accusation of misunderstanding Zech. 9.9. Talking of royal connections - from 1 Kings 1:
32 King David said, Call in Zadok the priest, Nathan the prophet and Benaiah son of Jehoiada. When they came before the king,
33 he said to them: Take your lord's servants with you and set Solomon my son on my own mule and take him down to Gihon.
34 There shall Zadok the priest and Nathan the prophet anoint him king over Israel. Blow the trumpet and shout, `Long live King Solomon!'
35 Then you are to go up with him, and he is to come and sit on my throne and reign in my place. I have appointed him ruler over Israel and Judah.
36 Benaiah son of Jehoiada answered the king, Amen! May the LORD, the God of my lord the king, so declare it.
37 As the LORD was with my lord the king, so may he be with Solomon to make his throne even greater than the throne of my lord King David!
38 So Zadok the priest, Nathan the prophet, Benaiah son of Jehoiada, the Kerethites and the Pelethites went down and put Solomon on King David's mule and escorted him to Gihon.
39 Zadok the priest took the horn of oil from the sacred tent and anointed Solomon. Then they sounded the trumpet and all the people shouted, Long live King Solomon!
40 And all the people went up after him, playing flutes and rejoicing greatly, so that the ground shook with the sound.
## v.38 has:
a prophet - St Matthew shows Jesus as a prophet
a priest - St.Matthew has Jesus opposed by priests
a son of someone named Jehoiada - Zechariah the son of the priest Jehoiada seems to be mentioned in St Matthew 23, though given Barachiah as father
a mule - King-to-be Solomon is doing what Jesus does at His Entrance.
There is Solomon-typology in St. Matthew:
- the Temptation (implicitly)
- the mention of the Queen of Sheba (explicitly)
- the use of Ps.72, which is headed "for Solomon"
- the use of the title "Son of David".
St.Matthew quotes, or rather expands, Zechariah 9.9, speaking of the Entry in 21.5 - the Greek echoes the Septuagint of both Zechariah 9.9 & 1 Kings 1.38. The latter verse ties up nicely with St. Matthew's interests. The name of Gihon also echoes the name of one of the rivers in Genesis 2.
--------------------
James
Posts: 17 | From: North-Western Middle Earth | Registered: May 2014
| IP: Logged
|
|
|
Printer-friendly view
