Lowly or Triumphant?

a verse or two

“The Lord says, I will remove the war chariots from Israel and take the horses from Jerusalem; the bows used in battle will be destroyed. Your king will make peace among the nations; he will rule from sea to sea, from the Euphrates River to the ends of the earth.” Zechariah 9:10

Spiritual Walk and Musings: Lowly or Triumphant?

This week I came across two different interpretations of Jesus’ entry into Jerusalem. These give a glimpse of two different kinds of Christianity in the world today.

One interpretation is of a king arriving in a manner never seen before. Unlike when Caesar entered Rome on his glorious war horse, Christ entered Jerusalem on a lowly donkey, arriving in the simple clothes of a peasant, legs dangling at the sides almost touching the ground, looking almost like some form of comedy theatre. Could it be Jesus knew how weak and ridiculous he looked making his “triumphal” entry? And was it really a triumphal entry or was he bringing something else into the world?

The other interpretation I came across suggested he rode a mule and explained the mule is a high value animal. Mules are a cross between a mare and a male donkey, and because crossbreeding was prohibited in Israel (Lev 19:19), mules were likely imported, making them highly valued. So Christ arrives on a prized animal. This idea combined with the thought of Jesus arriving on a mule to establish himself as the heir to the throne of David (because David declared Solomon his successor by seating Solomon on his own mule, giving a sign to the people that Solomon was the legitimate heir to the throne), suggests that Jesus entry is triumphant and glorious. He is now the new king, the heir.

One interpretation is very triumphant…the other…lowly.

Something to do: Think.

So was Jesus’ entry lowly or triumphant? Which interpretation do you go with? Spend time thinking on this. What are the subtle differences?

Of the second one, I can handle the symbolism of Jesus establishing himself as the heir to the throne of David. But when saying mules were highly valued – I think that idea misses the very point Jesus was trying to make. To me it smells of the kind of triumphalism that Christ was against. Yes he was heir to the throne of David but his reign as king would be different. His aim was peace and not war.

My opinion is Jesus did not enter on a highly valued mule but rather upon a common farm donkey looking a tad un-triumphant to say the least.

To Ponder and Pray: Different kinds of Christianity.

Jesus arriving on a lowly donkey, his dying on the cross – these actions were not of retaliation but suffering and humility. His act of love was not by keeping control but by letting go. The scary thing about “triumphalism” Christianity is it can lead to Christians being unloving. A kind of altitude ‘we are in and you are out’… ‘We are right and you are wrong’. But Christ’s way seems to say “be sad that the other is wrong” and instead of gloating, it is to love the one who is wrong, to not fight them, to offer the other cheek and not retaliate but to surrender. One cannot love without suffering.

Ponder the different kinds of Christianity in the world today. Some are elitist – almost snobbish (which includes reverse snobbishness by those who think they are not snobbish and that other is). Other Christians have a form of humility which my heart aches for and yet my pride seems to keep at bay.

My prayer is that we choose the way of humility, of suffering and of love; instead of egocentric triumphalism which say’s look at us, we won, we’re right.

God Bless you this holy week. Jon.