- RSS FeedSubscribe
- « Previous PostA La Carte (3/20)
- Next Post »A La Carte (3/21)
Guest Blog: The Crowd Was NOT Fickle!
- 03/20/08
- 26
Today I am posting something rare--a guest post. This article was written by John Ensor, whom you may know as the author of The Great Work of the Gospel and Doing Things Right in Matters of the Heart. In this article he takes on what he considers a popular Palm Sunday myth. Read it and let me know what you think. Is he right? Were the crowds really as fickle as we often think? Or have we got this all wrong?
It is a theological myth that gets restated every Palm Sunday. I heard it again this past week and it grieves my spirit deeply; that the cheering crowd that lauded Jesus with sweet "Hosannas," later cried "Crucify him!" Such is the fickle nature of man it is said.
I say it is not true. The people were not fickle. Apart from the fact that the word "crowd" is used in both contexts, there is no evidence to assert that it is the same crowd and lots of evidence that it is not. The evidence suggests that the crowd shouting "Crucify him!" was a crowd of chief priests, scribes, elders, Pharisees, Sadducees and "conscripted" false witnesses (by threat or bribe most likely).
Using Matthew's gospel, the crowd shouting "Blessed is he who comes in the name of the Lord!" (21:9) are referred to collectively as the "daughter of Zion" (21:5) and later referred to simply as "the people" (26:5). They are the regular, average citizens, the "folks" as opposed to the power-protecting religious leaders. The people perceived that someone great and glorious, in deed, heaven-sent, was arriving. They burst forth with due praise. Included in this crowd were children who continued shouting "Hosanna to the Son of David" when he arrived at the temple (21:15). The sick, blind and the lame were also part of this crowd and they too followed Jesus to the temple (21:14). They believed that Jesus could heal them. They were not disappointed (21:14). Before we say that this crowd turned on him, we ought to check. Most likely they neither understood his fullness nor his purpose. Not even his disciples grasped that. But they at least understood him as "a prophet sent from God" (21:11). There is no evidence that these people, just a week later, screamed and rioted in demand of his execution.
But even before I trace this out in the gospels, I submit that people, in general, are not fickle like this. They do not swing from rapid popular acclaim to hatred in a few days for no reason other than that they are fickle in nature. People generally change their opinion about leaders, from initial great enthusiasm to deep disappointment and bitterness slowly, over time (months and years), based on the disappointing actions of those leaders; not group "mood swings." We do well to remember Psalm 146:3 when watching cheering crowds swoon before any political leader. "Put not your trust in princes, in a son of man, in whom there is no salvation." All people, being sinners, make horrible Saviors, spiritual, political or otherwise.
That is why the Triumphal Entry of Christ is so great that the rocks were tempted to break the rules of nature (Lk 19:40). For this was the Son of Man arriving on a colt. Shout aloud! O Church! Or stand aside and let the trees clap their hands!
But even within this greater crowd of everyday people, the seeds of another crowd were present. "And some of the Pharisees were in the crowd" (Lk 19:39). They immediately attempted to suppress the glory, laud and honor to our redeemer King. But it could not be done. In fact, the children carried over the very praises they heard during this march to the temple when Jesus arrived there. The blind and the lame also showed up at the temple, hoping that this man sent from God might heal them. They were not disappointed. But the other crowd was also milling at the temple. "When the chief priests and the scribes saw the wonderful things [Jesus] did, and the children crying out in the temple, "Hosanna to the Son of David!" they were indignant" (21:15). They challenged Jesus to stop the crowd from acclaiming him. Jesus said their praise was only natural (21:16).
Next we read that "the chief priests and the elders" arrived at the temple and attempted to question Jesus' authority (21:23). Their goal was to take him down a notch in the eyes of the people (who still loved him). Jesus returned their question with a question about John the Baptist: was he sent from God or was he a human invention? They were stuck. "If we say 'From man' we are afraid of the crowd, for they all hold that John was a prophet" (21:26). Here is confirmation that the crowd remained enthralled of Jesus and saw him in the same way they saw John the Baptist, as a prophet sent from God. The chief priests and elders left unsatisfied and growing in their anger.
Next we read in 21:45 that "the chief priest and the Pharisees" witnessed Jesus teaching parables. They wanted to arrest him, but "they feared the crowds" (21:46). This is the second reference about fearing the crowd. The problem they faced in bringing down Jesus was the continuing popularity of Jesus by the "folks." They were not fickle. They were consistent. The religious elites needed to figure a way to break the popularity of Jesus in order to destroy him. .
Taxes are always a good wedge issue. In 22:15-16, we read that the Pharisees "plotted" to entrap Jesus into taking an unpopular position regarding taxes. They expected him to try to slip out of it so they began by praising his honestly and integrity. This would force him to speak in a way that would make the crowd think again about Jesus. "Teacher, we know that you are true and teach the way of God truthfully, and that you are not swayed by appearances. Tell us, then, what you think. Is it lawful to pay taxes to Caesar or not?" (21:16-17). It didn't work, and his popularity with the crowd of regular folk only intensified, even as the other crowd's anger deepened (21:22).
Next the Sadducees took a turn (22:23-8). They raised a disputatious matter of theology concerning resurrection, trying to show the irrationality of it and thus peel off a chunk of his popularity by forcing Jesus to choose sides in a matter that divided the people already. Jesus' answer did take a side (for resurrection!) and made a persuasive case of it as well. The result? "And when the crowd heard it, they were astonished at his teaching" (22:33).
Here we see the crowd of "folks" growing in their joy over Christ, not diminishing; and certainly not fickle. But the crowd of leaders opposing him was also growing. The Pharisees and the Sadducees joined together to thwart a common enemy (22:34). This crowd plotted and planned. Meanwhile, we read, "Then Jesus said to the crowds and to the disciples, "The scribes and the Pharisees sit on Moses' seat, so practice and observe whatever they tell you- but not what they do" (23:1-3). Jesus is teaching and building up the faith of the "folks". Here he is warning them to follow the teaching of the law, but not the lifestyle of the teachers (the scribes, Pharisees, elders, priests etc.). Are we to believe that those who lauded Jesus' arrival, and witnessed his healing power, and who were taught parables about the Messiah's reception and were explicitly warned not to follow the behavior of the religious elites were not impacted by it in any way and subject to fickleness of allegiance? (If we do, then it is worse than the myth says. For the fickleness must have erupted not over a week, but over a few days.) Or should we acknowledge that this crowd continued to hunger to be in Jesus' presence in the days that followed his entry, and deepened their hope in him throughout the week, as they were taught by him? This crowd's open embrace of Jesus was growing and it served as his protection from the growing crowd of plotters.
In 26:3-4 we read that the chief priests and elders gathered together and "plotted together in order to arrest Jesus by stealth and kill him." Why the stealth? Because this crowd of plotters feared upsetting the other crowd of folks. Since their attempts to turn the crowd's opinion against Jesus failed, their only option was to go around the crowd. We may be sure of this because 26:4-5 makes it explicit. "[They] plotted together in order to arrest Jesus by stealth and kill him. But they said, 'Not during the feast, lest there be an uproar among the people." Praise God, the people, the same people who cried "hosanna!" a week before, were still standing firm even at this last hour!
And so the plot unfolded at night and throughout the night, when the people were largely asleep and unaware of the unfolding events. By the time they awoke the next morning, the arrest and trial was done. Jesus was crucified at 9 AM (Mk 15:25) ―before the crowd would have come looking for Jesus to see and learn more as was their daily habit now, or react defensively on his behalf, or to provide their own testimony of his healings and teachings, the deed was done.
It began, according to Mt 26:47 when Judas arrived and "with him a great crowd with swords and clubs, from the chief priests and the elders of the people." This is the crowd that would push for crucifixion-a crowd consisting of chief priests and elders and their cronies, armed with clubs. They expected that those gathered around Jesus would fight to defend him (they suffered from sleepiness; but not fickleness). At least one rose up fighting and cut off the ear of one of the chief priests. Jesus heals him. "At that hour, Jesus said to the crowds, 'Have you come out as against a robber..." (26:55). Again the evidence is building that two crowds are at work here: one that was growing more passionate in their intent to murder Jesus and one growing more determined to defend him. Fickleness is not in the picture.
Continuing on, the crowd of high priests and elders took Jesus to Caiaphas, another high priest, where still more of their kind had assembled; "where the scribes and the elders had gathered" (26:57). This group is now called "the whole Council," or the Sanhedrin (26:59) and they sought out "false testimony against Jesus that they might put him to death" (26:60). It is possible that they sought these out from among the healed or from the people in general. But this would be reading into the text. More likely they sought these ought from among the chief priests, elders, scribes, Sadducees, and Pharisees that had tracked him all week and grew blood thirsty with each passing day. What is clear is that there is still no sign of fickleness here.
In the early hours of the morning, this same crowd of "chief priests and elders of the people" (27:1), led Jesus to the governor, Pilate. Again in 27:12, it is this crowd of chief priests and elders who accused him before Pilot. It was before this same crowd that Pilate looks for a way out. "Now at the feast the governor was accustomed to release for the crowd any one prisoner whom they wanted" (27:15). This makes sense, politically. Pilate benefited by appeasing this crowd of religious leaders from time to time. He did not need to curry support from the children, the lame, the blind, and the every day folks of Jerusalem. And it was this crowd that finally got what they had wanted since Jesus first arrived on a donkey; they found a way to kill him.
When we read in 27:20, "Now the chief priests and the elders persuaded the crowd to ask for Barabbas and destroy Jesus." All the indications are that this refers to the crowd of fellow elders, priests, scribes, and Pharisees that the narrative indicates had been gathering and assembling and moving about all night. "They all said, 'Let him be crucified!'" (27:22). Still Pilate was reluctant. But this crowd knew they had their man cornered. Just a little protest now was all that was needed. They screamed, shouted, threatened, perhaps ripped their clothes or threw a few chairs. Hard to know. But whatever it was, it equaled the first stages of social unrest. Pilate saw "that a riot was beginning" (27:24). He was now left with little choice but to slake their thirst for the blood of Jesus and thus purchase his own peace with this crowd.
It was morning now and people were out and about. This same crowd conscripted a by-stander, Simon, a Cyrene, to carry his cross (27:32). By noon, other bystanders were around watching. Hearing Jesus' cries, they said, "Truly this man is calling Elijah." They were confused. But they were never fickle. They still believed that Jesus was sent from God and even at this final hour, expected God to come to his defense (27:49).
So let the joyous news be spread! The crowd was not fickle. And did not praise him one day and cry out for his murder another. Two crowds were coming and going all week. Both grew stronger in their conviction as the week went along. The sheep grew sheepier. And the goats grew goatier. The later group conspired to work around the former. Later on, Peter referred to this group as "lawless men" (Acts 2:23). This better fits the crowd of chief priests, scribes, elders, Pharisees, who could act against the law and above the law, and get away with it. Regular folk lack such power in general.
So let us join in the singing; and stand with the blind, the lame, the disciples, the children, the Cyrene, the women who later stood at a distance and look bewildered at the cross, and the general populace, who at this moment saw the truth, at least in part. "All glory laud and honor to thee, Redeemer King. To whom the lips of children make sweet hosannas ring." Sing with them and do not diminish their child-like faith with talk of fickleness.
John Ensor is the Executive Director of Urban Initiatives for Heartbeat International and author of "The Great Work of the Gospel" (Crossway, 2006).
Published in 2008, this book
This is a guide that calls men,
This review of the bestselling
New to the site? You can get
Comments (26)
I am among the myth-perpetuators.
Point taken. I will be more careful next year.
Thank-you for posting this Tim. It is a good read and very true. Mr. Ensor does well to bring it up.
I've heard the rhetoric about the fickleness of the crowd all my life, and never felt that it made much sense. I had also not taken the time to examine the gospels for evidence. Thank you to John Ensor for setting the record straight, and thanks to you, Tim, for the insight to post this valuable article.
I have done lots of reading on this, because I preached through this section in Mark, and there are strong arguments on both sides. I found that there were slightly more commentators that took what the position Ensor is against over the position Ensor took.
All this to say, it would not make me cringe if I heard it preached either way. Interesting article though. Thanks for posting it.
liked that. well-written and thought out.
Very interesting. I must admit the "myth" view is the only one I've ever heard. Ensor's point makes a lot of sense. However, Hayden, if it's possible I'd be interested to hear a brief overview of the other perspective, if you'd be willing to do that.
(By the way I think this is a spelling mistake "More likely they sought these ought from among the chief priests, elders, scribes, Sadducees, and Pharisees" surely ought should be out? Or am I just unaware of that usage of the word ought?)
This was a wonderful post. Oftentimes its so easy to hear a sermon about the gospels and take it at face value without digging into the text. I have always believed the crowd turned on Jesus. The Passion movie does the same thing. That will teach me a lesson.
Never have your theology based off a romanist movie. =)
I'm so glad to see this article because I've been thinking about this recently. As I read the Palm Sunday and crucifixion account, I've been thinking some of the same things. It doesn't seem clear to me that these are the same people. It seems very likely that the crucifixion was primarily carried out by the leaders, and the common people wouldn't have even known what was going on.
However, what about in Acts 2 when Peter is preaching to the people and says, "you crucified and killed by the hands of lawless men" and "this Jesus whom you crucified"?
Is he using the term "you" as in all people of Israel are guilty for this crucifixion even though it was only the leaders who supported it?
Whether or not the crowds were different people or the same I can't answer to. But I don't agree with some of his assertions:
Without the indwelling of the Holy Spirit, I think people are fickle. I don't know how many times, especially in my younger years, that I went along with the crowd without thinking just because I craved the approval of others. Even now, how easily do I fall back on worry and anxiety, despite having all of God's promises written out for me in the Scripture?
Look at the fascination American society has with celebrities. We love to build up idols - but we also love to tear them down. No celebrity can stay on top for long. And they are not toppled slowly, over months and years, based on disappointing actions. Often it's something as simple as a weight gain or a bad dress at an awards ceremony. Is that not fickle?
Even churches are not immune from this sort of behavior. How many people have left a church they once loved because of a perceived slight?
Again, his argument that the crowds were different may be correct, but my observations of human behavior have been different than his.
A complementary myth-buster is Michael Card's commentary on the same subject. Cut and paste:
www.michaelcard.com/details_product.php?com_type=song&com_id=59
A comment on fickle crowds: The Jewish crowds are quantifiably fickle -- especially in Messianic matters, and there were a number of messianic pretenders in that time.
John 6:1 After this Jesus went away to the other side of the Sea of Galilee, which is the Sea of Tiberias. 2 And a large crowd was following him, because they saw the signs that he was doing on the sick. 3 Jesus went up on the mountain, and there he sat down with his disciples. ... 15 Perceiving then that they were about to come and take him by force to make him king, Jesus withdrew again to the mountain by himself.
So, like these who followed Jesus to the temple, the Jews in John 6 followed him to the other side of the Sea. They have some significant messianic expectations.
Then, THE NEXT DAY - and compare with Ensor's argument that it is remarkable for people to turn so rapidly, "the fickleness must have erupted not over a week, but over a few days" - we read:
John 6:65 And he said, “This is why I told you that no one can come to me unless it is granted him by the Father.” 66 After this many of his disciples turned back and no longer walked with him. 67 So Jesus said to the Twelve, “Do you want to go away as well?”
That was ONE DAY. These crowds went from miracles and wanting to make Him king to abandonment.
This isn't the only example. Consider John 8.
JOhn 8:31 So Jesus said to the Jews who had believed in him, “If you abide in my word, you are truly my disciples, 32 and you will know the truth, and the truth will set you free.”
Then, shortly after, He says to them: 44 You are of your father the devil, and your will is to do your father's desires. He was a murderer from the beginning, and has nothing to do with the truth, because there is no truth in him. When he lies, he speaks out of his own character, for he is a liar and the father of lies.
Many assume He is talking to the Pharisees here. Perhaps -- but we know that these were THOSE WHO BELIEVED. Some may try to argue that the "Jews" in the next phrase are different (e.g. Sanhedrin), and that has some merit, but we don't have a break in conversation, and from my study of John I'm not totally convinced that he always used "Jews" in a technical manner for the Jewish authorities. Not only so, but these were "Jews" (vs 31) who believed. Now look what happens:
59 So they picked up stones to throw at him, but Jesus hid himself and went out of the temple.
So, within the period of a CONVERSATION we move from "belief" to stoning.
Another: Luke 4:22 And all spoke well of him and marveled at the gracious words that were coming from his mouth. And they said, “Is not this Joseph's son?”
Now, shortly after -- within the scope of one synagogue session: 28 When they heard these things, all in the synagogue were filled with wrath. 29 And they rose up and drove him out of the town and brought him to the brow of the hill on which their town was built, so that they could throw him down the cliff.
Joey: Acts 2:5 reads: 5 Now there were dwelling in Jerusalem Jews, devout men from every nation under heaven. 6 And at this sound the multitude came together, and they were bewildered, because each one was hearing them speak in his own language. 7 And they were amazed and astonished, saying, “Are not all these who are speaking Galileans? 8 And how is it that we hear, each of us in his own native language?
Then, Peter addresses THEM (vs 14). Verse 22 continues: 22 “Men of Israel, hear these words: Jesus of Nazareth, a man attested to you by God with mighty works and wonders and signs that God did through him in your midst, as you yourselves know— 23 this Jesus, delivered up according to the definite plan and foreknowledge of God, you crucified and killed by the hands of lawless men.
So you make a good observation: YOU (that is, Men of Israel, Jerusalem Jews) crucified and killed BY THE HANDS of lawless men. So the crowds do seem to have an instrumental role in God's precise and perfect plan to crush His Son (Is. 53, Acts 4).
Even if Mr. Ensor is correct about the crowd-myth, and he hasn't dealt with Acts 2 here, his fickle-argument doesn't seem to hold water. The people, and yes, that common folks, had left Jesus before after showing 'allegience.'
I think it is important to make a distinction between Judean Jews (particularly those from Jerusalem) and Galillean Jews. I think the Judean/ Jerusalem Jews were much less inclined to follow Jesus and more inclined to follow the religious leaders. Also bear in mind that when Jesus came to Jerusalem it was usually during feast days when other non-Judean Jews would also make pilgrimages to the city. Galilean Jews were considered lower class by Judean Jews, particularly Jerusalemites. Jesus was much more in danger for his life in Jerusalem and Judea then he was in Galilee which may explain why he spent more thime there. The unique hostility in Jerusalem had a bearing on Paul's travel plans as well. I wonder if the "crowds" crying for crucifixion consisted of religious leaders evoking a response from Judean Jews, particularly Jerusalemites.
"I think it is important to make a distinction between Judean Jews (particularly those from Jerusalem) and Galillean Jews."
Yes, this is a good point.
"I think the Judean/ Jerusalem Jews were much less inclined to follow Jesus and more inclined to follow the religious leaders."
Perhaps, but not necessarily... cf. John 4:1-3. Granted, this occurred in the northern part of Judea. It is true that they didn't give Him a warm welcome in John 5 - there was substantial confusion among the crowd, a mixture of Sanhedrin Jews, Jerusalemites, and pilgrims, regarding Messianic prophecies, identification, etc. The followers in John 8 were apparently from the area of Jerusalem, since the Mt. of Olives is the location. It would probably be better to observe the substantial division Jesus caused almost everywhere He went. Consider John 7:7,12:40-52, 9;16: 10:19 -- much of which happened among natives of Judea.
"Also bear in mind that when Jesus came to Jerusalem it was usually during feast days when other non-Judean Jews would also make pilgrimages to the city. Galilean Jews were considered lower class by Judean Jews, particularly Jerusalemites. Jesus was much more in danger for his life in Jerusalem and Judea then he was in Galilee which may explain why he spent more thime there. "
Actually, In John 4, we read: 43 After the two days he departed for Galilee. 44 (For Jesus himself had testified that a prophet has no honor in his own hometown.) 45 So when he came to Galilee, the Galileans welcomed him, having seen all that he had done in Jerusalem at the feast. For they too had gone to the feast.
Notice the line of thought -- and it is puzzling at first: It reads that Jesus went to Galilee BECAUSE He testified that a prophet has no honor in his own hometown. Hometown can refer more broadly to home-land, country, etc. The Synoptics record this saying as a reference to Nazareth -- and it was in Nazareth where they tried to kill Him (Luke 4:16-30)! Nazareth is in Galilee. So His life was in jeopardy in both Galilee and Judea.
So the text (most naturally) tells us that Jesus went back to Galilee because He was to be rejected in His hometown. It would seem that He was actually increasing in popularity in Judea! For example, John 4:1-3 tells us that He left on account of the attention that He was getting. (Regarding John 4, there is a Johannine irony when the Galileans welcome Him -- He will shortly tell them they are all sign-seekers, which indicates to us that this 'welcome' is not the kind of true receiving that Jesus requires, cf. vs 48).
"The unique hostility in Jerusalem had a bearing on Paul’s travel plans as well. I wonder if the “crowds” crying for crucifixion consisted of religious leaders evoking a response from Judean Jews, particularly Jerusalemites."
I would expect that what we should do is not look at the "crowds" as a unified group, but as a mixture of not only Galileans and Judeans and dispersion pilgrims, but a divided and incoherent group of Galileans, a divided and incoherent group of Judeans, etc.
Others have already spoken to the part of Ensor's article that comments on the fickleness of people in general. I don't claim to be a better scholar than Ensor, but I do think the gospel accounts say differently. Please examine the full passages. I have quoted relevant phrases in consonance with their context. I ask you to consider the following:
Luke 23:4a,13,18a (ESV) Then Pilate said to the chief priests and the crowds... Pilate then called together the chief priests and the rulers and the people... But they all cried out together, "Away with this man...
Luke is clear that the people is a group distinct from the the chief priests and the rulers. "And the crowds"--plural!--is so broad that it simply doesn't allow us to think "oh, that's the religious and cultural elite. From Luke alone, we would think it was pure fickleness; we don't even see the crowd being persuaded! Matthew and Mark give us even more insight.
Matthew 27:15-20 (ESV) Now at the feast the governor was accustomed to release for the crowd any one prisoner whom they wanted. And they had then a notorious prisoner called Barabbas. So when they had gathered, Pilate said to them, "Whom do you want me to release for you: Barabbas, or Jesus who is called Christ?" For he knew that it was out of envy that they had delivered him up. Besides, while he was sitting on the judgment seat, his wife sent word to him, "Have nothing to do with that righteous man, for I have suffered much because of him today in a dream." Now the chief priests and the elders persuaded the crowd to ask for Barabbas and destroy Jesus.
As in Luke, the context in Matthew does not warrant calling the crowd in v20 a crowd of religious elites. Contextually, it is simply the crowd from the feast. This is what Pilate is banking on in v18. He well knew the distinction that Mr. Ensor is making, and he was hoping that this crowd of the "folk" would shout as they had a week ago.
Mark is even clearer:
Mark 15:8-10 (ESV) And the crowd came up and began to ask Pilate to do as he usually did for them. And he answered them, saying, "Do you want me to release for you the King of the Jews?" For he perceived that it was out of envy that the chief priests had delivered him up.
Which crowd came up to Pilate? The sense here is that Pilate almost got his way out, and the Pharisees plan almost crumbled. But the crowd was persuaded.
The crowd didn't just change their minds; they were in fact persuaded. But they were at least fickle enough to be persuaded.
And you know what? It got worse. A lot worse...
Excerpts from Matthew 27:39-44 (ESV): And those who passed by derided him, ... So also the chief priests, with the scribes and elders, mocked him... and the robbers who were crucified with him also reviled him in the same way.
Note again the progression here from those who passed by to "so also the chief priests with the scribes" and finally to the robbers themselves! Mark is clear that it is the crowd of the "folk" mocking the Savior's misery--a misery He was bearing for many of them! The parallel in Mk 15:29-31 makes the same point with the same progression. Luke 23:35 in the ESV may seem to contradict the other synoptics, but since it is not just "de" but "de kai," I prefer the NASB rendering of "And even." It makes more sense of the grammar; it makes more sense of the parallels. But it also happens to contradict the content of the article above.
The Johanine account focuses on the chief priests and the officers, but it does not mention the crowds one way or another. It is possible that at some points when John says "the Jews," he may be including the crowds, but it would be making more out of those texts than is there for me to argue it as certain.
I appreciate the sentiments that seem to drive Ensor's article. But I too have a word of joy for the reader. Rejoice! You are not the first fickle person there has ever been. And if you are an unbeliever, there is hope for you yet. It was a crowd of "folk" whom Peter addressed in Acts 2, a crowd of "folk" whom Peter identified as the ones who "crucified and killed Jesus by the hands of lawless men" (Ac 2:23, ESV)--not just looked on in horror or were unaware, but intentionally did it by those other hands.
But repenting and being joined to this self-same Jesus was the cause of the conversion of 3000 of them that day. Surely, of those 3000, a majority of them were "folk." Folk who had been fickle, and murderously so. Folk who were forgiven. And folk who continued in some measure of fickleness from forgiveness until they entered the land where fickleness is no more!
personally I see this fickleness in the present day, how often do we as a people love to elevate some celebrity or leader to a high status only to relish hearing something twisted or wrong about them and heckle and ridicule them to shame
I agree with Mr. Ensor that the two crowds were different, but I must also confess that the human heart is so sinful that it would not be surprising if there were many who praised our Lord on Palm Sunday and demanded His crucifixion later in the week.
We need to remember that a crowd is a collection of people. Two crowds may have some individual members in common and still be quite different in their overall makeup. We also need to realize that there is a herd mentality whereby a person gets caught up in the spirit of the moment—whether that spirit is one of loving acclamation or brutal condemnation.
We should expect (and hope!) that true believers would be more reliable than this, but it should not surprise us if there were goats who looked a lot like sheep when they were among the sheep, and whose "goatish" qualities surfaced when among their own kind.
It seems to me that we need to remember the lens from which we read the story. Mr. Ensor's passion is clearly one whose desire is to raise his hands and celebrate the coming King on that day. Through the lens of the believer, how is it possible that one could do such a complete 180 in just 5 short days. Unlikely.
I think it is important to remember that these were large crowds of people with all sorts of beliefs and experiences. Some were likely there just to see the spectacle of this "guy" who could heal the sick. Millions were in Jerusalem for the Passover. Certainly they were not all singing the praises of Christ the King. Many were spectators.
If you were to consider a crowd of 70,000 people at a football game we all know how easy it is to get swooped up in the excitement of the moment. However, a football crowd, as in the bible narrative, consists of all sorts of people.
It is true that the first crowd was likely mostly "fans" of Christ but certainly not everyone. They were looking for the new Messiah. Many in the crowd, once convinced that this was not the Messiah, or following the cry of the herd for His crucifiction, were easily swayed the opposite way.
Certainly both crowds were not exactly the same crowds. Certainly some people were in both crowds. Certainly deep believers in Christ were not shouting for His death.
I think both are right. Some people who were at Christ's triumphal entry were deeply saddened at the crucifying crowd. Some people who were at Christ's triumphal entry were happy to hear the crowd scream for His death. And, it seems to me, a large uncommitted portion of the crowd, went along with the cry of the moment, and screamed for Christ's death as sheep being led astray.
The herd mentality of a crowd is well documented and I suspect that is was no different then. Consider, if you will, one person writes an article on the nature of the crowd(s), on that day, and some of you have turned 180 degrees on your belief of the nature of these crowds.
Therefore, although interesting conversation, it seems to me that a strong position either way is perhaps divisive.
There was a crowd shouting His praise. There was a crowd shouting for His death. The blend of the crowds we can not know.
For me, I will be thankful that out of the billions, Christ chose me. I will forever be thankful that He, died for me and allowed me have an eternal relationship with Him. And...on that day of Christ's second coming, I look forward to being the THE crowd who is truly singing His praise. I can't wait to be there.
Interesting study.
"And when He was come near, He beheld the city, and wept over it, saying, If you had known ... but now they are hid from your eyes. for the days shall come upon you ... your enemies ... shall lay you even with the ground, and your children within you; ... because you knew not the time of your visitation." Luke 19:42-44
The Lord was left all alone. Jerusalem hated Him, and killed Him. Were there those who loved Christ, and yet were afraid? Yes, probably most of His genuine disciples were like this.
Peter said he would never leave Him, but in fact denied, and even cussed Jesus. That's fickle. But Peter would never be in the crowd shouting to crucify Jesus.
Another point is this: After the resurrection there were 120 disciples. Were there more than that?
The key question is: Who are these "people" in Luke 23:14?
I believe they are the lay people, with the chief priests, and rulers.
"And Pilate, when he had called together the chief priests and the rulers and the PEOPLE," .
Jesus was alone, except for a few women, and John was at the crucifixion.
All His apostles were gone, and most likely His genuine disciples were hiding as well.
The disingenuous disciples, those who were like the seed that sprouts for a small season, surely could have sang praises with their lips on Palm Sunday, and then cried to have Jesus crucified, and as Judas was unknown to the others as a devil, there may have been many who were the same, and probably were.
That's my thinking.
Have a blessed Maundy Thursday.
I was glad to hear someone refute the myth of the fickle crowd. The verse that helped me recognize this was Luke 23:27 "And there followed him a great multitude of the people and of women who were mourning and lamenting for him."
It is quite a stretch to think that the same crowd that were calling for his crucifixion were lamenting and mourning Him on His way to the cross.
It's wonderful to see Mr. Ensor's close attention to the biblical text, and the subsequent commenters who do the same so reverently and responsibly. Truly an edifying post and ensuing discussion.
Most of my thoughts have already been touched on:
#9 & #11: Absolutely, the mob mentality is a major factor, especially among the unregenerate, although Christians are by no means immune to the mob mentality either.
Interestingly, R.C. Sproul would seem to lean on the side of the fickleness argument:
"...if we look carefully at the record of the earthly ministry of Jesus, we will see that public opinion regarding Jesus was similar to the New York Stock Market; it was that volatile, it went up and down...there came a point in his public ministry, where, to the best of our ability to discern the historical situation, people became disenchanted and disillusioned with what Jesus was doing. This change in attitude increased after he had fed over five thousand people from only five loaves and two fish...John 6. The people, after they were fed, demanded that Jesus become their king. When he refused, and explained to them that they were following him for the wrong reasons, they became angry and left him....But not only were the common people in Galilee changing their attitude towards Jesus, growing consolidated opposition was taking place in Jerusalem. (The Unexpected Jesus, previously released as Mighty Christ, by Christian Focus, 9-10).
Like some commenters above, Sproul sees two different crowds, but not crowds that were mutually exclusive of one another. There simply must have been some overlap.
In following the conflagration of events culminating in the Cross, we can refer back to Matthew 10, where Jesus foreshadows the effect his earthly ministry would have: bringing not peace but a sword, setting brother against brother. As he moves closer to his death, the people move closer to extremes. As Ensor said, "The sheep grew sheepier. And the goats grew goatier." An excellent eschatological analysis.
Thanks, Tim, for posting a careful, nuanced, biblical exposition that causes us to practice the philosophy of the second glance (again, to quote Sproul!).
I agree with James Hakim above. Luke's Gospel, particularly 23:4,13 seems to want to emphasize the complicity of the people, in distinction from the leaders. At the very least, all 4 Gospels emphasize the abandonment of Jesus by his disciples - his "alone-ness". There seems to be a theological thrust in the Gospel with the effect that all were complicit in his death.
What a great discussion. It is so enjoyable reading the insights of all. I find myself siding with David above; I think "both" are true.
Another thing I knew, but never really considered, was the time of day (or night) all this took place. I believe this was significant as well.
I picture the "crowd" wanting to kill Jesus, getting all their friends out of bed to be part or add numbers to their side. This would have a multiplying affect. While the "crowd" of followers slept not knowing what was happening until it was too late.
I also have witnessed in life the "zealots" tend to be more forceful and move quicker. On a timeline, Jesus was probably dead and in the grave before His true followers would have acted. Their initial response was to scatter.
Whatever the case, this was a refreshing look at a celebrated event. Thank you for allowing us to dig a little deeper.
Yes the crowd was fickle!
John Ensor’s article makes for interesting reading but the methodology of interpretation he employs to establish his thesis is another reminder of why the people sitting in the pew have such a poor understanding of theology.
Statements such as “I submit that people, in general, are not fickle” is so obviously flawed that it barely needs a comment. The “crowd mentality” is a well known phenomenon. “French Philosopher Gustav Le Bon wrote about the crowd mentality in the 19th century. He suggested that if ten people gathered together, an eleventh invisible person would represent the mentality of the crowd and it would be the mentality of the lowest person in the group.” Does John Ensor not know about the crowd dynamics that were integral in the lynching of people in our own country?
The Bible does not make the distinctions between a crowd of regular people and a crowd of religious elite. The religious elite were the religious people who were behind the crowds and influenced the crowds. John Ensor quotes Matthew 27:20...."But the chief priests and elders persuaded the multitudes that they should ask for Barabbas and destroy Jesus" and then goes on to say “all the indications are that this refers to the crowd of fellow elders, priests, scribes, and Pharisees that the narrative indicates had been gathering and assembling and moving about all night.” No it does not! How anyone with any level of common sense can misunderstand the author’s intent here is beyond me. The religious elite were already unified. The common mission of killing Jesus is what brought the divergent groups of religious leaders together. It is clear the religious elite persuaded the crowds (non religious elite...common folks). The religious elite whipped up the crowd into a lynch mob.
Yes, the fickle crowd who only had a superficial connection to Christ (see John 2:24) and sought Him only for what He could do for them at the moment (see John 6:26) sang praises when it was popular and in a few days yelled curses when it became fashionable. John Ensor may want to reexamine the Biblical portrayal of the depravity of man.
"“The heart is deceitful above all things, And desperately wicked; Who can know it?" (Jeremiah 17:9, NKJV)
Peter denied the Lord shortly after affirming that he would stand with Jesus through the toughest of times. Peter learned the hard way that it is only by the grace of God that we stand.
"If anyone speaks, let him speak as the oracles of God. If anyone ministers, let him do it as with the ability which God supplies, that in all things God may be glorified through Jesus Christ, to whom belong the glory and the dominion forever and ever. Amen." (1 Peter 4:11, NKJV)
Are you going to post a follow-up with your thoughts?
Peace.
Whether the crowd was made of the same people who were yelling "Crucify him!" or not, this doesn't change the fact that we don't see any mention of people telling them not to crucify him... Jesus was left alone in this time, by everyone, including his closest disciples.
So even if they weren't openly coming against Him, they weren't exactly taking up their cross either. This, I believe, makes the contrast of the resurrected Jesus coming to them and the indwelling of the Holy Spirit such a wonderful story! All those people who were once too timid to do anything were able to speak with Jesus' power and authority, and face martyrdom of their own.
With regard to the fickleness however, I must disagree with Ensor. The Jesus that the crowd thought they were getting on Palm Sunday was a conquering king who would free them from Roman rule and set up the kingdom that had been established by David...
Instead, they found themselves with a Messiah who was turning over tables in the temple, cursing fig trees and making a general ruckus with everything that they found sacred. I imagine that would have been a very unpleasant shock to those expecting something different, not knowing the full result of what that pivotal week would entail, and if I didn't have my 20-20 hindsight, I imagine I would probably have been fairly fickle too. They put their trust in Jesus, and He seemed to let them down.
But as for me, I'm incredibly thankful that God did it the way that He did.
I’m with John on this. Like others, I appreciate his close attention to the text. In addition, I believe there is further evidence.
On Palm Sunday I preached the Lukan account of the triumphal entry, and noted that the passage begins at Luke 19:28, “And when he had said these things, he went on ahead, going up to Jerusalem.” (ESV) The phrase, “And when he had said these things” is almost as strong a cue to consider what is said before as would be the occurrence of a “therefore”. The “these things” referred to is commonly called the parable of the Ten Minas. Confirming that this passage is relevant to the triumphal entry, the parable begins at verse 11, “As they heard these things, he proceeded to tell a parable, because he was near to Jerusalem, and because they supposed that the kingdom of God was to appear immediately.” (ESV)
In the parable, four types of people are mentioned. 1) the faithful servant who is rewarded with ten cities; 2) the servant rewarded with five; 3) the unfaithful servant who has his mina taken away and receives no reward; and 4) those who did not want the king to reign over them and who are destroyed.
The people depicted at the entry to Jerusalem are analogous to those in the parable. Present are the disciples who will later spread the gospel and receive reward, as well as some (who may very well be fickle) who though members of the covenant community, do nothing with what has been entrusted to them and receive no reward, and finally, those Pharisees who reject his Kingship and attempt to silence the faithful.
The “reward” promised to those in the parable who reject Jesus as King is then reiterated in what follows, Luke 19:43-44: “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.” (ESV) Both this prophecy and the parable come true for the Pharisees in 70 A.D. when Titus comes and destroys them and their city.
For these reasons and the ones John points out so well, I too think the crowd is mixed.
(A personal note for John if he happens to read this: we met years ago when I was director of the pregnancy care center in Richmond, Virginia and traveled to Boston to learn from you about the medical model you had developed there. I liked you then and now as well!)