Episode 19: Year A – Palm Sunday
In this episode of the Sunday Catholic Word, we focus on five details found in the opening Gospel and second reading for this upcoming Palm Sunday, Year A. For the Gospel, we stick with the Gospel reading (Matthew 21:1-11) for the procession with palms at the beginning of Mass since it specifically relates to Palm Sunday. The second reading comes from Philippians 2:6-11. The apologetical topics that the details relate to are the historical reliability of the Gospels and the divinity of Jesus.
Looking for Sunday Catholic Word Merchandise? Look no further! https://shop.catholic.com/catholic-answers-merchandise/?q=sunday
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 a total of five details found in the opening Gospel and second reading for this upcoming Palm Sunday, Year A. For the Gospel, we’re going to stick with the reading for the procession with palms at the beginning of Mass since it specifically relates to Palm Sunday. That Gospel comes from Matthew 21:1-11, which is Jesus’ entry into Jerusalem. The second reading comes from Philippians 2:6-11. The apologetical topics that the details relate to are the historical reliability of the Gospels and the divinity of Jesus.
Let’s begin with opening Gospel, which again is Matthew 21:1-11—Jesus’ entry into Jerusalem. There are two details from this reading that we’re going to focus on.
The Number of Donkeys
The first is Matthew’s mention of “two donkeys.” Jesus tells the disciples, “Go into the village opposite you, and immediately you will find an ass tethered, and a colt with her” (v.2).
An apparent problem arises when we consider that the other Gospel writers, in their version of Jesus’ entry into Jerusalem, speak of the disciples taking a single donkey, a colt (Mark 11:2; Luke 19:30; John 12:14).
Is Matthew contradicting the other Gospels? The answer is no.
For there to be a contradiction, the other Gospel writers would have had to denied there being two donkeys, saying something like, “there was only one donkey.” Affirming that the disciples took the colt doesn’t entail there was only one. It’s simply an intention to focus on one detail and omitting another—in this case, that there was another donkey.
The omission of certain details is something that’s called descriptive approximation. Ancient authors were selective with their material and had to choose the things they wanted to include or not include. Some authors included extra details and others streamlined things. The other Gospel writers streamline the details about the donkeys whereas Matthew includes both.
Why would Matthew do this?
As Jimmy Akin explains in his book A Daily Defense (Day 327), the answer has to do with a particular interpretation of the prophecy that Matthew quotes from Zechariah 9:9. The prophecy reads as follows, “Say to daughter Zion, ‘Behold, your king comes to you, meek and riding on an ass, on a colt, the foal of a beast of burden.”
During the time of Christ, some interpreted this prophecy to refer to two animals and others interpreted it as referring to one. The single animal view sees the “ass” as referring to the “colt” that is the “foal of a beast”? The two-animal view sees the “ass” as referring to the mother that the colt is a “foal of”? The New American Bible seems to adopt this view and translates the text as, “on an ass, and on a colt, the foal of a beast of burden.”
It’s possible that Matthew is concerned about the advocates of the two-animal view and wants to ensure them that Jesus indeed does fulfills the prophecy. This being the case, he mentions both animals.
The other Gospels, on the other hand, aren’t concerned with this two-animal interpretation. Consequently, they streamline their narrative and mention only one.
The Number of Donkeys that Jesus Rode on
The second detail in this Gospel reading is very much related to the first. Matthew reports that the disciples “brought the ass and the colt and laid their cloaks over them, and [Jesus] sat upon them.” Matthew seems to suggest that Jesus sat on both animals.
Two problems arise here. First, how can Jesus ride on both at the same time? Second, the other Gospel writers report that Jesus rode on one donkey, thereby constituting a contradiction.
Concerning the first problem, Matthew could be referring to the garments as being that which Jesus “sat upon.” But even if we concede that Matthew intends to suggest that Jesus sat on the donkeys, we need not take this to mean that he rode them simultaneously. It’s reasonable that he would have ridden one for some length of time, gotten off, and then rode the other for some other length of time. And he would have done this to fulfill the prophecy according to the two-animal view: the king will comes riding on both an ass, and a colt, the foal of an ass.
Now, the second problem, which is that there is a contradiction here, doesn’t hold because for there to be a contradiction the other Gospel writers would have to had said something like, “Jesus only rode on the colt.” Affirming that Jesus rode on the colt doesn’t entail that He did not ride on the colt’s mother. But the Gospel writers don’t deny that Jesus rode on the colt’s mother. They simply omit this detail. Therefore, there is no contradiction.
Let’s now turn to the second reading from Philippians 2:6-11. Here’s what we read:
6 Who, though he was in the form of God, did not regard equality with God something to be grasped. 7 Rather, he emptied himself, taking the form of a slave, coming in human likeness; and found human in appearance, 8 he humbled himself, becoming obedient to death, even death on a cross. 9 Because of this, God greatly exalted him and bestowed on him the name that is above every name, 10 that at the name of Jesus every knee should bend, of those in heaven and on earth and under the earth, 11 and every tongue confess that Jesus Christ is Lord, to the glory of God the Father.
There are three details here that all deal with a single topic: the divinity of Jesus.
Paul’s Affirmation of Jesus’s Equality with God
The first is Paul’s statement that Jesus “did not regard equality with God something to be grasped” (v.6). Notice Paul’s implication: Jesus is equal to God.
Now, agnostic New Testament scholar Bart Ehrman, in his book How Jesus became God, counters that the Greek verb for “grasped” (Gk. harpagmos) is “almost always used to refer to something a person doesn’t have but grasps for—like a thief who snatches someone’s purse.” Applied to Jesus, Ehrman argues that Jesus didn’t have equality with God. Rather, it was something he grasped at.
In response, Ehrman fails to consider that the Greek word for “grasped” can be used as an idiom to mean “taking advantage of.” On this view, Paul intends to contrast Jesus with many ancient rulers of the ancient world. Unlike these rulers who used their power for selfish purposes, Jesus doesn’t use his divine prerogatives for selfish purposes. And this fits with the whole context of Jesus’ humility expressed in His self-emptying: “he emptied himself, taking the form of a slave” (v.7). This response if famously given by authors like R. W. Hoover, Gordon Fee, N.T. Wright, and Michael J. Gorman.
Second, to say that Jesus is grasping at divinity as if he doesn’t already have it doesn’t fit with Paul’s statement that Jesus was “in the form of God.” To speak of being in “the form of God” is to speak of having the same nature as God—that’s to say, Jesus is divine. Paul parallels this divine form with His human form, writing, “taking the form of a salve, coming in human likeness” (v.7). In other words, Jesus took upon himself a human nature. Since Paul conceives of Jesus as having the same nature of God, and thus is in fact divine, harpagmos can’t be interpreted as Jesus grasping at divinity which He doesn’t already have.
The second detail in this second reading that’s relevant for proving Paul’s belief in Jesus’ divinity is Paul’s comment that Jesus’ name is “above every name” (v.9). How can Jesus’ name be above the highest name of God, which the Jews didn’t even speak, unless He were God himself?
The third detail, which follows from the previous one, is that at Jesus’ name, Paul says, “every knee should bend.” According to Isaiah 45:23, every knee bows before Almighty God: “To me,” Yahweh says, “every knee shall bow.” To say that every knee should bow at the name of Jesus, Paul either believes that Jesus is God or he’s blaspheming. I think the former is the more reasonable option.
Conclusion
Well, that does it for this episode of the Sunday Catholic Word. The readings for this upcoming Palm Sunday do not fall short in providing us apologetical material. They give us an opportunity to defend the historical reliability of the Gospels and the early Christian belief in Jesus’ divinity.
Thank you for subscribing to the podcast. Please be sure to tell your friends about it and invite them to subscribe as well. Also, 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 great Palm Sunday.