Among modern American evangelicals, many equate "salavation" with "eternal destination". The saved go to heaven when they die and the not-saved go to hell when they die. Now, I have some issues with this line of thinking, but for the sake of argument I’m going to proceed under the assumption of its general truth. And it is unquestionably a valid concern: where do I stand regarding God's justice and what will He do about it? Especially when we face dangerous and uncertain times (whether as individuals or as a collective), it is right to want to fix our hope and our pragmatic aim(s) on God's aims and ultimate plans. It's perfectly sensible, and He often uses crisis to sharpen our focus. So how can I know if I'm going to heaven some day?

The short answer is: are you going to heaven on Sunday?

The Long Answer...

In Genesis 1, heaven and earth were made on the first day. On day 3, dry land was brought forth and called "earth". However, in between these was day 2, durimg which a barrier was placed between heaven and earth. This barrier (the firmament), was called "heaven". Thus the relationship between heaven and earth is microcosmically modeled by dry land and the firmament barrier above it. Put another way, the firmament models heaven to us who are made of dry land.

This relationship was reproduced at the garden sanctuary described in Genesis 2. Outside the garden were a variety of other lands (vv. 11-14), and within the garden was placed Adam (meaning "dirt") as the first priest. The garden was where God and man met, a space between heaven and Havilah, so to speak.

Skipping forward to Exodus, the next properly structured sanctuary was the tabernacle built under Moses. It was a model of heaven, as evidenced by the fact that God said it was built after the pattern Moses saw on the mountain (Exodus 25:9,40), which had just happened 40 days prior (Exodus 24:9-18).

“9 Then Moses went up with Aaron, Nadab and Abihu, and seventy of the elders of Israel, 10 and they saw the God of Israel; and under His feet there appeared to be a pavement of sapphire, as clear as the sky itself. 11 Yet He did not stretch out His hand against the nobles of the sons of Israel; and they beheld God, and they ate and drank.” Exodus 24:9-11 LSB

Tangentially, this was the last time anyone drank in God’s presence until the Son’s incarnation, roughly 1,500 years later.

The tabernacle was also type of firmament, being intentionally constructed in the wilderness between Egypt and the promised land, making it a portable section of wilderness space. When a man sinned or otherwise became unclean, he was spiritually back in Egypt and had to re-enter the covenant promise at the tabernacle with ascension, tribute, and peace offerings (see Leviticus ch 1-3).

Within this tabernacle were a series of barriers through which a specific few could enter under specific cirumstances, the most famous of which was the 3 layer veil covering the holy of holies (Exodus 26:33). So while God was nearer to humanity than at any time since Adam's sin, there were still clear barriers between God and the priestly nation, as well as behavioral barriers (food laws, clothing restrictions, liturgical feasts, etc) between that nation and all the other ones.

If we fast-forward to later prophetic books, we are given glimpses into heaven itself through the visions of Isaiah, Ezekiel, Daniel, and others. And what we find are elements similar to the tabernacle and temple. Ezekiel sees cherubim everywhere, a central burning altar, winged servants of God, lights, smokey air, and the same firmament from Genesis 1 and Exodus 24:9-11 itself (see Ezekiel 1:22, often translated "expanse"). Ezekiel was a high priest, so we shouldn't be suprised that he was called as a prophet to pass through the firmament into heaven just as he would enter through the veil directly into God's presence once a year. There, he received instruction from God and was sent back out to the people to evangelize them.

Again, moving forward in redemptive history, we come to the new covenant church built not with linen curtains and granite blocks, but with Jesus the chief cornerstone and the people of God themselves as living stones (1 Peter 2:4-5).

Paul says to the congregation in Corinth:

"Do y'all not know that y'all are a sanctuary of God and that the Spirit of God dwells in y'all?" 1 Cor 3:16

And again later:

"Do y'all not know that y'all's body is a sanctuary of the Holy Spirit who is in y'all, whom y'all have from God, and that y'all are not y'all's own?" 1 Cor 6:19

Paul also tells the combined Jew/Gentile church in Ephesus:

"18 for through Him we both have our access in one Spirit to the Father. 19 So then y'all are no longer strangers and sojourners, but y'all are fellow citizens with the saints, and are of God’s household, 20 having been built on the foundation of the apostles and prophets, Christ Jesus Himself being the corner stone, 21 in whom the whole building, being joined together, is growing into a holy sanctuary in the Lord, 22 in whom y'all also are being built together into a dwelling of God in the Spirit." Eph 2:18-22 LSB

The apostles took it as a matter of course that the new covenant church was the continuation of the old covenant's set apart architecture. So when we gather for worship on Sundays, we are in God's house, eating and drinking in His presence, making sacrifices of praise.

The Church then is "little heaven", an outpost of central headquarters, if you will. If we are regularly going to the outpost and enjoying it, singing its war songs, eating its food, hearing the orders it receives, and overall participating in this microcosm of heaven, why would there be much question that we willl one day go to the macrocosm as well? And if we despise an outpost and seek to destroy it, why assume it is possible to be allowed into central headquarters? And if we sneak into the outposts by subversion and lies, will we not be eventually found out as spies and kicked out?

Conclusion

This is not salvation by works, that mere attendance and participation accomplishes an eternal destination. Rather, it is assurance by evidence. There are many things we could be doing on a Sunday morning, and few would call it “fun” to sit in uncomfortable chairs, sing strange songs that aren’t even played on top 40 radio, listen to someone talk about an old book for give or take an hour, watch someone get wet to everyone’s applause, and have far too little bread and wine to make a difference to the stomach. But we do this because the General orders us to. We’re in His army, and the distinct units of His army meet once a week (or more) in anticipation of the entire army being gathered all together, once the war is over. If you are unsure that you’ll be part of this victory parade, make sure you are at least part of the army first. To enter heaven one day, enter it today.

Many Reformed writers have answered the question of assurance with “look to your baptism.” That never made much sense until it clicked together while writing this very paragraph. If you are baptized you are part of the people of God. Rejoice, and with all fruits of the Spirit obey Him and persevere, and He will in no wise cast you out.

Credits

James White and Jason Wallace have been good friends for longer than I’ve been alive, and both were major contributors to my conversion from credobaptism to paedobaptism. White, a credobaptist, has spent his entire adult life emphasizing theological consistency from the foundation of Sola et Tota Scriptura (Scripture alone and all of Scripture).

Wallace, a paedobaptist, has operated on the same foundation when making his extremely high quality podcasts and video essays, which can be found here.

In a similar vein, though applied more fully, James B. Jordan deserves no small amount of recognition for his hermeneutical approach of reading the entire Bible together as one unit, letting it interpret itself and define its own terms.

Mention must also be made of Peter Leithart’s thorough analyses of the Pentateuch, if only to break the monotony of names beginning with “J” in this segment.

The Approach Vector

On 14 February, 2021, James White preached a sermon entitled “My Journey to Hope for the Future.” In it, he outlined what he (rightly in my opinion) views as the “controlling texts” in Scripture that ought to be the foundation upon which we build our understanding of eschatology. They “…[give] unity and consistency to the Scriptural teaching about God’s purposes, especially as we look to the future.” Near the beginning of this sermon, he purposed to start with the broad, overarching themes and then work down to the details, an inversion of how much of evangelicalism tends to handle eschatology. Rather than start in a state of being bogged down in the details of the beast in Revelation, the little horn in Daniel, Gog and Magog in Ezekiel, etc, White asks in so many words “what is the big picture of God’s plans for His church?”

Regarding the question of Baptism, I have taken a similar approach. Instead of beginning with what “household” means in Acts or with word studies of βαπτιζω, I want to look at the big picture of what “baptism” means throughout the entire Bible, then allow the details to flow out of that. I have immense respect for James White, and am saddened by his apparent refusal to apply this same “top-down” hermeneutic to sacramentology when he consistently does so with other spheres of doctrine.

The Textual Problem, Pt. 1

In December 2020, James White began a series of sermons on baptism (playlist found here). A number of times in that series, he pointed out how scarcely the “New” Testament mentions baptism. There are one to two dozen narrative accounts of baptisms across the Gospels (mostly around John the Baptist) and in Acts. Beyond these, baptism is mentioned less than two dozen times in Paul’s epistles (of which Hebrews is one), once in 1 Peter, and once (though rarely translated “baptize”) in Revelation.

As far as I can tell the only reason for this scarcity is because baptism simply wasn’t an issue for the first generation Church like has became in the 2nd, 3rd, and nth generations. The Apostles surely taught on baptism as they founded churches throughout the empire, and we can assume the people simply understood it. Until very recently, paper and ink were quite expensive, so no one wrote anything unless there was a crying need for it, and the authors of the “New” Testament clearly had to address many issues that came up.

But baptism wasn’t one of them. In fact, when Paul does mention baptism, he always uses it as an analogy for other principles, or as a stepping stone for another argument he needs to make. The “New” Testament talks about baptism as if the reader already understands it and doesn’t need to be taught anything new. What then was the basis of the Apostles’ unwritten teaching on a defining sacrament of the new covenant Church? As a Protestant, it should come as no surprise that I presume Scripture to be that basis.

And this is where I begin to disagree with White. Throughout the series, as well as in the several debates over baptism in which he has participated, White insists on letting the “New” Testament Scriptures regulate New Covenant sacraments. In an attempt at charity, I will speculate that he takes this stance in opposition to others who take a tradition-based stance on various matters (i.e., Roman Catholics, Arminians, etc). On the subject of baptism, however, White forces himself to ignore ⅘ of the Bible and focus on the final section as if it were distinct from what came before. And this is where I must explain the next part of the textual problem.

Pt. 2: “New”?

By now, oh astute reader, you have probably noticed my use of quote marks around the “New” in “New Testament”. I do this because I am unable to justify a division within the Bible between “Old” and “New” Testaments. This convention of terminology likely arose from the Latin word testamentum, which means “covenant/will”, and people began referring to the “old covenant Scriptures” and the “new covenant Scriptures”. While the Bible certainly distinguishes between “old” and “new” covenants, there is no set of inspired Scripture for one and another set for the other. The old covenant began with Adam before any of the Bible had been written, and it was ended by 70 AD after the entire Bible had already been completed (I may write another article in order to have that discussion, but bear with me for the sake of argument). The point is that there is no internal, theological, or historical justification for dividing the Bible this way. For a more in depth treatment of this particular issue of Old vs New Testaments, I recommend this article by James B. Jordan.

A major implication of this meta-understanding of the Bible is that James White, and credobaptists who argue for their position like him, are explicitly guilty of a form of eisegesis, a form which White admirably rejects when he discusses the Trinity, eschatology, soteriology, etc. It took me several years to finally see this eisegesis, but once I did, I had no choice but to re-learn what the Bible has to say about baptism, taking into account the entire Bible. After all, Jesus said:

“Therefore, whatever you want men to do to you, do also to them, for this is the Law and the Prophets.” Matt 7:12 NKJV

We can apply this by paraphrasing it:

“Therefore, however you want men to read your books, read others’ books in that way also…”

I thus insist, in concurrence with James White’s view of Sola et Tota Scriptura, on reading God’s book the way I would want my books (or articles, perhaps) to be read: from the beginning. And now that over 1,000 words have passed in this introduction, let us see what John the Baptist, Paul, and Peter knew about baptism, starting at the beginning.

Foundations in Genesis

“9 Then God said, ‘Let the waters below the heavens be gathered into one place, and let the dry appear’; and it was so. 10 And God called the dry ‘land’, and the place of the gathering of the waters He called ‘seas’; and God saw that it was good.” Gen 1:9-10 LSB, corrected

This was the first action on the 3rd day of creation, with grain and fruit plants being the latter creation of the 3rd day. Each day in Genesis 1 ends with God judging the situation as good, and by necessary consequence, as better than the day before, including day 3. The earth/land was created on day 1 (vv. 1-2) and then a more glorified aspect of earth/land is created on day 3. The reasons this is a pre-figurement of the sacraments include but are not limited to:

• Jesus’ rising on the 3rd day is the foundation of our sacraments and worship

• All the inherent components of the garden sanctuary are made by this 3rd day (fruit trees, dry ground separated from waters/rivers, a separating gate/barrier is a type of day 2 firmament, etc)

• Seth and Levi (the priestly lines) were both the 3rd sons of Adam and Jacob, respectively

• The earth/land (“erretz”) was renewed and re-established out of water before the (proto) bread and (proto) wine were created

Water becomes a major theme in the flood judgement a few chapters later, which itself was a recapitulation (for lack of a better term) of the creation. More to the point, Peter associates the flood with baptism (1 Peter 3:20-21) and a re-creation of the world (2 Peter 3:5-6).

“20 who were once disobedient, when the patience of God kept waiting in the days of Noah, during the construction of the ark, in which a few, that is, 8 persons, were brought safely through the water. 21 Corresponding to that, baptism now saves you…” 1 Peter 3:20-21a, LSB

“5 For it eludes them willingly that heavens were existing long ago, and earth out of water and through water has been formed by the word of God, 6 through Whom the world at the time, flooded by water, was destroyed.” 2 Peter 3:5-6, my translation

The next place one can go for a prefigurement of baptism is the crossing of the Sea of Reeds in Exodus 14. Paul makes this connection in 1 Corinthians:

“1 For I do not want you to be ignorant, brothers, that our fathers were all under the cloud, and all passed through the sea, 2 and all were baptized into Moses in the cloud and in the sea.” 1 Cor 10:1-2 LSB, corrected

He goes on to say that this is a type or pattern for us in v. 6:

“6 Now these things happened as our types, so that we would not crave evil things as they also craved.” LSB, corrected

For summation, baptism in the Bible’s own categories is:

• Re-creation and glorification (Genesis 1)

• A cleansing judgement (Genesis 6, Peter)

• A covenantal joining of a people to its federal head (Exodus 14, 1 Corinthians 10)

I go through this prep-work in order to lay the foundation on which a number of aspects of the Mosaic law were placed. I also want to remind the reader that when the Apostles, the foundation of the new covenant Church (Ephesians 2:20), thought about baptism, they had existing Scripture in mind. Therefore, that existing Scripture is where I believe we should start the discussion, rather than going over our perceived logical implications of the narratives found in the latter fifth of the Bible.

Moses Saith…

The much-maligned book of Leviticus is where actual water-based rituals were first laid out for God’s people, and they do bear the same categorical qualities of baptisms listed above. Studying all that out would be a fascinating process, though we can allow Paul to tell us the conclusion faster in Hebrews.

“1 Therefore leaving the elementary teaching about the Christ, let us press on to maturity, not laying again a foundation of repentance from dead works and of faith toward God, 2 of teaching about [baptisms] and laying on of hands, and the resurrection of the dead and eternal judgment.” Heb 6:1-2 LSB, corrected

“9 which [is] a simile in regard to the present time, in which both gifts and sacrifices are offered, which are not able, in regard to conscience, to make perfect him who is serving, 10 only in victuals, and drinks, and different baptisms, and fleshly ordinances - till the time of reformation imposed upon [them].” Heb 9:9-10, YLT

As alluded to earlier, baptism was an “elementary” teaching that every 1st century Christian was expected to know about, along with the coming of the Messiah, externalistic vs. faith-based religion, laying on of hands, and even eschatology. “Laying on of hands” seems undeniably to be a reference to the ordination of deacons (Acts 6:6) and even further back to Leviticus 1:4 (and many other sacrifices, but that will have to be another conversation).

“Baptisms” in Hebrews 6, commonly translated “washings”, is in the plural, indicating that it is likely that the reader ought to have in mind the Old Covenant washing rituals, which begin also in the 1st chapter of Leviticus.

“9 Its entrails, however, and its legs he shall wash with water. And the priest shall offer up in smoke all of it on the altar [for an ascension], [a fire] by fire of a soothing aroma to Yahweh.” Lev 1:9, LSB, corrected

The animal chosen as the ascension offering in place of the worshiper(s) needed its dirtiest parts washed, the entrails containing their… ahem… “contents”, and the legs in constant contact with the dirt. These could neither go up to God with the rest of the animal nor please Him until this baptism took place. Likewise, washings were a regular aspect of the rituals done to remedy uncleanness in people. Leviticus 15 contains at least 11 prescriptions to “bathe in water and be unclean until evening”, all in reference to distinct situations that caused uncleanness. At least 3 times, ch 16 specifies bathing ones flesh in water and being unclean until evening.

Numbers 19 brings a crescendo to the concept of “washing for uncleanness” with the statute for coming into contact with human death (often translated “corpse”). This is the crescendo because nothing could be more unclean than a human corpse. Human beings are in rebellion against God, causing Him to curse us and separate from us. Being symbolic and ceremonial death, uncleanness is maximized in a ceremonially and literally dead person. Touching a dead body made one so unclean that 2 separate baptisms were required (v. 19) and the period of uncleanness was 7 days long, not just until sundown.

Similar language is used of the uncleanness of a woman's menstruation and any discharge of fluids from a man or a woman (Lev 15). Touching blood from someone's finger caused by a paper-cut wouldn't make one unclean, but blood, amniotic fluid, semen, bile, and other discharges that flow from the inner-most parts are death from the flesh. This is why Leviticus 12:2 prescribes the same kind of rituals of uncleanness for childbirth, a process that looses copious blood and other fluids onto the woman, any furniture she is on (Lev 15:20-23), the attending physicians and midwives, and the child(ren) being born. All of these people would have to bathe in water (read: "...be baptized...") due to coming into contact with the woman's uncleanness.

“2 Speak to the sons of Israel, saying: ‘When a woman gives birth and bears a male child, then she shall be unclean for seven days, as in the days of her menstruation she shall be unclean.’” Lev 12:2, LSB

“25 Now if a woman has a discharge of her blood many days, not at the period of her menstrual impurity, or if she has a discharge beyond that period, all the days of her unclean discharge she shall continue as though in her menstrual impurity; she is unclean. 26 Any bed on which she lies all the days of her discharge shall be to her like her bed at menstruation; and every thing on which she sits shall be unclean, like her uncleanness from her menstrual impurity. 27 Likewise, whoever touches them shall be unclean and shall wash his clothes and bathe in water and be unclean until evening.” Leviticus 15:25-27, LSB

“11 The one who touches the corpse of any person shall be unclean for seven days. 12 That one shall purify himself from uncleanness with the water on the third day and on the seventh day, and then he will be clean; but if he does not purify himself on the third day and on the seventh day, he will not be clean.” Num 19:11-12, LSB

Conclusions

This cleansing baptism on the 3rd and 7th days prescribed in Numbers was required for the woman giving birth, the physicians/midwives who were in the house/tent, as well the baby him/herself. I first came into contact with such an idea in this article by Adam McIntosh. What precedes is the exegesis that (I assume) is behind his claims. I have yet to be convinced of the claim that old covenant circumcision is carried forward as new covenant baptism (a topic for another day), and this typological approach to the Mosaic Law is what ultimately convinced me of paedobaptism.

Working through these laws of uncleanness and realizing that children born into the old covenant had to he baptized was quite a shock to my Baptist mind. The newborn was (and I believe still is) expected to draw near to God and participate in the ordinances of corporate worship along with all other members of the covenant, which could not be done when unclean. According to the categories already laid out in Genesis and Exodus, the infant needs to be re-created and glorified (Gen 1), to have his/her sins cleansed and judged (Gen 6, 1st Peter 3), and to be covenantally joined to his/her new federal head (Ex 14, 1Cor 10). Not only does the “new” testament never attempt to ovurturn this understanding, if anything it’s intensified by the removal of the “training wheels.” In the new covenant, uncleanness does not operate the same way, since we are seated with Christ in the heavenlies (Ephesians 2:6), nearer than anyone before had drawn. However, we have always been conceived in iniquity (Psalm 51:5) before ever touching any bodily fluids, and are still commanded to draw near to God and worship in His house.

With the exception of sins being cleansed and judged, none of these are ever really discussed in Baptistic theology (in my experience), and even the cleansing of sins is only linked to the shed blood of Christ, and maybe to the Levitical sacrificial system, but never to baptism.

The problems of Baptistic theology extend beyond its necessary eisegesis and into the ramifications and praxis. American evangelicalism (the waters in which I ignorantly swam for the first 28 years of my life) views every individual as a potential convert, from 1 minute old to 1 century old. The Bible is written with a much more covenantal and corporate foundation, viewing children as extensions of their parents in whatever covenant connections into which they are born. Thus the adult convert to Christianity is truly reborn and is as much a member of Christ’s Bride as the children of existing members are.

I’ll now attempt to land the plane with this sublime quote by Peter Leithart about the consequent praxis of Baptiastic evangelicalism, praxis that will surely take time to un-learn.

“No area of sacramental theology exposes assumptions concerning sacraments, and indeed concerning the Christian life, like the issue of infant baptism. Modern Christianity is plagued by an overly individualistic outlook, by the notion that religion is exclusively a matter of the heart, by a belief that religion is private, and by an insistence that religion must be chosen (else it is an act of tyranny). These features of modern Christianity are particularly evident in hesitancy about or rejection of the historic practice of infant baptism.” Leithart 9/6/17

The first in this, shall we call it a “series” I found while writing my other article on Palm Sunday. It is found in what we call Matthew 20:29 - 21:2

“29 And as they were leaving Jericho, a large crowd followed Him. 30 And behold, two blind men sitting by the road, hearing that Jesus was passing by, cried out, saying, “Lord, have mercy on us, Son of David!” 31 But the crowd sternly told them to be quiet, but they cried out all the more, saying, “Lord, Son of David, have mercy on us!” 32 And Jesus stopped and called them, and said, “What do you want Me to do for you?” 33 They said to Him, “Lord, that our eyes be opened.” 34 And moved with compassion, Jesus touched their eyes; and immediately they regained their sight and followed Him. 21:1 And when they had approached Jerusalem and came to Bethphage, at the Mount of Olives, then Jesus sent two disciples, 2 saying to them, “Go into the village opposite you, and immediately you will find a donkey tied there and a colt with her; untie them and bring them to Me.” Legacy Standard Bible

Jesus and His disciples were coming from Jericho, west north-west of Jerusalem and wound up at the Mount of Olives, overlooking Jerusalem from the west. The “they” in 21:1 necessarily includes the 2 blind beggars from Jericho. This caught my attention because “Jesus sent 2 disciples”. They are not named either here, or in the parallel accounts in Mark 11 or Luke 19, and John’s mention of Jesus’ arrival in Jerusalem for Passion Week doesn’t mention the donkey at all. Naming the 2 disciples would have been simple enough. Ex. “Jesus sent Thomas and James to retrive the donkeys.” But this is not what happened.

The 2 are not named, and are only referred to as “2 disciples.” This is probably not a reference to the 12 disciples, as they were travelling with a large crowd (Matt 20:29), and the nearest referent to “2 disciples” would be the 2 blind men who followed with the large crowd "(v. 34b). These 2 would also probably be the most willing to collect some stranger’s donkeys, even to see donkeys for the first time in their lives (assuming they were born blind). It’s not hard for me to imagine the 12 having some reservations about following through with such a command, and the abscence of such reservations points to the simple willingness that 2 men cured of blindness earlier that day would have had.

Does this impact any doctrine or change any interpretation of the text? I surely hope not. That is not the point of this article. Rather, it’s an excercise in seeing the entire flow of a passage as opposed to breaking it apart along editorial divisions added centuries after the fact

“Beware the passages of Scripture with which we are most familiar, since these are often the easiest to completely misunderstand.” It is with great weeping and gnashing of teeth that I am unable to provide an exact citation of this (likely paraphrased) quote, so the reader will have to take my word for it that I have heard it a number of times from Dr. James White. I do not endorse or agree with everything he has said, but this sentiment has proven itself to be a homerun time and time again, at least as regards my own exegeses.

I have been attending church for longer than I can remember, and I cannot remember any Palm Sunday that was not marked with a special worship service or a special element therein. Many have certainly seen gaggles of pre-schoolers led down the isles waving plastic palm branches while a Palm Sunday-themed song was playing. Every church I’ve ever been to has had something unique about Palm Sunday, even if not to this level of theatrics. And this year, I found myself reading the familiar Palm Sunday passage of Matthew 21 through something resembling new eyes, leading me to the tentative conclusion found in the title:

Perhaps Palm Sunday is not something the new covenant Church should celebrate.

Scriptural Overview

The “triumphal entry” which is often the central focus of our Palm Sunday celebrations is contained in Matthew 21:8-10:

“8 And most of the crowd spread their garments in the road, and others were cutting branches from the trees and spreading them in the road. 9 And the crowds going ahead of Him, and those who followed, were crying out, saying, “Hosanna to the Son of David; BLESSED IS HE WHO COMES IN THE NAME OFTHE LORD; Hosanna in the highest!” 10 And when He had entered Jerusalem, all the city was stirred, saying, “Who is this?” 11 And the crowds were saying, “This is the prophet Jesus, from Nazareth in Galilee.” Legacy Standard Bible 

On the surface, this seems like a fine and proper way to welcome the Messiah into one’s city, especially to us 2,000 years hence who already recognize Him as our God and Savior. We would expect that rolling out the red carpet, singing Psalms ahead of His arrival, and brazenly disturbing everyone’s otherwise normal day with news of the festivities are all appropriate forms of celebration for our Messiah coming to us.

On the surface…

However, Jesus seemed decidedly unimpressed with the parade, both in this and parallel narratives. In Matthew, the next verse (21:12) shows Jesus going straight to the temple to clear it out in a famously displeased mood. Mark ch. 10’s account is a truncated version of the same: no response from Jesus to the parade, and straight to the whipping and table-flipping in the temple. Luke ch. 19’s account gives far more details, which initially show approval, but turn negative very quickly.

 “36 And as He was going, they were spreading their garments on the road. 37 Now as soon as He was approaching, near the descent of the Mount of Olives, the whole multitude of the disciples began to praise God, rejoicing with a loud voice for all the miracles which they had seen,  38 saying, “Blessed is the King who comes in the name of the Lord. Peace in heaven and glory in the highest!”  39 And some of the Pharisees in the crowd said to Him, “Teacher, rebuke Your disciples.”  40 But Jesus answered and said, “I tell you, if these were silent, the stones will cry out!”  41 And as He approached Jerusalem and saw the city, He cried over it 42 saying, "If you knew in this day, even you, the things which make for peace! But now they have been hidden from your eyes. 43 For the days will come upon you when your enemies will throw up a barricade against you, and surround you and hem you in on every side,  44 and they will level you to the ground and your children within you, and they will not leave in you one stone upon another, because you did not recognize the time of your visitation."  Luke 19:36-44 LSB 

In v. 40, Jesus refuses to rebuke the proceedings, and in doing so provides the closest thing to their approval as can be found in the Gospels. And it seems clear that He approves of the externalities they were engaging in (see paragraph 3). When told to rebuke the crowd, He answers from Habakkuk ch. 2

 “11 Surely the stone will cry out from the wall, And the rafter will answer it from the [tree]." Hab 2:11 LSB, corrected  

In the context of Luke, the "stones" are surely the physical city of Jerusalem itself, and by extension the Temple (based on the "rafter" and "tree" language). Jesus wept for the city in rebellion, knowing it would be destroyed 40 years hence, and that the external worship of God was the only connection Jerusalem had to the faithful entity it was formerly.

This, I believe is why Palm Sunday should not be celebrated. It was externality and nothing more. In many evangelical churches today, it is still external celebration and nothing more. This nominal worship was addressed by Jesus the next day in the parable of the fig tree. To recap, in Matthew 21:1 He comes to the House of Dates (Bethfage) at the Mount of Olives. After the "triumphal entry" and temple cleansing, He goes to the House of Bread (Bethany) in v. 17. We the reader may be feeling hungry at this point, and Jesus did too.

 "18 Now in the morning, when He was returning to the city, He became hungry. 19 And seeing a lone fig tree by the road, He came to it and found nothing on it except leaves only; and He said to it, “No longer shall there ever be any fruit from you.” And at once the fig tree withered. 20 And seeing this, the disciples marveled, saying, “How did the fig tree wither all at once?” 21 And Jesus answered and said to them, “Truly I say to you, if you have faith and do not doubt, you will not only do what was done to the fig tree, but even if you say to this mountain, ‘Be taken up and cast into the sea,’ it will happen." Matt 21:18-21 LSB

Conclusion

God came seeking love, joy, peace, patience, kindness, goodness, gentleness, faithfulness, and self-control. Let's call these "fruit", shall we? He came to His city hungry for fruit and all He got were leaves and branches on the road. He came to His house looking for righteousness, but saw a display of people's own garments (in contrast to the garments He gives. See Galatians 3:27 and Revelation 3:5). Palm Sunday was not a triumphal entry of the Messiah to His people, it was one of many examples of His people enthusiastically missing the point. It was a counterfeit of Jesus' final coming on the last day, and until then, let us fill the world with fruit for when our King returns, rather than repeating the ignorance of those who paved the road with palm branches.