Here's why I've been insisting the two crowds are not the same, but rather that what we are seeing is a clash of two groups.
First, it's hardly credible to see a large crowd, essentially children, rejoicing with hosannas on Sunday, and then within just a few days, derisiviely calling for crucifixion on Friday. That would mean they were hypnotized, or on cocaine, which is hardly possible.
Second, if everyone suddenly wanted him crucified, then why would they have to arrest him by stealth, at night, and hold a monkey trial?
Third, again, if it's the same crowd, does this mean the weeping "daughters of Jerusalem" were only a few stragglers?
Fourth, the Gospels--especially St. Mark, it seems to me--show a rising tide of animosity of Jesus' enemies against him while at the same time showing great crowds seeking him. This would naturally reach its pinnacle during Holy Week, and there's no reason to suppose that suddenly the second group morphed into the first.
Fifth, in the Lucan version, the the evangelist and even the Phariseees specifically call those crying hosanna Jesus' disciples.
Sixth, the Matthean version refers to the crowd as "children crying in the temple," and Jesus referring to this as a fulfillment of Psalm 8: "Out of the mouths of babes . . ." So to have the two crowds be the same, one would have to say that the crowd crying for crucifixion was also essentially children.
You might think it a nice homiletical device to say we are so fickle that we are like this, crying hosanna one minute and rejecting Jesus the next. But it's less than helpful, in my opinion. People should not be called to repentance for calling out "crucify him" if that's not what they actually did. Although we are responsible for his death in that without our sin, he would not have had to die; on the other hand, we, his people, are not among the "brood of vipers," allies of the serpent of old, who actively sought his destruction. This distinction is important.
So in short, the answer is No, the Palm Sunday "hosanna" crowd and the Good Friday "crucifry" crowd are not the same one.
Thank you for this brief study. I believe that Dr. Paul Maier has made a similar argument in the past, but I cannot find where I read it. If anyone knows, I wold appreciate your sharing it. I would like to see if Dr. Maier's thoughts are essentially the same as these.
ReplyDeleteJust heard Dr. Maier today at Concordia, River Forest. Yes, he made the same argument.
DeleteDiane
This comment has been removed by a blog administrator.
ReplyDeleteThe above comment was deleted for vulgarity. Here is the gist of it:
DeletePr. Eckardt,
There are countless examples in the Bible that could be rethought as not being credible, yet that's what the Bible said. No one else has been brilliant enough to come up with this until 2013?
Dr. Gregory Lockwood also shared the view (above) that Fritz so cogently lays out for us (as do I). There's also the physical size of the meeting area that Caiphas used in the "kangaroo court" as well as the late hour... just a lot of sneaking about during "sleeping time," for the good pilgrims from Galilee to be part of the lynch mob. The ones fomenting all the hatred were "paid" bully-boys and thugs in cahuts with the Sanhedrin.
ReplyDeleteAnd yet. . . the crowds don't riot to free Jesus as the Pharisees were so afraid of at various times throughout the Gospels. They held Him to be a prophet. They wanted Him for their Bread King. Some certainly held Him to be the Christ, at least the Christ of their imagination.
DeleteAnd then He is arrested, tried, and marched in the sight of all to Calvary. They do not revolt. They do not speak up for their King and Christ.
So at best the Crowd shows itself to be of equal courage to the disciples, and less informed about what their Hosanna should have meant.
Further, I worry that all this excusing of the crowds is an overreaction to the so-called anti-Semitism of the Gospels, especially Matthew. After all, "let His blood be on us and on our children" loses a little of its punch if it is not spoken by the Jewish people as a whole, rather than a cabal.
So I can see it either way. Perhaps over the next week I'll have time to peruse the Catena Aurea and remind myself of how the Fathers answered this question.
+HRC
"After all, 'let His blood be on us and on our children' loses a little of its punch if it is not spoken by the Jewish people as a whole, rather than a cabal."
DeleteWell put, Heath, and quite the sensitive issue. You'll remember that these words in subtitle were conspicuously absent from Mel Gibson's film when Caiaphas yelled them out before Pilate. And still, no Oscars!
The crowds don't riot to set Jesus free--therefore, it had to be the same crowd that greeted Jesus on Palm Sunday? I don't buy it. Riots look as if they could form easily (which is what authorities always fear), but a real riot is difficult to pull off. It takes more than anger. If anger were a sufficient cause (instead of merely a necessary one), the Romans would have been driven out decades earlier.
DeleteLook at more recent history. People in Syria have detested the Assad regime for decades, but they didn't do anything, not even when the rest of the Middle East began experiencing the Arab Spring. It's not surprising then that the people of Jerusalem weep for Jesus but do nothing for Him. They know that there is little they can do.
Besides, it wasn't as if they were watching CNN 24 hours a day to find out the latest about Jesus. While 99% of Jerusalem was sleeping, Jesus was arrested, tried, convicted, and sentenced. By the time people woke up and learned what had happened--remember, the 12 people who knew about his whereabouts were largely cowering in fear and not likely to spread the word--it was a fait accompli.
Regardless of the conclusion, I think there are some flaws in the first two points:
ReplyDelete1. The essence of the opposing opinion (prevailing, perhaps) is that it's a surprising and incredible thing that the crowds could go from one extreme to the other, so I don't know if you can use that against them. Yes, it's incredible... or maybe just ironic, which fits with the rest of the Passion, especially all of those unwitting theological truths from Caiaphas, Pilate, and the Jews. Either way, this argument is akin to saying "C'mon, you can't expect me to believe that Joseph and Mary remained celibate..."
2. It was the priests and elders who persuaded the crowds to call out crucify (Mt. 27:20). The stealthy seizure and kangaroo court were concluded by then.
There are only about 300 people who could have fit on the pavement outside Pilate's court. Now there were certainly far more than 300 people who owed their livelihoods to the temple authorities and could be counted on to turn up when their bosses asked them to. (Even though I moved to Chicago just before Daley II took over, I still have had enough experience with the "Chicago Way" to know it when I see it.) Meanwhile, there were probably around 100,000 people in Jerusalem for the Passover. You mean to tell me that there was a Palm Sunday procession of just 300 people and those same 300 people were the only ones to show up again in the wee hours of Good Friday? That begs credulity.
DeleteA far likelier scenario is that the Jews in Jerusalem were split over him, much as they were split on a wide range of topics. Even His followers weren't probably all united on why they liked Him or what they expected Him to do, just as His enemies didn't all agree on what was wrong with Him. (Indeed, their reasons for opposing Him are somewhat mutually exclusive.) It probably wasn't 100,000 people who greeted Jesus on Palm Sunday, any more than it would be all 100,000 people who clamored for his death. In both instances we are talking a small subset of the people then present in Jerusalem.
Great points Heath,
ReplyDeleteI have less good to say about the denizens of Jerusalem proper than I do for defending the influx of non-Judean pilgrims for Passover. I think the Galilean cohort (way above and beyond the "12" and the "myrhh-bearers") just is not THAT wickedly fickle - - -
then again... I'm nothing but a feculent weather-vane myself...so...
I've always seen it this way. The crowds view Jesus as a prophet. Maybe the Christ - but the Christ after their imagination.
DeleteSo the Pharisees arrest Him, try Him, beat Him. And when the crowd sees their prophet and Christ in such a state they say, "Well, I guess he wasn't the Christ after all. That's not what happens to the Christ. Get rid of this guy."
So I don't think it's a stretch at all to see the crowds - who never once in the Gospels acclaim Jesus as God in the flesh, who try to make Him Bread King, who follow Him "for the sake of the signs He was doing on the sick - to go from shouting Hosanna to hissing Crucify Him.
+HRC
Peter doesn't seem to make much of a distinction in Acts 2 -- he just condemns everybody: "this Jesus . . . you crucified and killed by the hands of lawless men." (v 23) "this Jesus whom you crucified." (v 36) In chapter three the same thing, ". . . Jesus, whom you delivered over and denied in the presence of Pilate when he had decided to release Him. But you denied the holy and righteous one and asked for a murderer to be granted to you, and you killed the author of life . . . Repent therefore . . ."
DeletePersonally, I just like the word "crucifry" in the post. Gives it a very "modern" touch.
ReplyDeleteI think Luke's account helps us here: http://gottesdienstonline.blogspot.com/2012/08/the-not-so-triumphant-entry-and.html#comment-form
ReplyDeleteOf all the Gospels, Luke alone makes explicit the connection between Jesus' entry into Jerusalem and the judgment of God on the city, which begins in the cleansing of the Temple. Jesus said:
"And when he drew near and saw the city, he wept over it, saying, 'Would that you, even you, had known on this day the things that make for peace! But now they are hidden from your eyes. For the days will come upon you, when your enemies will set up a barricade around you and surround you and hem you in on every side and tear you down to the ground, you and your children within you. And they will not leave one stone upon another in you, because you did not know the time of your visitation.'" (Luke 19:41-44)
The day that Jesus is referring to when he says "on this day" is the same thing as "the time of your visitation." And that day is the day he enters Jerusalem on a donkey, the day he is hailed specifically as "the King who comes in the name of the Lord" (Luke 19:38).
Typically we view our Lord's entry into Jerusalem as his triumphal entry. But if this is the case, why does he then curse the city of Jerusalem who just greeted and received him as the King who comes in the name of the Lord? Why does he pronounce God's judgment instead of God's blessing upon the city?
In ancient times, it was common for important people to be welcomed into cities by a long line people, who lined up outside of the city gates to greet and laud the person as they entered into the city. This is especially true if the visitor was the King or the Emperor or the Ruler. This type of visitation was called a parousia (see TDNT, V:858ff). When a ruler would make a parousia, he would expect to be received by the religious and political elite from the city as well as other members of the city, adorned in ornamental clothing, to escort him into the city. The visitor would be brought into the square where he would be lauded by speeches of gratitude for the privilege of being visited. And finally, the parousia would end when the members of the city gave the visitor a tour of the local temple. And if an important person came to a city and wasn't welcomed with a parousia, there would be hell to pay. For this was a statement of ingratitude for previous benefaction. That city would be cut off from the visitor's benefaction (the previous analysis is from Brent Kinman, "Parousia, Jesus' 'A-Triumphal' Entry, and the Fate of Jerusalem," JBL 118:2 [Summer 1999] 279-294).
Luke's account of Jesus' entry into Jerusalem is anti-climactic compared to those of the other Gospels. And noticeably absent in the welcoming committee are all the Jewish leaders, and if they are present, they are hostile. Where are the Scribes? Where are the Pharisees? Where are the Chief Priests? Where are Herod and the Herodians? They "were seeking to destroy him" (Luke 19:47). They were snubbing the King who comes in the name of the Lord. And so they were snubbing the Lord himself. They did not on that day, the day of the King's parousia visitation, welcome him, speak well of him, and thank him for his gifts. Instead they treated his and his Father's house as a den of robbers. Instead of greeting him, they sought to kill him.
I wonder if this is what is going on in those who cry out for our Lord's crucifixion.
This comment has been removed by the author.
ReplyDelete*Edited due to egregious typo!*
ReplyDeleteI think it is proper to speak of degrees of culpability here and corporate vs. individual guilt. Not everyone is an abortion "doctor," yet all Americans share a degree of corporate shame and guilt for our culture of death. I think that's what the original post was trying to show.
In the same way Peter can accuse them all on Pentecost, corporately, even though it is extremely unlikely that everyone in that crowd at Pentecost also shouted "crucify." Does Peter therefore show us that, though this question is a good one, in the end it doesn't really matter (i.e. the scriptures aren't too concerned to answer it)? You crucified your king. He's back and giving out His Spirit. Repent and be baptized. That is the point the scriptures drive at.
I realize that many like to separate the two crowds, but here's a question to ponder: What would our reaction be to Jesus if God withheld His Holy Spirit from us? Would not we respond with utter rejection of Him?
ReplyDeleteOf course sinful nature is never to be given short-shrift, and this, I would guess, is why the idea that the Hosanna crowd morphed into the Crucify crowd is so popular. But we are talking here about what actually happened, and I see no evidence anywhere of this morphing. The closest is the Acts reference (Peter says to the Jews that "you" crucified Jesus), but even there, we have no indication of something quite so manifestly shocking as a crowd changing so drastically in such a short time. This is an argumentum e silentio on my part, but the silence is deafening. Moreover, as I indicated above, the burden of proof is on those who want to make the claim, since there's simply no evidence to support it.
ReplyDeleteBut the people (or at least a portion of the celebrating crowd) was already changing in its attitude, inside the space of Gospeler St. John's Chapter 12! Here note, "the people" is used liberally in the Authorized Version, throughout this particular selection. At verse 12, "many people" were waving "branches of palm trees." By verse 34, "the people" were challenging Jesus as being their Messiah because He dared speak of His being lifted up (v. 33). The people were familiar enough with the Roman engine of torture, surely, to know precisely what the Lord's point of reference was. This was a different kind of Messiah from common man's expectations. Note v. 34: "We have heard from the law that Christ abideth forever (AV)," folks sputtered. A dying Messiah was incomprehensible to people longing for a Maccabean freedom; maybe there was too much dust on the Isaiah scroll, or something. Perhaps a very unholy feeling of being duped set in; then apathy, if not anger and disgust. Who can say? "What shall I do with your King?" -- "Our king? No way. This beaten and miserable worm, bound by your pagan manacles, is a fraud! Crucify him!"
ReplyDeleteObviously, temporal dreamings touching on national pride were running high at this time, within the community. Emotions were certain to be volatile, within certain quarters. And even among the best and most devout of the palm wavers, there were hopes transparently expressed about a restored Israel ... mere moments before the Lord ascended to the right hand of His Father (Acts 1:6). Such were the expectations, among the saints; and all this, even after their hearts had burned upon being instructed as to the meaning of Scriptures, and God's true purpose (Lk 24:32, 45-47). One can suppose that the expectations of many people, upon that first Palmarum, were no less intense and easily dashed to pieces, and perhaps mashed to hatred, by the Lord's unwavering "I'm here to die."
And so the Light hides Himself, from the people (Jn 12:36). The hour is not quite yet.
This comment has been removed by a blog administrator.
ReplyDeleteFather Eckardt, :)
ReplyDeleteWhat are we to make of the Good Friday reproaches? Don't these accuse all of us, even the faithful, of crucifying our Lord?
Peter Eckardt
I think Dr. Anderson raises a great point: perhaps it was what Jesus preached during the course of Holy Week that turned public opinion against Him.
ReplyDelete