Holy Week Explained

Today is Palm Sunday, the first day of Holy Week.   Recently, some of my Jewish friends have asked me questions about Holy Week.    I can understand how an observance which combines the execution of God's son and chocolate bunnies could be confusing.   For those of you who may be wondering what we Lutherans and Catholics are up to this week, here is a short guide.   (I don't want to exclude Episcopalians and Orthodox Christians who have similar traditions.   However, my personal experience is with Lutheran and Catholic practice).

Technically, Holy Week is the week beginning with Palm Sunday and ending with the Easter Vigil.  Holy Week marks the end of the season of Lent, while Easter is logically the start of the season of Easter.

Palm Sunday

Palm Sunday is the Sunday before Easter.   It recounts the triumphant entry of Jesus into Jerusalem before his death.   Palm Sunday is mentioned in all four Gospels  (Matt: 21:1-12; Mark 11:1-10; Luke 19:28-40; John 12:12-19).   Palm Sunday follows the raising of Lazarus and Jesus' prophecy of his own death and resurrection.     Jesus enters Jerusalem riding on a donkey.   In ancient times, conquering kings rode on horses and chariots.   By riding on a donkey, Jesus stressed that he was a king of peace.   His entry also recalled the words of Zechariah 9:9:

Fear not, daughter of Zion;

behold, your king is coming,

sitting on an ass's colt.

As Jesus entered the city, a crowd hailed him, waving palm branches and saying "Blessed is he who comes in the name of the Lord."   

Palm Sunday gets it name from the palm branches that the adoring crowds waved.   It is traditional to save the palm branches and then burn them to make the ashes for Ash Wednesday the following year.   

Palm Sunday is significant in Christian theology because it demonstrates that Jesus is an unusual king who comes in peace.  His entry into the city sets up his ultimate confrontation with the religious leaders and the Roman occupation.   In Luke's gospel, the Pharisees (highly observant laymen) tell Jesus to rebuke his disciples, to which he says "I tell you, if these were silent, the very stones would cry out."   

Palm Sunday is celebrated with a regular Sunday service focusing on one of the gospel accounts.   In some churches, it is tradition to have a procession with palms into the church.    As we re-enact the story of Palm Sunday, we are reminded that the crowds who hailed Jesus as a king on Sunday cried for his death on Friday.  In the Palm Sunday drama, the crowds represent us today, the fickle masses who would crucify Jesus ourselves if we had the opportunity.  

"All Glory, Laud and Honor" is a traditional hymn with the refrain:

All glory, laud and honor
To you redeemer king
To whom the lips of children
Made sweet hosannas ring

 Holy Monday Through Holy Wednesday

There are no special worship services for Monday through Wednesday of Holy Week.   In the gospels, Jesus teaches in the temple and drives out the moneychangers.    These days, while not individually celebrated, set the stage for the Triduum or Three Days from Maundy Thursday through the Easter Vigil.

 This year, the Jewish Passover falls on Monday and Tuesday of the Christian Holy Week.   Because the two observances are based on the lunar calendar, they are normally celebrated in proximity.  

Maundy Thursday or Holy Thursday

The word "Maundy" comes from the Old English word for commandment.  It refers to to the words of Jesus in John 13:34, "A new commandment I give to you that you love one another as I have loved you." 

Maundy Thursday is also found in each of the gospels.   (Matt. 26:1-75;Mark 14:12-72;  Luke 22:1-65; John 13:1-28 and  18:1-27).  

The gospel accounts include the following points which are commemorated in Maundy Thursday services:

• Jesus washes his disciples' feet like a servant prior to eating the Passover meal (When England was still Catholic, the King would wash the feet of twelve of his subjects on Maundy Thursday)
• Jesus institutes communion by telling his disciples to eat the bread and drink the wine as his body and blood
• Jesus predicts that Judas will betray him and that Peter will deny him
• James and John argue over who will receive the place of honor at Jesus' side in heaven
• Jesus asks James, John and Peter to accompany him to pray and requests that they stay awake.  They fall asleep.   Jesus prays to God three times requesting that he be spared.   
• Judas betrays Jesus with a kiss and he is arrested.
• Peter cuts off the ear of the high priest's servant with his sword, prompting Jesus to rebuke him, stating "put away your sword, for all who live by the sword shall die by the sword."   In some versions, Jesus heals the high priest's servant even as he is being arrested.
• After Jesus is arrested, he is taken to the religious leaders.  Peter denies him three times and weeps.

 It is hard to understate the significance of Maundy Thursday in the Christian tradition.  It is the origin of the sacrament of Communion.   The events of the evening show the servant nature of Jesus (in the washing of the feet), his shepherd nature (in giving a new commandment and instituting communion), his divinity (in predicting his betrayal and denial), his humanity (in praying that the cup be passed from him) and his peacefulness (in not fighting back and restoring the servant's ear).   On the other hand, his disciples betray, desert and deny him.    Since church tradition has it that the disciples are the start of the church, we are forced to face what flawed people we Christians are.

Maundy Thursday is celebrated with noon and evening services.   Although many of our most important traditions and practices tie to this observance, services are often sparely attended.   In the Lutheran Church, the service involves the washing of feet, communion and the stripping of the altar.  The Catholic church also includes these rituals, but also includes the consecration of the holy oils.

Good Friday

Good Friday is a case of ironic naming.   The observance marks the trial and execution of the Son of God.   It is "good" only in the sense that the sacrifice of Jesus allows us to inherit eternal life.   

Good Friday is found in each of the gospels.   (Matt. 27, Mark 15, Luke 23, John 18:25-19:32).

Good Friday appears to represent the victory of evil.  A weak-willed Pontius Pilate seeks to release Jesus only to be frightened by the mob and the religious leaders.  (I advisedly use the term religious leaders instead of the Jews for the reason that the medieval church had an ugly history of blaming the Jews for the crucifixion of Jesus.   In fact, whatever the religious establishment was, it would have opposed Jesus.   The only reason that Christians didn't crucify Jesus is that we were not in power at the time).    Jesus refuses any attempt to defend himself.   When asked if he is the King of the Jews, he says "You have said so."    Pilate offers to release a prisoner for Passover, but the mob selects a murderer, Barabbas.   Pilate orders Jesus scourged, but the mob still demands crucifixion.   He asks the crowd, "Shall I crucify your King?"  When they demand crucifixion, he washes his hands and gives the order.

Jesus is mocked and sent to be crucified with two thieves.   The crucifixion narrative includes much rich symbolism.  Pilate orders that a sign reading "Jesus of Nazareth, King of the Jews" be placed over his cross.   Jesus tells the repentant thief, "today you will be with me in paradise."   He prays to the Father to forgive his tormentors (a point that Christians forgot for multiple centuries) and commits his spirit to the Father before breathing his last.   Upon his death, darkness covers the earth, prompting the Roman Centurion to state, "Surely this man was the son of God."    Thus, Good Friday ends with a painful but powerful death.

Good Friday services are celebrated in both the Lutheran and Catholic tradition without communion.   Lutherans may observe Tenebrae or the service of lights in which all of the lights in the church are extinguished.  The Catholic tradition includes the adoration of the cross.  

"Ah Holy Jesus" is a traditional Good Friday hymn with its haunting lament:

Who was the guilty? 

Who brought this upon Thee? 

Alas, my treason, Jesus, hath undone Thee.

I crucified Thee.

The Easter Vigil

The Easter Vigil is the conclusion of the Easter Triduum.  It begins on Saturday evening.   The scripture does not record any events on this day.   Most likely the disciples were hiding in fear.   

The service of Easter Vigil begins with the blessing of the new light and the lighting of the Paschal candle.   The service of light is followed by the liturgy of the word.   In the Catholic Church, the Easter Vigil is the one time of the year when new converts are received into the faith, whether through baptism or the rite of confirmation.   The service concludes with communion taking place after midnight at which point Easter has commenced.   The service is one of the longest in the church (although my Jewish friends tell me that three hour services are common for them).

The Litany of the Saints is a distinctive feature of the Catholic service.   It includes the hypnotic refrain:

St. ___________, pray for us
(repeat with various saints)
All you holy men and women pray for us

Easter

Easter is a joyous celebration of the resurrection of Jesus and the victory of life over death.   The first Easter is found in the gospels at Matthew 28, Mark 16, Luke 24 and John 20.   The earliest texts of Mark ended without the resurrection.    There is some controversy as to whether this is how it was meant to end or whether the ending was simply lost.   

According to Wikipedia, the origin of the word Easter is:

The modern English term Easter, cognate with modern German Ostern, developed from the Old English word Ēastre or Ēostre, which itself developed prior to 899. This is generally held to have originally referred to the name of an Anglo-Saxon goddess, Ēostre, a form of the widely attested Indo-European dawn goddess. The evidence for the Anglo-Saxon goddess, however, has not been universally accepted, and some have proposed that Eostre may have meant "the month of opening" or that the name Easter may have arisen from the designation of Easter Week in Latin as in albis

If this is accurate, it is another case of Christians mugging earlier religions and stealing their imagery.

In the Easter narrative, three women, Mary Magdalene, Mary the mother of James and Salome go to the tomb to anoint the body of Jesus with spices.   The four gospels differ in the specific details of what occurred at that point.

• In Matthew, an angel tells the women, "he is not here, he has risen from the dead" and they view the empty tomb
• Similarly, in Mark, an angel tells the women, "He is risen, he is not here."   However, in this version, the women do not tell anyone "for they were afraid."
• In Luke, two angels ask the women, "why do you seek the living among the dead."   When they inform the remaining disciples, "these words seemed to them to be an idle tale and they did not believe them."
• In John, it is Mary Magdalene alone who goes to the tomb.   Finding it empty, she runs back for Peter and John.   Peter and John find the grave clothes rolled up and the tomb empty.   However, Jesus appears to Mary Magdalene.   

In each version, it is one or more of the women who first learn of the resurrection.  This can be seen as a continuation of Jesus identifying with persons of low stature in society.   It is also used by some to question the patriarchal traditions of the church.    Later, Jesus appears to the disciples while they are in hiding.   A common thread is that neither the women nor the disciples understand what has happened at first.   

Easter Sunday services are a joyous occasion.   The priest or pastor calls out "He is risen" to which the congregation replies, "He is risen indeed, Alleluia!"  In some churches, if the congregation does not respond with enough gusto, the pastor repeats it until they get it right.    While the prior days' services require the faithful to remember the fickleness and disloyalty of the people, the Easter Sunday service allows them to understand and rejoice from the first moment.   The Easter service is filled with special music and a message celebrating the resurrection.    The significance of Easter in the Christian tradition is that Jesus takes on the weight of our sin and dies in our stead.    Upon rising from the dead, he liberates us from the power of death.   Following the penitential season of Lent, Easter is a celebration of  freedom and life.  

Christians also celebrate Easter with many fun traditions that have little religious significance.   Receiving Easter baskets and hunting for Easter eggs are things which make the holiday fun for the kids.    However, I am still pretty sure that it was an angel that said "He is risen" rather than the Easter bunny.   Similarly, having a large meal with family is a fun tradition and is in keeping with the festive nature of the holiday.  However, the gospels do not dictate that families gather over ham and scalloped potatoes or other favorite meals.   However, after a whole week of deep religious significance, it's nice just to have some fun.

Ted Cruz and the First Amendment Analogy

Ted Cruz, the freshman senator from Texas, sharpened his Tea Party credentials and pugnacious reputation in a Senate hearing on a bill to ban "assault" weapons.    Sen. Cruz asked the bill's sponsor, Sen. Dianne Feinstein (D-Cal.) if she would have the same attitude about a bill to trim rights under the First or Fourth amendments.   He queried his colleague:

The question that I would pose to the senior senator from California is would she deem it consistent with the Bill of Rights for Congress to engage in the same endeavor that we are contemplating doing with the Second Amendment in the context of the First or Fourth Amendment, namely, would she consider it constitutional for Congress to specify that the First Amendment shall apply only to the following books and shall not apply to the books that Congress has deemed outside the protection of the Bill of Rights?   Likewise, would she think that the Fourth Amendment’s protection against searches and seizures could properly apply only to the following specified individuals and not to the individuals that Congress has deemed outside the protection of the Bill of Rights?

Rather than answering the challenge directly, Sen. Feinstein basically told the young whippersnapper that she had been studying the Constitution since he was in diapers and did not need to be lectured about its terms.    While Sen. Feinstein did not answer the question, I think it is reasonable to examine whether outlawing ownership of certain weapons would be as offensive to the Second Amendment as banning certain books would be under the First Amendment.   As somewhat of an absolutist about the First Amendment, I cringe at the thought of book banning.   However, as I will argue below, I think Sen. Cruz is mixing apples and oranges.   (I will save the Fourth Amendment for someone else to analyze).

In their text, both the First and Second Amendments are absolute within their scope.  They state:

Amendment I

Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.

---

Amendment II

A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed.

Note the use of the absolute terms "no law" in the First Amendment and "shall not" in the Second.  The Second Amendment is arguably broader, since it protects the people's right to keep and bear arms, while the First Amendment is a restriction on the power of Congress (and through the Fourteenth Amendment state and local governments) to abridge freedom of speech or the press.

The absolute nature of these protections has been affirmed in the recent Supreme Court decisions in Citizens United v. Federal Election Commission, 558 U.S. 310 (2010), which held that a political movie could not be banned from being shown during the run-up to an election based on its corporate funding and  District of Columbia v. Heller, 554 U.S. 570 (2008), which held that local governments could not ban personal ownership of firearms.    While both decisions were controversial, I think they were each properly decided.

Nevertheless, despite the absolute nature of the protections granted under the First Amendment, it does not allow all manners of expression under all circumstances.   For example, the First Amendment does not allow:

• Shouting fire in a crowded theater, Schenck v. United States, 249 U.S. 47 (1919)
• Perjury, defamation and fraud, e.g., New York Times Co. v. Sullivan, 376 U.S. 254 (1964),
• Child pornography, New York v. Ferber, 458 U.S. 747 (1982)
• Speech advocating specific acts aimed at the violent overthrow of the government,  Brandenburg v. Ohio, 395 U.S. 444 (1969)

Speech has also been found to be subject to reasonable limits on its time, place and manner.  For example, it is constitutional to make it a crime for a person to leave a designated free speech zone and enter into in an area  where a person protected by the Secret Service will be temporarily visiting.   United States v. Bursey, 416 F.3d 301 (2005).    It was also permissible to punish a student for unfurling a banner stating "Bong Hits for Jesus" at a school function (although it did not take place on school grounds).  Morse v. Frederick, 551 U.S. 393 (2007)

If we substitute the word "speech" for "books," then it is clear that there is some speech which falls outside of the First Amendment, although that category is narrow.   Thus, Sen. Cruz's analogy fails because the First Amendment does not protect all speech at all times.

Turning to the specific language of the Second Amendment, it protects the individual right to "keep and bear arms."   Can there be a generalized right to "keep and bear arms" even if every specific permutation of keeping or bearing arms is not protected?   I think so.   I don't think that even the most ardent defender of the Second Amendment would support the right to a private person to construct and sell nuclear weapons.    By the same token, I think that bullets dipped in toxic waste could be banned on environmental grounds.   

If there are limits to the Second Amendment, just as there are with the First, the question should be which restrictions are permissible.   The way that Sen. Cruz formulated his query assumes that any Congressional legislation specifying books within the First Amendment would be arbitrary and random, such as, for example, banning books that referred to Texas A & M University.   By extension, any restriction on types of weaponry available to the general public would be similarly arbitrary and random.   However, that is not the case.   Just as there can be narrow limitations on the protection of the First Amendment, so too can there be some restrictions on what falls within the right to "keep and bear arms."   

One important distinction in my mind is that the types of speech which can hurt another person are limited, arms are inherently dangerous.   This raises a paradox.   The First Amendment protects something which is rarely dangerous, while the Second Amendment protects something which is uniformly so.   My personal view is that the Constitution should distinguish between those arms which are uniquely suited to personal use and those which should be restricted to governments only.   Just as individuals should not be allowed to possess nuclear weapons, neither should they be allowed to own functioning aircraft carriers, tanks or artillery.   There are just some weapons which are too dangerous for individual use.   I think that it would be difficult to justify banning an AR-15, while a .50 caliber machine gun should clearly fall on the prohibited list.

In my view, the question is not whether the Second Amendment permits something which is dangerous--it unequivocally does--but rather, what types of arms are properly limited to governments and which fall within the individual right to keep and bear arms.     In my view, Sen. Cruz's hectoring obscured this critical distinction.    However, I don't think Sen. Feinstein's response was any more illuminating.