Qualifying “Messiahship”: The Triumphal Entry
Qualifying “Messiahship”: The Triumphal Entry
Jesus did not claim to be “messiah” in what was likely the most common traditional sense, that of a warrior king.25 (We survey some of these diverse, traditional messianic views below, none of which seem precisely what Jesus claimed for himself.) The gospel tradition itself suggests that Jesus, when he accepted the title, would not always accept it in an unqualified way (Mk 8:29-31; cf. 15:2).26
Mark portrays Jesus entering Jerusalem in a way that some could construe as royal, yet not as a military challenger to the elite or toward Rome (Mk 11:7- 10). Clearly Jesus did enter Jerusalem during this week, and clearly he already enjoyed the reputation of a prophet; something like the triumphal entry is therefore inevitable. Yet even beyond such a general statement, we can make a strong case for some further details recorded in the Gospels.
Some scholars doubt much of the historical substance of the triumphal entry narrative; some, for instance, contend that Mark 11:1-11 fits the formal pattern of a legend, in this case, of a king entering his city.27 Yet historical narrative could be told using the same formal pattern.28 In favor of the narrative’s reliability, Witherington points out that others commandeered animals; the original acclamation (one coming in the Lord’s name) hardly reflects later christological confessions; and Psalm 118:26 (cited by the crowds) was genuinely used during Passover, though later Christians probably would not know this (hence would not fabricate it; see more fully below).29 Others point out that Mark and John may independently attest Jesus entering on a donkey.30
Moreover, if Jesus entered the city in a memorable way at all (and there was no other reason to preserve the story), he had to acquire the animal by some means.31 Correspondingly, if he rode an ass, he himself probably intended the allusion to Zechariah32 (which Mark seems not to have exploited and perhaps not to have noticed). And why not, if Jesus both read the Hebrew Bible and believed himself the future king (as we have begun to argue)?
Thus, as many scholars today point out, the triumphal entry itself appears to be historical (even if modest in scale).33 Perhaps the Romans waited so long to execute Jesus because they did not know of the entry, perhaps because the acclamations at his entry would have been ambiguous to most Jerusalemites greeting pilgrims and his entrance was accomplished quickly.34 The disciples, however, would have remembered the event in great detail, and what Jesus intended to convey to them through the symbolic act is more critical than the immediate understanding of other bystanders. There was no need to be more publicly explicit than this; Jesus would be executed as a messianic pretender soon enough.35 Only in retrospect would memories of the event be impressed with the meaning subsequent events were thought to instill in them.36
It is unlikely that the later church would have thought to create a scene based on the authentic character of the Passover season; Mark’s account, adapted by Matthew, thus presumably preserves accurate tradition. The acclamations “Hosanna!” and “Blessed is he who comes in the Lord’s name” (Mk 11:9-10) both reflect Psalm 118, part of the Hallel psalms sung during this season. 37 Although in our later sources people officially began singing the Hallel only the night before the first day of Passover,38 Passover pilgrims could begin arriving, as Jesus did, considerably earlier, and probably were often singing such psalms in advance of the festival.39 Interestingly, these allusions to the Hallel appear also in the parable of the vineyard and at the last supper, in every case during the Passover season. Nevertheless, none of these citations betrays any overt connection with Passover (hence do not appear to be deliberate forgeries for verisimilitude). These allusions to the Hallel fit the original context so well (and probably so much better than that of the later church) that they undoubtedly stem from a very early part of the tradition.
Once we conclude that the narrative reflects historical tradition, we must ask whether it tells us anything about how Jesus and others viewed his identity. Is it plausible that anyone viewed him in messianic terms at this entry? Crowds would have been using the Hallel anyway, but though the disciples undoubtedly knew that, their tradition preserved a particular part of the Hallel especially relevant to Jesus: “Blessed is the one who comes in the name of the Lord” (Mk 11:9). Rendering the connection with Jesus’ role more explicit, Mark or his tradition speaks of the coming Davidic kingdom (Mk 11:10). Such features fit the actual setting better than we might suppose. Hopes for redemption ran high in the crowded fervor of Jerusalem near Passover, requiring the Roman governor to increase security during this time. Later Jewish thinkers clearly saw the future redemption prefigured in Passover, the Hallel,40 and the cry, “Hosanna!”41 Thus the arrival of a prophet from Galilee already associated with eschatologically significant acts (e.g., Mk 6:34-44; Matt 12:28//Lk 11:20) could lead the Galileans in the crowd, who were most familiar with Jesus’ works, to acclaim the imminent restoration of the Davidic kingdom (Mk 11:10).
Yet the triumphal entry was probably not a lengthy event, and probably not everyone in Jerusalem would have understood it the same way. The Sadducean aristocrats’ position of power depended on them keeping peace between their people and the Romans.42 That they did not intervene during Jesus’ triumphal entry suggests a number of possible factors on the historical level: first, the entry probably happened relatively quickly and the priestly aristocrats, most of whom were occupied on the Temple Mount during this period, were unaware of these events while they were transpiring. Probably many of those greeting the royal party did not recognize the entry as messianic, and possibly the messianic commotion did not spread beyond the portion of the crowd already excited by Jesus’ reputation. It is likely the rural Galilean pilgrims more than urban Jerusalemites who hail Jesus as a prophet (cf. Mk 11:9; Matt 21:10-11).43
Assuming, as I think we should, that the event itself is historical, we must ask what Jesus intended the event to convey. In that vein, it is important to note that the later church or Jesus’ Jewish followers could have chosen for Jesus a more militant steed, but Jesus chose a beast of burden that would convey the image of Zech 9:9.44 That knowledge of the Zechariah allusion seems lost on Mark and perhaps his tradition,45 as we have noted, suggests the antiquity of the tradition of Jesus’ entry on the animal.46 Although later teachers and probably Jesus’ contemporaries regarded this prophecy as Messianic,47 it was not such a popular text that his followers need have grasped the full significance of his actions immediately. He was hardly the only pilgrim to enter Jerusalem on an ass, though he was probably the only potential messianic figure to do so in the midst of public acclaim. Many scholars who observe the actions believe that Jesus was announcing that he was indeed a king, but not a warrior-king.48
The Gospels suggest that Jesus’ view of his kingship was not the common political or military understanding, but that not only his enemies but also his disciples initially misconstrued him in accordance with popular expectations associated with the exaltation and deliverance of Israel. Nevertheless, Jesus and the early movement that emphasized his teachings at least found in the diverse concepts of messiahship a nucleus appropriate for partly defining his mission. The diverse views about messiahship we will survey below show that Jesus did have some room for redefining the meaning of the term. Just as Qumran adapted its messianic and eschatological vision in a distinctive manner, Jesus’ disciples would have been forced to do the same.49