Thought for Palm Sunday: hosanna, we have a servant king like no other

The Christian term ‘Hosanna’ arises from the Hebrew term ‘Hoshana’ (‘please save’ or ‘save now’) and the Aramaic ‘Hothana’. It is the sound of the popular cry in Mt. 21:9, Mk. 11:9-10 and John 12:13 (Luke does not record the term) and has been regarded by some as the earliest hymn of Christian devotion.

Matthew alone gives the earliest summary of the Messianic song on the entry of Jesus, that is, ‘Praise to the son of David’ (Matt 21:9). The song was added to by Matthew himself, and still further by Mark, and is said by all the evangelists to have been uttered while Jesus was on the public way entering Jerusalem.

In Psalm 118:25-27, the festal procession at which the word ‘Hosanna’ is proclaimed (Psalm 118:25) is a witness to God’s kingship. It becomes in the hands of the evangelists the acclamation of a multitude, either of Jerusalemites, or of disciples (Luke 19:37), or of pilgrims who had come up for the feast (John 12:12), who had learned that Jesus had raised Lazarus from the dead (John 12:17).

What sort of leader did the crowd believe it was welcoming? The promised Messiah, the king of Israel descended from David who would free Israel from tutelage to the Romans? The evangelists realize, in the light of the crucifixion and resurrection, that ‘Hosanna’ should be understood as a cry of jubilation at our redemption through the person of Jesus Christ. As Derek Worlock and David Sheppard remarked in With Christ in the Wilderness, there is reason to suppose that some of the crowd just a few days latter called for Jesus’ blood, but on Palm Sunday the motivation of the crowd in the passion narrative is less important to us than the symbolism of Jesus’ entry. Fulfilling the prophecy of Zechariah 9:9 though he was, it was his insistence that the tethered donkey and colt should be used, to demonstrate to us the servant king he was and remains: self-effacing, unpretentious and peace-loving, he was and is a king like no other. Thanks be to God!   

Last Sunday's Thought: What did Jesus think he was doing?

‘What would Jesus do?’ The banners at the Occupy camp outside St Paul’s Cathedral earlier this year made their point. But sometimes we need to ask the question: what did Jesus think? The chasing out of the money-changers is a case where we might ask, indeed, what did Jesus think he was doing? Jesus takes the expression ‘house of prayer’ from Isaiah 56:7 and the phrase ‘den of robbers’ from Jeremiah 7:11, while his actions are a fulfilment of the messianic prophecy in Malachi 3:1-3. ‘Stop making my Father’s house a market-place!’ (John 2:16).
 

If Jesus sees his actions as a direct fulfilment of Old Testament prophesy, how were they perceived at the time? All the sellers were there to provide a service to God’s people in the temple. Those selling animals were providing a service to those who needed to sacrifice during Feast time. Obviously this had been approved by the Jewish leaders of the temple. This was a great convenience to Jews travelling great distances, since they did not have to have livestock in tow. They could buy the necessary sacrificial animals right at the temple. Places to change money were also needed, for a tax was collected from every Israelite who was twenty years old (cf. Exod. 30:11-16). The tax had to be paid in Jewish and not Roman coin: money changers were therefore essential. So Jesus overturns not only what is customary but the very practices which serve the needs of the pilgrims coming to the Temple. His Biblical literalism upsets not just the financial interests of the Temple authorities, but the basic needs of the pilgrims. Jesus’ complaint is not that there is dishonest buying and selling going on in the temple – but that there is buying and selling going on at all! The place should be sacred because it is dedicated to God.


In his attempt to bring forward the kingdom of God, Jesus chases out the money changers and merchants. In the real world, in contrast, it is those who protest against the greed, selfishness and unethical business practices which have led to our present economic woes who are forced out. There is an issue about illegal occupation of space, and Occupy is nothing if it does not occupy space if necessary, illegally. And yet, there are many – though not all – who feel uncomfortable that the Church seems to have backed the wrong side in this controversy which ended on 28 February. ‘The demand for social justice was being trumpeted slap bang in the boiler room of global capitalism.’ For the authorities, including the Cathedral authorities, ‘Occupy was just too messy, too in your face’. It had to go. Yet for many this Lent, it feels that in the most recent attempt in 2012 to cleanse the outer temple of economic abuse, it was the Temple authorities, and not Jesus, who won.

Last Sunday's Thought: The Relationship between Personal Ethics and Business Ethics

‘For what will it profit them to gain the whole world and forfeit their life?’ (Mark 8:36). We have a similar remark in Matthew’s gospel (16:26): ‘For what will it profit a man if he gains the whole world and forfeits his soul?’ Jesus’ words to us are stark indeed. In Lent we can discover our true selves in prayer and contemplation of our relationship with our Maker.

Given the current debate on business ethics and the reputation of bankers in general, I found it somewhat counter-intuitive to come across a text from late last year in which the author argued that young people with ethical values should choose to enter the career of investment banking.

‘We are calling on people to be like Robin Hood, but by earning the money rather than stealing it’, the argument goes. The claim is that when looking at careers choices, young people are missing the point if they see banking as a less ethical option. Instead, it is argued, that someone becoming an investment banker could create sufficient wealth to make philanthropic donations that could make a bigger difference than someone choosing to work in a more ‘morally acceptable’ career such as for an aid charity. ‘The direct benefit a single aid worker can produce is limited, whereas the philanthropic banker’s donations might indirectly help 10 times as many people.’ If we compare typical incomes in investment banking with the cost of treating tuberculosis in the developing world, it is claimed that an ethically inclined banker who donated half his income could save 10,000 lives.

All well and good if it were to happen. We know that it does happen sometimes and can be very impressive. The total grant commitments of the Bill and Melinda Gates Foundation since inception in 1994 are $26.19 billion while the total 2010 grant payments were $2.6 billion. But we know that for every Bill Gates with his burning commitment to healthcare issues in the underdeveloped world, there are many investment bankers and other chief executives of companies who make paltry donations or none at all.

The Church Investors Group (CIG) is a group of investors connected with the Churches of Britain and Ireland with combined assets of c.£12.6 billion. In 2010 it commissioned a report on the Ethics of Executive Remuneration which deserves to be better known. It highlighted four ethical principles: concern for the poor; just pay; the dangers of wealth and the principle of good stewardship. It made seven recommendations. Investors should be most concerned about pay for the poor. Pay differentials are more important than absolute pay packages, and here the gap between the lowest and the highest paid must be set to narrow over time. Investors need to hold executives to account over performance. Investors should seek to prevent competitive pay policies between one company and another. They should dissuade companies from offering pay packages which encourage high risk behaviour. There should be transparency in pay packages in order to encourage accountability. Disinvestment should be considered in a case in which the policy of the company concerned is at variance with these recommendations.

The report is positive, and the acceptance of its value system would make a valuable difference. But ultimately the ethical principles of each person in the company or bank who has significant responsibilities is what matters. As the report argues, ‘attracting candidates with high levels of pay means they are disproportionately likely to put their own financial interests ahead of those of the company and its shareholders’. The ethos of the bank or the company has to become an ethical one overall, so that an individual who acts against the general ethical approach is spotted early on for being a ‘rogue trader’ in a different sense from the one this term is normally given.

There should be bankers and chief executives with uneasy consciences given the widespread misery the bailout of the banks has caused our society at large. It has been, and will continue to be, the less well to do in society who suffer the consequences disproportionately. The Church of England website has a prayer for those being made redundant. A small light was cast on the general gloom this week by a circular entitled ‘Trusting in God in the absence of work’. The three or four young people interviewed there on how their faith has helped them, or is continuing to help them, in their difficulties is truly inspirational. May God grant them, and all people in economic difficulties through no fault of their own, that comfort and hope when the future seems to offer none.

Note: at the 10.30 service, the congregation committed itself to uphold the Fairtrade Foundation Covenant.