JESUS
CHRIST
Lazarus,
which
produced
a
popular
excitement
that
portended
the
acceptance
of
Jesus
as
the
Messiah,
and
gave
reason
to
(ear
the
infliction
of
the
most
severe
retribution
by
the
Romans
(11").
11.
The
week
of
the
Passion.
—
A
view
may
be
given
of
the
probable
order
of
events
between
the
arrival
of
Jesus
in
Bethany
on
the
eve
of
the
Sabbath
and
the
Crucifixion.
Saturday:
the
supper
in
the
house
of
Simon
the
leper
(Jnl2"'-,Mkl4s«).
Sunday;
thetriumphalentry
into
Jerusalem
(Mkll*-ifl|),
visit
to
the
Temple,
return
to
Bethany
(Mk
11").
Monday:
visit
to
.Jerusalem,
the
cutsmg
of
the
fig-tree
(Mk
1112-M),
the
cleansing
of
the
Temple
(Mk
H"-'8||),
return
to
Bethany
(v.^").
Tuesday:
visit
to
Jerusalem,
teaching
in
the
Temple,
interrogation
by
membera
of
the
Sanhedrin
(Mk
ll^'-^ll),
Pharisees
(12'3-i7||),
and
Sadduoees
(12i8-"||),
and
others;
parables
(Mk
12i-'2l|);
return
to
Bethany.
Wednesday;
visit
to
Jerusalem,
denunciation
of
the
Pharisees
(Mk
1238-*^ll),
discourse
on
the
last
things
(Mk
13^-^'ll),
deliberations
of
the
Sanhedrin
(14*),
the
overtures
of
Judas
(14"*),
return
to
Bethany.
Thursday:
preparation
for
the
Passover
(Mk
1412-16)
.
the
Last
Supper
(14"-»||)
the
Agony
(14»-<2||),
the
betrayal
and
the
arrest
(14'"'||).
The
chief
difBcuIties
presented
by
the
narratives
may
be
briefly
noticed.
(«)
The
Syuoptists
make
the
triumphal
entry
take
place
on
the
arrival
of
Jesus
with
the
pilgrims
from
GaUlee
(Mk
11"'),
while
according
to
John
it
was
arranged
while
Jesus
was
staying
at
Bethany
(12'").
(P)
The
anointing
in
Bethany,
which
is
seemingly
placed
by
Mk.
(14')
two
days
before
the
Passover,
is
expressly
dated
by
Jn.
(12')
six
days
before
the
Passover,
(y)
The
day
of
our
Lord's
death,
according
to
all
accounts,
v/aa
on
the
Friday;
but
while
the
Synoptics
make
this
to
have
been
the
Passover
day,
or
the
15th
Nisan
(Mk
1412.
i7)_
the
Fourth
Gospel
represents
it
as
the
day
before
the
Feast
of
the
Passover
(13'),
or
the
14th
Nisan.
In
each
of
these
cases
there
is
reason
to
believe
that
the
Fourth
Gospel
is
accurate.
As
regards
the
day
of
our
Lord's
death,
it
is
unlikely
that
the
Passover
day,
which
had
the
sanctity
of
a
Sabbath,
would
have
been
pro-faned
by
the
Jewish
authorities
engaging
in
business,
while
the
evidence
of
haste
in
carryingout
the
crucifixion
points
to
the
same
conclusion.
(1)
The
acHmty
of
Jesus.
—
In
agreement
with
the
general
view
of
the
Judaean
ministry
given
in
the
Fourth
Gospel,
the
work
of
Jesus
during
the
last
week
falls
mainly
under
the
point
of
view
of
an
affirmation
of
His
Messiahship
in
deed
and
word.
Naturally,
also,
His
mind
is
turned
to
the
future,
and
His
discourses
set
forth
the
power
and
glory
reserved
for
the
crucified
Messiah
in
the
counsels
of
God.
The
explanation
and
vindication
of
His
mission
have
their
counterpart
in
an
attack
upon
the
principles
of
those
who
had
rejected
Him
and
who
were
plotting
His
destruction.
(i)
The
Messianic
acts.
—
The
triumphal
entry,
in
which
Jesus
was
offered
and
accepted
the
homage
of
the
multitude
(Mk
II'*'),
is
decisive
evidence
that
He
made
the
claim
to
be
the
Messiah.
Evidently,
also,
there
is
a
natural
connexion
between
the
public
assumption
of
His
dignity
and
the
cleansing
of
the
Temple.
Accord-ing
to
one
account,
Jesus
proceeded
immediately
after
His
triumphal
entry
to
carry
out
the
reform
of
the
Temple
of
God
(Mt
2V-
").
(ii)
The
Messianic
discourses.
—
The
burden
of
the
discourses
in
which
the
Messianic
claim
is
prominent
is
that
there
awaits
Him
the
same
fate
as
the
prophets
—
that
He
will
be
rejected
by
His
people
and
put
to
death
(parables
of
the
Vineyard,
Mk
12'
-'2;
and
the
Marriage
Feast,
Mt
22'-'*).
But
beyond
this
seeming
failure,
two
vistas
open
up
into
the
future.
The
death
is
the
prelude
to
a
glorious
future,
when
Christ
will
return
a
second
time,
accompanied
by
the
angels,
and
will
have
at
His
command
all
power
needed
for
the
establishment
and
defence
of
His
Kingdom.
For
this
type
of
teaching
the
main
source
is
the
so-called
JESUS
CHRIST
'Synoptic
Apocalypse'
(Mk
13'-",
Mt
24<-»,
Lk
21"-«),
with
the
topics
of
the
Day
of
the
Son
of
Man,
the
Passover,
and
the
Last
Judgment.
The
other
leading
thought
is
that
the
guilt
of
the
rejection
of
their
Messiah
will
be
terribly
avenged
upon
the
Jews
in
the
horrors
of
the
last
days,
and
especially
in
the
destruction
of
Jerusalem
and
of
the
Temple
(Mk
13'-
",
Mt
24'-
«■
"«■).
(ill)
The
polemics.
—
The
self-vindication
of
Jesus
naturally
involved
an
examination
of
the
position
of
those
who
rejected
His
claim.
We
have
already
seen
the
nature
of
His
replies
to
the
detailed
objections
which
were
made
to
His
teaching.
As
the
crisis
approaches.
He
advances,
in
the
manner
represented
by
the
Fourth
Gospel
to
be
characteristic
of
the
whole
Judsean
ministry,
to
an
attack
upon
the
religious
position
of
His
adversaries
—
especially
of
the
professed
saints
and
religious
guides.
Their
hypocrisy,
their
spirituar
pride,
their
bUndness,
the
cupidity
and
cruelty
which
their
pretended
sanctity
cannot
wholly
mask,
are
exposed
in
the
most
merciless
invective
(the
Woes
of
Mt
23i-m).
(2)
Reasons
tor
thehatred
of
Jems.
—
We
are
accustomed
to
think
of
the
opposition
to
Jesus
as
due
to
a
temporary
ascendency
of
a
diabohc
element
in
human
nature,
but
as
a
fact
the
hatred
of
the
principal
parties,
and
the
murderous
conspiracy
in
which
it
issued,
are
too
easily
inteUigible
from
the
point
of
view
of
average
poUtical
action.
The
chief
responsibility
rests
with
the
Sadducees,
who
dominated
the
Sanhedrin,
and
who
set
in
motion
the
machinery
of
the
law.
As
we
saw,
they
were
states-men
and
ecclesiastics,
and
it
is
the
recognized
business
of
the
statesman
to
maintain
social
order,
of
the
ecclesi-astic
to
defend
the
interests
of
an
institution,
by
such
measures
as
the
exigencies
of
the
case
seem
to
demand.
And
if
they
were
convinced
that
the
popular
excitement
aroused
by
JesiM
was
likely
to
be
made
a
pretext
by
the
Romans
for
depriving
them
of
the
last
vestiges
of
national
existence
(Jn
11*');
and
if,
on
the
other
hand,
His
reforming
zeal
in
the
Temple
was
an
attack
on
one
of
the
sources
of
the
revenues
of
the
priesthood
(Mk
11"-"),
they
could
claim
that
what
they
did
was
to
perform
an
administrative
act
under
the
compulsion
of
higher
expedi-ency.
The
Pharisees,
while
less
able
to
strike,
exhibited
a
more
venomous
hatred.
They
represented
the
stand-point
of
reUgious
conservatism;
and
it
has
been
no
uncommon
thing,
or
universally
censured,
for
men
to
believe
that
what
is
essential
in
reUgion
is
old
and
unchangeable,
and
that
it
is
a
duty
to
God
to
suppress,
it
necessary
by
violence,
the
intrusion
of
new
and
rev-olutionary
ideas.
And
though
it
is
true
that
the
old,
to
which
they
clung,
itself
contained
the
promise
of
the
new,
the
new
approached
them
in
such
unexpected
shape
that
the
conservative
spirit
could
feel
justified
in
attempting
to
crush
it.
Again,
political
and
ecclesi-astical
leaders
depend
greatly
on
pubUc
respect
and
confidence,
and
are
moved
by
the
instinct
of
self-pres-ervation
to
protect
themselves
against
those
who
humiUate
them
or
threaten
to
supplant
them.
It
is
therefore
no
surprising
conjunction
that
soon
after
the
exposure
of
the
religion
of
the
scribes
and
Pharisees,
we
read
of
a
consultation
to
'take
him
and
kill
him'
(Mk
141,
Mt
262,
Lt
20").
On
the
whole,
there-fore,
it
would
appear,
not
indeed
that
the
enemies
of
Jesus
were
excusable,
but
that
they
were
so
closely
representative
of
normal
ways
of
judging
and
acting
in
public
Ufe
as
to
involve
mankind,
as
such,
in
the
guilt
of
the
plot
which
issued
in
the
death
of
Jesus.
(3)
The
preparation
of
a
case.
—
Unless
resort
was
to
be
had
to
assassination,
it
was
necessary
to
frame
a
capital
charge
which
could
be
substantiated
before
a
legal
tribunal,
and
a
series
of
attempts
were
made
at
this
time
to
extract
from
Jesus
statements
which
could
be
used
for
this
purpose.
To
convict
Him
of
blasphemy
might
be
sufficient,
but
as
the
consent
of
the
Roman
authorities
had
to
be
procured
to
the
death
penalty,
it
was
an
obvious
advantage
to
have
the
charge
of
sedition
in
reserve.
The
first
question,
evidently
