Episode 70: Year B – Palm Sunday
In this episode of the Sunday Catholic Word, we focus on nine details found in this upcoming Sunday Mass readings for Palm Sunday, Year B. The first two details come from the Gospel reading for the procession with palms, which is taken from Mark 11:1-10. The relevant apologetical topic is Jesus’ Messiahship. The next set of details come from the second reading, taken from Philippians 2:6-11. The relevant apologetical topics that arise with these details are Christ’s divinity and Christian universalism, the idea that all we will be saved in the end. The last few details come from the Passion narrative, which is taken from Mark 14:1-15:47. The relevant topics that we will focus on are the timing of Jesus’ death (and consequently the timing of the Passover meal), and the timing of Jesus’ trial.
The Readings: Click Here
Looking for Sunday Catholic Word Merchandise? Look no further! Click Here
Hey everyone,
Welcome to The Sunday Catholic Word, a podcast where we reflect on the upcoming Sunday Mass readings and pick out the details that are relevant for explaining and defending our Catholic faith.
I’m Karlo Broussard, staff apologist and speaker for Catholic Answers, and the host for this podcast.
In this episode, we’re going to focus on nine details found in this upcoming Sunday Mass readings for Palm Sunday, Year B. The first two details come from the Gospel reading for the procession with palms, which is taken from Mark 11:1-10. The relevant apologetical topic is Jesus’ Messiahship. The next set of details come from the second reading, taken from Philippians 2:6-11. The relevant apologetical topics that arise with these details are Christ’s divinity and Christian universalism, the idea that all we will be saved in the end. The last few details come from the Passion narrative, which is taken from Mark 14:1-15:47. The relevant topics that we will focus on are the timing of Jesus’ death (and consequently the timing of the Passover meal), and the timing of Jesus’ trial.
Let’s get started with the Gospel reading for the procession with palms. I’m not going to read the whole passage. So, I’m simply going to highlight the relevant verses that pertain to the theme of Jesus the Messiah.
There are two clues that suggest this theme. The first is Jesus’ entry into Jerusalem on a donkey. Mark simply says “colt.” But we know from Matthew that it was “the foal of a donkey” (Matt. 21:5).
How does this signify Jesus as the Messiah?
The first thing to note is that according to the Jewish prophetical tradition the Messiah was to be a son of David, and thus a Davidic king. For example, God promises to bring consolation to Israel with a new Davidic king in Ezekiel 34:22-28. God promises,
22 I will save my flock, they shall no longer be a prey…23* And I will set up over them one shepherd, my servant David, and he shall feed them… …25 “I will make with them a covenant of peace…I break the bars of their yoke and deliver them from the hand of those who enslaved them. 28 They shall no more be a prey to the nations…And they shall know that I, the LORD their God, am with them….”
Now, Zechariah prophesies that this Davidic king would bring deliverance and restoration to the people of Israel in Zechariah 9:9-12. And when he does so, he is said to ride on a donkey. Here’s the text:
9 Rejoice greatly, O daughter of Zion! Shout aloud, O daughter of Jerusalem! Lo, your king comes to you; triumphant and victorious is he, humble and riding on an ass, on a colt the foal of an ass. 10 I 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. 11 As for you also, because of the blood of my covenant with you, I will set your captives free from the waterless pit. 12 Return to your stronghold, O prisoners of hope; today I declare that I will restore to you double. 13 For I have bent Judah as my bow; I have made Ephraim its arrow. I will brandish your sons, O Zion, over your sons, O Greece, and wield you like a warrior’s sword.”
The application to Jesus is clear: he is this messianic king.
The second clue is the waiving of branches and the crying out of “Hosanna . . . Blessed is he who comes in the name of the Lord.” This calls to mind the enthronement song for the King’s procession into Jerusalem and the Temple, which we find in Psalm 118:20-26. Here are few excerpts:
20 This is the gate of the Lord; the righteous shall enter through it….25 Save us [Hosanna], we beseech thee, O Lord! O Lord, we beseech thee, give us success! 26 Blessed be he who enters in the name of the Lord!… Bind the festal procession with branches, up to the horns of the altar!”
The salvation that they are requesting from God is said elsewhere in the prophetical literature to be brought through the Messianic King, son of David. This is exemplified in the fact that the crowds associate “hosanna” with “Son of David.”
The application to Jesus, again, is clear: they believe he is the Messianic King who will bring salvation. Although, the salvation will be from sin and death and not the Romans.
So, the key theme revealed through these two details is that Jesus is Messiah. This is Mark’s apology for Jesus’ Messiahship. And it can be ours too.
Let’s now turn to the second reading, which is taken from Philippians 2:6-11. Here’s the text in full:
Christ Jesus, though he was in the form of God,
did not regard equality with God
something to be grasped.
Rather, he emptied himself,
taking the form of a slave,
coming in human likeness;
and found human in appearance,
he humbled himself,
becoming obedient to the point of death,
even death on a cross.
Because of this, God greatly exalted him
and bestowed on him the name
which is above every name,
that at the name of Jesus
every knee should bend,
of those in heaven and on earth and under the earth,
and every tongue confess that
Jesus Christ is Lord,
to the glory of God the Father.
There are several details here that have apologetical value. We’ve already had opportunity to reflect on a few of them in past episodes of the Sunday Catholic Word. For example, Paul says Jesus was “in the form [Gk. morphe] of God” and he “did not regard equality with God something to be grasped at.” As we’ve mentioned in the episodes for Palm Sunday of Year A (episode 19) and the 26th Sunday of Ordinary Time, Year A (episode 45), this relates to the topic of Jesus’ Divinity. Notice Paul affirms that Jesus was equal to God. Why? Because he is in the “form of God.” To have the form of God is to have the same divine nature. This proves that Paul believed Jesus was God. \
The other detail that we’ve looked at in the same previous episodes is Paul’s statement that “at the name of Jesus every knee should bend.” This is significant for Paul’s belief in Jesus’ divinity because, according to Isaiah 45:23, every knee bows before Yahweh. Isaiah writes, “By myself I have sworn, from my mouth has gone forth in righteousness a word that shall not return: ‘To me every knee shall bow, every tongue shall swear.’” Surely, Paul would have known this text as a Jew trained in the Scriptures. This being the case, Paul’s ascription of this phraseology to Jesus reveals that he believes Jesus to be Yahweh in the flesh.
Now, there are a few other details here that we haven’t looked at yet. One is Paul’s statement, “Because of this, God greatly exalted him and bestowed on him the name, which is above every name” (2:9).
The question that arises is, “How can Jesus be exalted if he’s God, like you Christians say? Also, if he’s God, how can God bestow upon him a name that is above every name?”
Concerning the exaltation of Christ generally speaking, Aquinas offers us some help here. He argues that there is a three-fold exaltation of Christ, neither of which conflicts with his divinity. First, Christ is exalted as to the glory of his resurrection. This is supported by the flow of Paul’s thought. He highlights Jesus death on the cross in verse 8 and then says, “Therefore God has highly exalted him.” The juxtaposition of Jesus’ death with the Father’s exaltation of Jesus makes clear the assumed implication that such exaltation is found in Jesus’ resurrection.
Secondly, Aquinas says Christ is exalted as to the manifestation of his divinity. How so? The key is found in the subsequent phrase, “God . . . bestowed on [Jesus] the name which is above every name” (v.9). The reason for this claim is that, as Aquinas points out, “a name is imposed to signify some thing, and the loftier the thing signified by a name, the loftier is the name: hence the name of divinity is highest” (Commentary on Philippians 2-3).
The “name of divinity” is implied in Paul’s affirmation that Christ’s name is “above every name.” As I’ve pointed out before in the episode for Palm Sunday, Year A, for Paul to say Christ’s name is above every name is to say that he’s is almighty God. How can Jesus’ name before above even Yahweh’s name is he’s not Yahweh himself?
Thirdly, Christ is exalted by the reverence shown by every creature. This is supported by Paul’s statement that “every knee should bend” (v.10) and “every tongue confess that Jesus is Lord” (v.11).
Given that we have plausible explanations, supported by the immediate context, as to how Christ is exalted without undermining his divinity, there is no reason to reject Christ’s divinity based on what Paul is saying here about Christ’s exaltation.
The last part about every knee bowing and every tongue confessing leads to another interesting question: If every knee is going to bow before our Lord, and confess that he is Lord, wouldn’t that mean that all will be saved in the end, both demons and impious men? Such a view is referred to as Christian universalism.
The short answer is no. Here’s the reason why.
Notice the objection assumes that “subjection” to Christ equals, in the words of Aquinas, an “allegiance of charity,” which would be a voluntary subjection (Aquinas, Commentary on Philippians 2-3). But there is another kind of subjection that we can envision: an involuntary subjection.
So, concerning the holy angels and beatified men and women, they will be subject to Christ voluntarily—that’s to say, they willfully and joyfully bend the knee to adore Christ and recognize him as Lord.
The devil, demons, and the damned, however, will be subject involuntarily—that’s to say, they can’t help but recognize the fact that they cannot exist without God. Aquinas quotes James 2:19 here: “Even the demons believe—and shudder.”
Concerning the confession of every tongue, such a confession will be of praise by the holy angels and blessed in heaven. The damned, on the other hand, will not confess with praise but simply have to recognize (they can’t deny) the glory of Jesus as Lord.
Given the voluntary and involuntary distinction, there’s no reason to read this statements by Paul as implying Christian universalism.
The last detail that might come up in apologetical discussions is Paul’s teaching that Christ “emptied himself.” One might ask, “Does this mean that Christ divested himself of his divinity?”
The answer is no. The “emptying” is often interpreted as the Word restricting the rightful exercise of his divine powers during his earthly life and accepting the various limitations of the human condition—e.g., hungering, thirsting, being subject to suffering and death, walking through space to get from point A to B, etc. Such emptying is not a divesting of the divine nature. Rather, it’s the assumption of a limited human nature. Aquinas sums this point up nicely with the following formula:
For just as He descended from heaven, not that He ceased to exist in heaven, but because He began to exist in a new way on earth, so He also emptied Himself, not by putting off His divine nature, but by assuming a human nature (Commentary on Philippians 2-3).
Okay. Now we can turn the Gospel reading which is Mark’s narrative of the Passion of Jesus. I’m not going to read the whole narrative. You can do that on your own.
The two things that I want to focus on are the timing of Jesus’ trial by the Sanhedrin and the timing of Jesus’ death (and consequently the timing of the Passover meal).
I’ve written on these two issues at catholic.com: “The Timing of Jesus’ Trial” and “The Timing of Jesus’ Death.” But I figured it would be beneficial to share my comments here as a podcast for those of you who don’t have time to read the articles but have the time to listen.
Let’s start with the timing of Jesus’ trial by the Sanhedrin. Just as a side note, there is some controversy over the timing of Jesus’ trial before Pilate too. I deal with this issue in the same article “The Timing of Jesus’ Trial.” Here I just want to focus on the timing of the trial before the Sanhedrin.
Here’s the objection. According to both Mark (Mark 14:53-65) and Matthew (Matthew 26:57-68), the high priest questions Jesus Thursday night after Jesus is taken in the Garden of Gethsemane. Luke, however, places the high priest’s interrogation of Jesus early the next morning (“when day came”—Luke 22:66).
The first thing we can say is that there’s no contradiction in these reports, only a difference.
Consider that Matthew, Mark, and Luke all agree that Jesus was brought before the high priest late Thursday night at Caiaphas’s house (Luke 22:54; Matt. 26:57-58; Mark 14:53-54). All three also agree that, while there, Jesus was physically beaten and mocked. Matthew and Mark report Caiaphas questioning Jesus at that time, asking Jesus if he is the Christ.
Also, Matthew, Mark, and Luke all agree that the high priest, scribes, and elders convened again early Friday morning to consult each other about putting Jesus to death (Mark 15:1; Matt. 27:1; Luke 22:66). The difference is that Matthew and Mark don’t mention an interrogation of Jesus at this morning convocation, whereas Luke does.
For there to be a contradiction, Matthew and/or Mark would have to deny that the high priest interrogated Jesus at the Friday morning convocation. But they don’t do that. They’re silent on the matter. Therefore, there’s no contradiction.
But the question remains: “Who’s right and who’s wrong?” Did Matthew and Mark get it right and Luke got it wrong? Or, vice versa?
The answer is likely that they’re all right because it’s reasonable to hold that the interrogation happened Thursday night and early Friday morning. Since Matthew and Mark left out the Friday morning interrogation, Luke includes it. And since Matthew and Mark included the Thursday night interrogation, Luke left it out.
That Caiaphas would question Jesus immediately when the crowd brought Jesus to Caiaphas’s house late Thursday night is reasonable, especially in light of the their intent to destroy Jesus. Why else would Caiaphas demand Jesus be brought to his house if he didn’t intend to question him in a preliminary manner, before the morning’s more formal gathering?
The claim that Caiaphas would have questioned Jesus again Friday morning is also reasonable because, as Blomberg argues in his book the Historical Reliability of the Gospels, the Thursday night interrogation and charge of blasphemy weren’t legally binding. The Sanhedrin only had legal authority to sit in judgment for capital cases during the day (Mishnah Sanhedrin 4:1). This leads Blomberg to conclude, “it is quite probable that they repeated their questions to make at least some kind of show of legality when daylight first dawned.”
Differences among the gospels might be a stumbling block for some, but they need not be. Differences don’t entail contradictions. And when such differences can be plausibly explained, we have all that much more reason to trust the reliability of the reports.
Let’s now turn to the issue concerning the timing of Jesus’ death (and consequently the celebration of the Last Supper). There are a couple of objections that are posed. Here’s one.
Mark tells us that Jesus ate the Last Supper “on the first day of Unleavened Bread, when they sacrificed the Passover lamb” (Mark 14:12), and he died the next day (Mark 14:12, 17). But John places Jesus’ death on “the day of preparation of the Passover” (John 19:14).
Another objection is that Mark and John also contradict each other as to the hour Jesus was crucified. Mark claims it was at “the third hour” (Mark 15:25), which according to the Jewish division of twelve-hour days and nights would have been 9 am. John tells us Pilate questioned Jesus “about the sixth hour” (John 19:14), which means Jesus wouldn’t have been crucified until some time after, probably right at twelve noon according to the same Jewish division of days.
Agnostic New Testament scholar Bart Ehrman, in his book Jesus, Interrupted: Revealing the Hidden Contradictions in the Bible (And Why We Don’t Know About Them), finds in the discrepancy a reason for doubt: “It is impossible that both Mark’s and John’s accounts are historically accurate, since they contradict each other on the question of when Jesus died.”
What should we make of these apparent contradictions? Are they proof that Mark and John can’t be historically reliable, as Ehrman says? Let’s first take the question as to whether Jesus was crucified before or after Passover.
Some have responded to the objection by saying the Sadducees and Pharisees celebrated Passover on different days, and Jesus sided with the Pharisees.
Others, like Pope Emeritus Benedict XVI, in his 2007 homily for the Mass of the Lord’s Supper, have proposed Jesus may have celebrated Passover in accord with the Qumran calendar, which would have been one day earlier than the celebration of Passover involving the priestly sacrifices of lambs.
Both responses to the objection have merit. But there’s another way that uses the text of the Gospels themselves.
The phrase “day of Preparation,” according to the Jewish Encyclopedia, is a Jewish idiom for Friday, the day that Jews made preparations for observance of the weekly Sabbath.
All three Synoptics use the idiom this way and say Jesus died on that day. Mark is explicit: “And when evening had come, since it [the day Jesus was crucified and died] was the day of Preparation [Greek, paraskeuē], that is, the day before the Sabbath” (Mark 15:42; emphasis added).
Luke is explicit as well. In reference to the day of Jesus’s crucifixion and death, he writes, “It was the day [hēmera] of preparation [paraskeuēs], and the sabbath was beginning” (Luke 23:54).
`
Matthew’s use of paraskeuē is a bit more implicit. He identifies the day Jesus died to be “the day of preparation” (Matt. 27:62). He then speaks of Pilate appointing guards to guard Jesus’ tomb on the day “after the day of preparation,” which he clearly identifies as the Sabbath in 28:1.
Even the Gospel of John itself, like the Synoptics, uses paraskeuē to refer to Friday in the other two passages where it’s used.
In John 19:31, the evangelist refers to the day of Jesus’ crucifixion as paraskeuē. But within the same verse it becomes clear that he’s not talking about the day on which Jews prepare for Passover, but the day before the Sabbath, Friday:
Since it was the day of Preparation [paraskeuē], in order to prevent the bodies from remaining on the cross on the sabbath (for that sabbath was a high day), the Jews asked Pilate that their legs might be broken, and that they might be taken away” (emphasis added).
Notice the problem the Jews seek to solve is having the bodies on the crosses on the Sabbath. This implies that the day on which the request to remove the bodies is made is the day before the Sabbath, Friday. And it’s that day that John calls paraskeuē, “the day of Preparation.”
This interpretation is strengthened a few verses later when John tells us why they sought a nearby tomb: “So because of the Jewish day of Preparation [paraskeuē], as the tomb was close at hand, they laid Jesus there” (John 19:42). They needed to quickly bury Jesus lest they violate the Sabbath rest, which was soon to begin that Friday after sundown.
Given the evidence from both the Synoptics and John himself that the phrase “day of Preparation” is an idiom for Friday, the day of preparation for the weekly Sabbath, it’s reasonable to conclude that’s how John is using it in John 19:14.
But why add the phrase, “of the Passover”?
The term “Passover” doesn’t only refer to the initial Seder meal, during which the Passover lamb is eaten. As New Testament scholar Brant Pitre points out in his book Jesus and the Last Supper, by the first-century A.D., “Passover” came to be used interchangeably with the seven-day “feast of Unleavened Bread.” Luke provides us with an example: “Now the feast of Unleavened Bread drew near, which is called the Passover (Luke 22:1; cf. Lev. 23:6-8; emphasis added).
So, it seems that by adding the extra tidbit “of the Passover” John intends to highlight the special character of that Friday, the day of preparation for the Sabbath during Passover week.
This provides a possible explanation as to why John says, “that Sabbath was a high day” (John 19:31). It wasn’t just an ordinary Sabbath. It was a Sabbath that fell during Passover week. Consequently, it was, in the words of Craig Blomberg, in his book The Historical Reliability of John’s Gospel, a “doubly sacred” Sabbath.
Since John is not referring to the preparation day for Passover, and places Jesus’ crucifixion on the same day that Mark does, Friday, it follows that there is no discrepancy between the two, at least when it comes to the day on which Jesus was crucified.
In fact, all of the Gospels state that Jesus was crucified and buried on “the day of Preparation” (Matt. 27:62; Mark 16:42; Luke 23:54; John 19:14, 31, 42)—so all four agree.
What about the hour of Jesus’s crucifixion? Was it 9 am, as Mark says? Or, was John right when he said it took place at noon?
Blomberg, in the same book referenced before, explains that just as the Jews divided the twelve-hour night (sunset to sunrise) into four watches, so too they divided daylight hours (sunrise to sunset) into four three-hour increments. And they generally identified the time of events during the day by rounding up or down to the quarter hour.
For example, throughout the Synoptics, almost every time the authors speak of an hour of the day they speak of the “third,” “sixth,” and “ninth” (Matt. 20:3, 5; 27:45, 46; Mark 15:33, 34; Luke 23:44; Acts 2:15; 3:1; 10:3,9, 30; 23:23). The only exception is the parable of the tenant that receives his reward in the “eleventh” hour (Matt. 20:9). But such specificity is required by the parable.
In light of this, Blomberg concludes, “it becomes plausible to interpret Mark’s ‘third hour’ to mean any time between 9 a.m. and noon” (emphasis added). Mark just rounds down to the “third hour” whereas John rounds up to the sixth. John’s rounding up is supported by the fact that he says it was “about the sixth hour” (John 19:14).
Given that Mark and John are approximating the time of Jesus’ death, and they both approximate that time to be some time in the second quarter of the day, we can conclude there is no contradiction.
Ehrman may still reject the historical accuracy of Mark and John. But he can’t do so on the grounds that Mark and John contradict each other as to the day and hour of Jesus’ death.
CONCLUSION
Well, my friends, that completes this episode of the Sunday Catholic Word. The readings for this upcoming Palm Sunday, Year B is a treasure chest for apologetical and theological topics. We have,
- Mark’s apology/defense for Jesus’ Messiahship,
- The divinity of Jesus and how it relates to his assumption of a human nature,
- The historicity of the Gospel reports of Jesus’ passion.
As always, I want to thank you for subscribing to the podcast. And please be sure to tell your friends about it and invite them to subscribe as well at sundaycatholicword.com. You might also want to check out the other great podcasts in our Catholic Answers podcast network: Cy Kellet’s Catholic Answers Focus, Trent Horn’s The Counsel of Trent, Joe Heschmeyer’s Shameless Popery, and Jimmy Akin’s A Daily Defense, all of which can be found at catholic.com.
One last thing: if you’re interested in getting some cool mugs and stickers with my logo, “Mr. Sunday podcast,” go to shop.catholic.com.
I hope you have a blessed Palm Sunday, Year B. Until next time, God Bless!