Holy Week (Holy Week-2)

. Introduction

The reader is encouraged to read our “Matthew Chapter Twenty-Three, A Commentary,” and “The Caesarea Philippi Shift” as preparatory introductions to this study. This study is stand-alone however, and therefore it is not necessary that you do so.

We decided to entitle this study and its sister-study “The Caesarea Philippi Shift: Holy Week Part 1” “Holy Week” rather than “Passion Week” because we saw in our Lord’s Passion quintessential holiness; that is, complete, seamless love for our Father expressed by zealous absorption into His ways (will), at the expense of complete forfeiture of self (“Be Holy”). Either title is commonly utilized in discussions of this momentous week.

In our understanding Holy Week begins already at the end of our Lord’s Galilean ministry, at Caesarea Philippi, for it was there that our Savior first began to relate His impending Passion; that is, His impending suffering and death (“The Caesarea Philippi Shift: Passion Predictions”). The events that were soon to take place during that momentous, holy week were, at the point of His Caesarea Philippi revelation, imminently before Him, and one can imagine that the vision of what lay before Him must have staggered Him in His person at times—this would seem to be borne out in His prayerful agony in the Garden of Gethsemane (Tab. 1: Agony in Gethsemane). Though it may possibly have shaken Him in His humanness in this way, He knew that the emotional, and physical, and spiritual horror that lay before Him was the culmination of His Incarnation—this is also borne out in His prayerful agony in the Garden of Gethsemane. And it is a testimony to our Lord’s deep love for the Father (and us) that He resolutely set His face for Jerusalem after Caesarea Philippi, in spite of these visions, to accomplish that for which the Father sent Him—our redemption unto Salvation.¹

The events comprising Holy Week were probably the first part of the Gospel to be written, as suggested by the early Church’s central declaration: the death, burial, and resurrection, of Jesus Christ (Act 10:39-41). The supposition at work here is that Jesus’ Passion cannot be understood without considering His entire life (it is equally true that His life cannot be understood without considering His Passion); accordingly, it is supposed that the Gospels as a whole were compiled from “back to front;” that is, starting with Jesus’ Passion, back to the time of His birth in Bethlehem (Brown 26). A survey of the Synoptic Gospels (=Matthew, Mark, Luke; henceforth Synoptics) reveals that the Passion Narrative is a solid historical narrative—there is good agreement between the Synoptics as to event, person, place, sequence, time, and so on. John probably did not draw from the Synoptic Passion Narratives when he wrote his account of the same:

“The Lucan Passion Narrative also drew heavily but more freely on Mark’s Passion Narrative. No other Passion Narrative was used by Luke; but there were oral traditions (e.g., about the hostility of Herod) that he combined in orderly fashion with the material drawn from Mark. Some of those preLucan traditions (perhaps in a preGospel form) were also known to John. John did not use any of the Synoptic Passion Narratives in writing his own account, even though some of the preGospel tradition on which he drew resembled material on which Mark and Luke drew” (Brown 92).

Besides the history, the Passion Narrative probably has in it a pastoral component (Melton). Each Gospel writer likely had a different pastoral emphasis when he wrote his version (that is not to say a different message—that was coherently the same, namely, Redemption—the gracious atoning death of Jesus Christ for sinners, so as to clear the way for their Salvation). Mark, for example, probably addressed the pressing weight of the persecution under which early Christendom came (“Early Christendom:III.B.3&4”). We see that he is led to emphasize the utter aloneness, abandonment, and agony of Jesus, as He remains obedient to the demands of the Kingdom in the face of heavy persecution. Case in point: of all the things that Jesus uttered from the cross, Mark was led to record only these words: ‘My God, my God, why have you forsaken me’ (Psa 22:1, Mrk 15:34). Mark clearly knew Jesus spoke other prophecy-fulfilling words while on the cross. Still, Mark’s readers would have identified with Jesus’ aloneness, and suffering, when they too faced their own sufferings. In much the same way Matthew, Luke, and John probably responded to the spiritual needs of the early Christians to which their narratives were addressed. And the pastoral emphasis that helped shape these writers’ Passion Narratives was likely seed material for the emphasis of their gospels in general. It is probably good to read the Passion Story (Redemption) of each of the gospels with two levels of inspiration in mind: the level of the historical Jesus,² and the level at which a particular Passion Story responds to the spiritual needs of Christians living in the first-century Roman Empire (“Early Christendom:Table 5, III B.3,4,9).

This study is interested in three broad aspects of Holy Week:

The major themes of Jesus’ teaching during that week.
The Judaism to which the events of that week are connected.
Recounting the events of that week (Palm Sunday-Easter Sunday).

II. The Major Themes of Jesus’ Teaching

Two major themes seem to emerge from Jesus’ teaching during His final week on earth. In no little way He warns the disciples and the crowds against the hypocrisy and evil of the Jewish religious leaders (“Matthew Chapter Twenty-Three, A Commentary” [this is a long read, but connects well with the eventualities of Holy Week—the reader may wish to set some time aside for it]; Tab. 1: Jesus’ Last Sermon). His second theme is one that heretofore He had largely not touched, and is to a good degree eschatological in nature: prediction of the coming destruction of the temple and Jerusalem, and signs of the end of the age (Tab. 1: Jesus Relates the Future). In regard to the latter, He compels His followers to remain faithful in the face of persecution and suffering, standing firm to the end, ready for the end of the age at any point in time. We see here that He strongly relates that the disciples are not to withdraw or hide, but to preach the Gospel to all peoples.

III. The Role of Judaism

Jesus ran into conflict with the Jewish religious establishment early in His ministry, starting in Galilee (Tab. 2); that conflict continued after Caesarea Philippi, when His ministry moved out of Galilee and headed south toward Jerusalem (Fig. 1). Both in Galilee and in transit to Jerusalem, conflict came largely at the hands of the Pharisees. The Galilean and Galilee to Jerusalem ministries probably covered a time span of three years. It is significant that as long as Jesus’ conflict was largely with the Pharisees He was able to continue His ministry, though openly opposed and threatened by this party; but when He arrived in Jerusalem, the domain of the Sadducees, His ministry lasted only a short few days. This confirms our understanding of the relative power of these parties within Judaism in Jesus’ day. The Pharisees did not have the sway with Rome to bring about our Savior’s death. The Sadducees, on the other hand, most definitely did (Melton). As go-betweens to the Jewish people and Rome, they were power brokers (this type of role is something that the Pharisees’ intense religious convictions innately precluded—a Pharisee would never voluntarily make contact with an “unclean pagan Gentile/Roman”). The Sadducees received power and privilege from Rome in exchange for keeping the Jewish people at bay for Rome. What strange alliances jealousy and power-lust do engender, for the Pharisees hated the Sadducees, and vice-versa (The Pharisees thought the Sadducees had hopelessly compromised their Judaism, while the Sadducees thought the Pharisees were religious fanatics); but when it came to the issue of Jesus, they seem to have laid aside their differences and joined forces to be rid of Him, though for different reasons. Jesus’ popularity with the masses, at least, was a sore spot for the Pharisees (consider Luk 19:39-40 in the context of the Triumphal Entry for example!); these masses were flocking to a Jesus whose truths had more than once exposed the Pharisaic religious convolution and hypocrisy. The Pharisees were jealous of Jesus, and despised Him because He exposed them for what they really were—religious frauds—and they had been unable to argue their case publicly. The Sadducees, on the other hand, had more political reasons for wanting to be rid of Jesus. Their privileged position with Rome was at stake should Jesus’ popularity escalate into a messianic revolt. In this regard, another factor tied to the Judaism of the day plays a vital role in understanding the events of Holy Week. To celebrate the Feast of Passover many Jews made a pilgrimage to Jerusalem, oftentimes to concurrently offer the required yearly sacrifice in the temple (“Three Pilgrimage Festivals”). During the Passover season Jerusalem’s population typically swelled tremendously. One can rightly picture a Jerusalem that is teeming with Jews who are largely reliving the story of God’s miraculous deliverance of the Israelites from Egyptian bondage and the glory days of the Maccabean revolt—it is not a stretch of the imagination to suppose that revolution was in the air during the Passover seasons in first-century AD Jerusalem. And Rome was keenly aware of that; the support that the Sadducees could offer Rome at this time of the year was invaluable, and the Sadducees were handsomely rewarded for doing just that. But more than reward—should open revolt break out, The Sadducees could actually be held accountable for not doing their job as go-betweens, and their lives might be required of them. Thus what the reward of money and power could not accomplish, the fear of execution could. So the Sadducees stood to lose much if Jesus were to become a rallying point for revolt, and they knew well the history of Jerusalem, Passover season, messianic figures, and messianic revolts. The problem the Pharisees and Sadducees had in their plot to be rid of Jesus was that He could not be executed at their hands (Jhn 18:31). He could, under their judicial system, be found guilty of violating their laws, but capital sentences had to be carried out by Rome (the Jewish judicial system was embodied by the Sanhedrin, a council of seventy elders, largely Sadducees, which tried both civil and religious cases at regular times in the year [Souvay]). The Sanhedrin-led mob-killing of Stephen is difficult to fit into this context, and so that event poses some interesting questions (Act 7:1-60). Notwithstanding, in order to be rid of Jesus, the Jews had to prove that He not only violated Jewish Law that was worthy of death, but that He was a threat to Roman sovereignty as well.

IV. The Events of Holy Week

Holy Week marks the last week of our incarnate God’s life on earth. It begins with His triumphal entry into Jerusalem on Palm Sunday, and culminates in victory with His resurrection from the dead on Easter Sunday.

A. The Triumphal Entry-Palm Sunday

Jesus’ entry into Jerusalem was a planned event. He foreknew it; indeed, we believe He designed and planned it. Zechariah 9:9 probably communicates to us, at least, that this plan was laid in the bowels of eternity past, then revealed to Zechariah, then fulfilled by Jesus, its architect.³ Leaning on Zec. 9:9, it follows that Jesus was now making a clear, overt Messianic claim by way of His entry into Jerusalem, in direct fulfillment of that verse (Messiah/MASHIYACH is Hebrew, Christ /CRISTOS is Greek; both mean ‘Anointed One,’ which implies kingship [1Sa 24:5-6]). Alfred Edersheim says this of our Lord’s entry into Jerusalem:

“It behoved Him so to enter Jerusalem, because He was a King; and as King to enter it in such manner, because He was such a King—and both the one and the other were in accordance with the prophecy of old” (Edersheim 725).

Now, at this moment in time, through His omniscience and intimate familiarity with the plan to unfold further in the days hence, He knew the time was at hand for Messiah Jesus to be revealed. The fact that it was He alone, on a donkey, upon which by tradition royalty was mounted, with no warriors around Him or hiding in the wings, makes it clear that His proclamation was not in keeping with traditional messianic claims; notwithstanding, His suggested claim was definitely Messianic. That contrast speaks volumes to us. He had just recently, at Caesarea Philippi, concurred with Peter that indeed He was the Messiah (Mrk 8:27-30, cf. Jhn 4:21-26), but had commanded silence as to that fact. Up until and through His Caesarea Philippi revelation, this was a standing command in this respect, and the reason is in large part because the time of His revelation was not yet at hand, largely as a consequence of His Messiahship being misunderstood. His revelation then would undoubtedly have brought on His death prematurely, with the attendant derailing of Redemption (see discussion “The Caesarea Philippi Shift: Passion Predictions” for our motivations here). When we compare the cries of the crowd attending Jesus’ entry into Jerusalem (Mat 21:9, Mrk 11:9-10, Luk 19:38, Jhn 12:13), to the messianic expectations within Judaism, (Psa 110:1-7, Psa 118:24-26, Mal 3:1), it is apparent that this crowd is indeed echoing a hopeful messianic sentiment when it looks upon Jesus riding into Jerusalem that day. The people intimate a material realization of either “the Son of David,” or “the Kingdom of David,” or “the King,” or “the King of Israel.” As both the crowd and the evangelists communicate Jewish ideas peculiar to the coming Messiah in their greeting and record, respectively, it is clear that the Triumphal Entry engendered a messianic notion in the mind of these onlookers; it almost goes without saying that the rabbis and other religious leaders registered it that way. And it would seem that is precisely what Jesus had in mind with respect to their impressions of Him at that moment in time—He was likely teaching them something here, something that some of them and/or their descendants would not grasp until after His death and resurrection, and on into the centuries hence. In keeping with that lesson, it is good to see that “Messiah” to Jesus was Jehovahcentric and spiritual, not Davidic and secular. That said, it would seem that Jesus was laying the groundwork upon which He would characterize Messiah as God had intended Messiah to be characterized from the beginning—this was not a redefinition of Messiah on Jesus’ part, it was a reclamation—Messiahship is not of earthly provenance, but of heavenly provenance, and King Jesus was here about to impart to this title its full intended essence. The Kingdom that Messiah Jesus came to establish was the spiritual Kingdom of God wherein Jehovah God reigns and rules in the hearts of humankind—and our Lord had to go to a Cross to bring in that Kingdom—that is where the bloody battle, upon which outcome the eternal fate of all hung in the balance was to be fought; that Cross was the Messianic battlefield—of a type that one cannot even imagine. Messiah Jesus, on that donkey, on that day, embodied Messiah as He was meant to be. And as He moved toward that Messianic battlefield He was leading the charge to bind and seize and eliminate the old Kingdom of evil, and sorrow, and suffering that had strangled His excellent earth since Eden, and bring in the new Kingdom, full of all of Jehovah God’s very best; this was Messiah’s revolution—an insurrection directed at an evil Kingdom. As stated before, Jesus had demonstrated in His ministry that He was not interested in becoming an earthly king (Jhn 6:13-15, et al.), at least not at this time (when He completes His salvific work, He will, in the end, be King over all-Isa 45:23, Rom 14:9-11, Phl 2:10 ). And after His processional entry into the city, Jesus continued in that mold. He did not make any overt claims to mundane messiahship such as calling men to gather around Him in preparation for battle, as would be the case for one determined to lead a messianic revolt—Mark tells us He simply went to the temple that evening, and looked things over, and left (Tab. 1: The Triumphal Entry).

B.

1. The Barren Fig Tree Cursed-Monday

This event is in keeping with a parable Jesus had spoken earlier (Luk 13:6-9—we must note that it is not a light thing when our Lord is redundant). Already from a distance, Jesus and the disciples recognized that the tree was a fig tree. It was leafed out, and had all the appearance of harboring fruit under those leaves.⁴ But for all the appearances, upon closer inspection, Jesus found no fruit. One wonders—why would omniscient Jesus be “upset” (as in cursing that poor little tree) to find no figs on this tree—one could get the impression He was caught unawares? In fact, from the events that were to follow this one, it becomes clear that He knew precisely that tree was not bearing fruit—we suppose that tree, decked out in its misleading leaves, was about to become part of a lesson plan administered by the Teacher. This event is highly symbolic of the reality that had been and still was plaguing Israel. The misleading religious convolution of the house of Israel was of course that barren fig tree. One anhungered, as Jesus undoubtedly was here, could not find any nourishment in that tree (house). As Jesus related by word in the Lucan parable, and by action demonstrated here, that tree was deemed unworthy even of the space it was taking up in the ground, so He cursed it in everyone’s hearing. And Matthew tells us it withered immediately, while Mark shows it as withered the next day. Notice that the preaching and the prompting and the processional pageantry are clearly over at this point, and Messiah Jesus has “dawned His battle gear” so to speak and is preparing, in situ now, not just prophetically anymore, to bring in the Kingdom of Jehovah God, and His statement by way of the cursed fig tree right up front here in His agenda probably tells us that the first order of the battle was to be with certain of the house of Israel—this Israel will be laid low for its unbelief and attendant unfruitfulness. A person, a people, an institution, a nation, cannot be fruitful apart from Jesus Christ. Their unfruitfulness really only culminated here by rejecting Jesus in person—they had been rejecting His prophets, and thus Him, for a long time prior to this already (Mat 23:37). Whether one looks at this issue of fruitlessness from the perspective of the history of Israel, or more recently here in the day of their visitation, it is rejection of Jesus Christ, in lieu of their own convoluted religiosity (or other distractions), that folded back on them in unfruitfulness—and the axe was to be laid at the their root for that (perhaps our incarnate God judges not so much even for His Name’s sake here—it is perversion of their privileged role in His plan for humankind that is likely judged, for that perversion bears directly on the Salvation of many). One can appreciate here the import of fruit-bearing when wittingly (as in privileged with requisite knowledge) engaged in covenant with Jehovah God. From this it is not hard to appreciate that lack of fruit-bearing is sufficient reason to lay a negligent covenant-people low—the example is clear: Though he bears long, He does not bear forever in this regard.

Thematically, this incident has another part, and that has to do with faith. The disciples were amazed at the speed and depth of the demise of this tree once cursed by Jesus, and our Lord took opportunity to explicate the connection between the prayer of faith and the accomplishment of great feats. ‘Pray as though you have already received, and it shall be done unto you…’ Thus we should pray in our Savior’s Name when we come knocking.

In another vein, one cannot help but notice that once a word falls off the lips of our Lord, things happen (Isa 55:8-11)—as for certain of Israel, He did bear long with them; even so, in a few short days, they were going to act out fully what their kin in spirit had been doing to Him piecemeal for centuries, and the fig tree shows us how deep and wide that religion’s ruin would be—the fruitless tree (fruitless house of God, centered on a temple) would fall—hail Christianity, by which the Lucan parable and this event likely find fulfillment. We suppose, if we have made the right associations, that the burden (responsibility) of fruit-bearing now rests squarely on the shoulders of Christianity, for in the words of Jesus, their religion will not have opportunity to bear fruit ever again— “…no longer shall there ever be any fruit from you…” (Mat 21:19, cf. Mrk 11:14)–

KAI IDWN SUKHN MIAN EPI THS ODOU HLQEN ‘EP AUTHN KAI OUDEN EUREN EN AUTH EI MH FULLA MONON KAI LEGEI AUTH MHKETI EP SOU KARPOS GENHTAI EIS TON AIWNA KAI EXHRANQH PARACRHMA H SUKH (Mat 21:19—character map). (Tab. 1: The Fig Tree Cursed).

It seems fitting to end this section with some sobering words from our Messiah-King (Jhn 15:1-5)

2. The Cleansing of the Temple-Monday

Small wonder that the next immediate event on our incarnate God’s Messianic agenda was the cleansing ot the temple (Mark has the sequence like this). The temple was not one building housing a sanctuary, but a network of buildings and courts that included at its heart a sanctuary (“Second Temple,” “Temple of Jerusalem”). Besides being a place where Jews could come together and talk about sundry issues pertinent to their lives—community affairs, malcontent with the Roman Eagle, and so on—the temple complex provided a trading center (in the Court of the Gentiles) for merchants who traded in the specific animals that were used in the sacrificial rites. It also provided space for the money changers who dealt in the currencies of those people who did not have the local currency. An Egyptian Jew, for example, that made a pilgrimage to Jerusalem to offer the yearly sacrifice would likely need the local currency to buy the animals for that sacrifice (a sacrificial victim purchased with an “unclean” currency was unacceptable; only the Hebrew shekel was acceptable currency), and to do business in Palestine in general (Melton). So the money changers provided that service. The temple authorities sanctioned these financial dealings and profited from them, receiving a percentage from the cost of the exchange demanded by the money changers. Needless to say, the whole enterprise—from the livestock provisions to the financial transactions, was big business, and the temple authorities made a good living at it, as did their cohorts. When Jesus came to the temple on the day following His triumphal entry into Jerusalem (Mrk 11:12), He began to drive the money changers out of the temple complex; He overturned tables and “cleared the court,” so to speak. Obviously, this did not sit well with both the merchants (probably Pharisees to a good degree), nor the Sadducean authorities of the temple grounds. Jesus, on that day, in His zeal for our Father’s house, made enemies; enemies who saw their way of business and life threatened. Politically speaking, it was perhaps the most radical act of His ministry—in His words, the temple had become ‘a den of thieves’ (Mrk 11:16-18). No doubt this big business had made the worship of God inaccessible to those who did not have the money to tithe and sacrifice. This was undoubtedly, and sadly, an emotional and spiritual strain for the poor (one can correctly surmise that the poor so affected disdained these temple authorities and their opportunistic “temple-economy”). It is clear that the whole idea of worship had become wickedly twisted through its inordinate focus on money. So a major point of conflict with the religious establishment was manifested by the cleansing of the temple (Tab. 1: The Cleansing of the Temple).

C. A Day of Encounters-Tuesday

Tuesday was marked by confrontation.

“Tuesday was a very busy day of discussion, teaching, and confrontation for Jesus. Again he taught publicly in the temple most of the day. But he also privately instructed his disciples on the Mount of Olives in the evening (Luk 21:37). On Tuesday the chief priests, scribes, and elders questioned his authority and tried to ensnare him with well-planned questions. ‘By what authority are you doing these things?’ they queried. This was a pertinent question for one trained in the Jewish faith to ask. The scribes believed that teaching should be based on long-standing tradition rather than on novelty. The phrase ‘these things’ refers to the events of the previous days. Certainly the overturning of the tables in the temple on Monday and the messianic triumphal procession the day before had aroused indignation. Possibly the enemies of Jesus had carefully prepared their challenge and thought they were ready for a confrontation that would leave Jesus discredited, abandoned, and ineffective. Jesus so deftly answered his questioners and so cleverly made use of parables that he left his opponents speechless” ( Niswonger 162-63).

We have record that by now the religious leaders had begun to devise a means to execute Jesus, silently, so as not to stir the huge Passover crowd into a riot, for Jesus was popular and considered a prophet (Tab. 1: The Religious Leaders Scheme); it is likely that Judas Iscariot negotiated Jesus’ betrayal on this day.

D. A Day of Prayer and Rest?-Wednesday

“The events of Wednesday do not appear to be recorded, and in most scholarly accounts it is considered a silent day” (Niswonger 165).

One imagines Jesus preparing Himself for the battle that lay immediately before Him on this day. This was probably a great day of intimate prayer that served our Lord’s spiritual preparation. Maybe He privately sought and found the companionship of His friends at Bethany for a time. Maybe He spent the day in solitary prayer; yea, probably the latter—this was a time when He needed to be close to our Father O so much. Most of us have faced trying missions “on the ‘morrow…,” but none like our Lord faced here. As we write this we are ever reminded that our Lord was deity, and that the serenity of that deity must have anchored His person—but then the picture of His momentary agony in the garden (Tab. 1: Agony in Gethsemane) checks that thought somewhat, and reminds us further that in His humanness He did in fact feel a great weight of apprehension. How good it is that we have One such as Him that can identify with us in our sorest apprehensions; One who can teach us how to face our apprehensions in the serenity consequent to intimate prayer with our Father. Jesus surely faced His tough tomorrow in the strength of our Father—which strength He found by way of prayer. When one finds themselves in the wheelhouse of affliction, and maybe for the first time becomes cognizant of the fact that one is desperately, is sorely needful of Him, then…O how restful, O how sweet, that hour of prayer.

E. A Day of Passover Observance-Thursday

It is possible that two different methods existed for determining the time of the Passover Sabbath; Richard Niswonger explains:

“The Galilean, or older Jewish, system thought of the day as beginning at sunrise and running up to the next sunrise. It may be that the Jews in Galilee followed this older custom, and this would explain why the Synoptics have an earlier Passover meal than John. The officially recognized system in Jerusalem, followed by the priesthood and evidently by John as well, reckoned a day as running from sunset to sunset. By the older method of reckoning, the Synoptic version is understandable. The Passover, which was to fall on Nisan 14 began at sunrise on Thursday and the lambs were slain on that afternoon. After sunset it was still Thursday (Nisan 14), and the Passover meal would then be eaten on Thursday night. But John’s perspective is equally accurate. From the official calendar followed by the priesthood, the Passover day did not begin until sunset Thursday, and the lambs would not be slain until the next afternoon on Friday. On Friday as the lambs were prepared, Jesus offered his life on the cross. John thus is accurate in portraying the Jews at the trial of Jesus as having not yet eaten the Passover (Jhn 18:28). They would eat it at sundown on Friday” (Niswonger 166-67).

The gospels suggest that the Passover meal was well planned (Tab. 1: Preparation for passover, Fig. 3). During the course of the meal Jesus instituted the Eucharist. The word Eucharist is rooted in the Greek noun EUCARISTIA—literally, giving thanks, thankfulness. EUCARISTIA derives from the Greek adjective EUCARISTOS—literally descriptive of mindfulness of favors, gratitude. Behind the literal sense one gets the spiritual sense of appreciation; appreciation for Jehovah God’s good saving grace as realized in the atoning death of our Messiah-King Jesus. In practice, the word embodies the consecration of bread and wine, themselves consumed in remembrance of Jesus’ death. It is the latter that Jesus enjoins to His disciples: ‘Do this (break bread, drink the wine) in remembrance of me.’ That is to say, whenever you celebrate the Eucharist, do so with a mindset of remembrance; a mindset that commemorates my death until I return. Remember with gratitude the sweet saving grace which has been offered to you by way of my broken body and spilled blood (Tab. 1: Institution of the Lord’s Supper).

After the events attending the Last Supper Jesus retreated to the Garden of Gethsemane where Judas’ part in the plot to kill Him set in motion the atoning sacrifice of the Lamb of God on behalf of all humankind (Redemption). It is thought provoking to contemplate what our Messiah-King’s thoughts may have been as He drew nearer to the Messianic battlefield and crossed what may likely have been a blood-tinged Kidron Brook on His way to the garden, for the blood of the sacrificial lambs slain for Passovers on end flowed down a channel from the bloody altar in the temple into this brook and was so carried away (Barclay 221). One pictures Him watching from heaven all those years as the lambs were slain; but just soon it would be His blood, as the Lamb of God, that would be poured out and carried away to the cleansing of many, the very blood all those countless sacrifices anticipated over the centuries (“Blessed Scapegoat In Red”).

F. Judas’ Plot-Thursday/Friday

We suppose that Judas negotiated his deal to sellout Jesus early in the week, possibly on Tuesday. As one of Jesus’ insiders, he could approach Him; furthermore, Judas had good knowledge of Jesus’ whereabouts and schedule. So the religious leaders were surely delighted to have his help to carry out their long-standing scheme to be rid of our blessed Savior. They had a problem though in this regard. If they were to be rid of our Lord, they knew that it would have to be done quickly, and as covertly as possible, in order to avert a riot, for riot would bring upon them the ire of the Romans. When considering their fear for a riot one must remember that Jesus was popular and considered by some to be the Davidic Messiah; furthermore, it was Passover Season—revolution was in the air. So these leaders probably reckoned that to best effectuate their plot Jesus first had to be positively identified (recall that the population has swelled tremendously due to the Passover pilgrimages of many Jews), taken at night, and fast, while most people were sleeping (consider verse six of Luk 22:3-6). Next He had to be tried and convicted absolutely, then executed fast before anyone could do anything about it (these points follow Melton). It seems clear that Judas became the perfect instrument to initiate the plot. The gospels do not tell us much about his part in it except that he positively identified Jesus with a (customary) kiss of greeting. Jesus must have been quite an ordinary looking man to require this unmistakable identification by Judas (appearance, complexion, stature, and the like—consider Isa 53:1-2).

All told, the plot to remove Jesus was complex, and it is likely that if any part of it had failed Jerusalem would have become embroiled in a bloody riot owing to His popularity. It is also likely that the Sadducean leadership believed that Jesus really did have a hidden army behind Him; the Triumphal Entry probably reinforced that mistaken view. From the vantage point of the plotters, that consideration would have been another reason for them to move fast, before armed resistance could be mounted. In general, there seems to be a sense of urgency in the narrative from this point up to the crucifixion; this is particularly borne out by Jesus’ incredibly speedy trial.

What was it about Judas that Satan exploited so as to possess him to serve his ends (Luk 22:3)? There are various possibilities: greed/money lust, zealous nationalism, or maybe Judas was a primadonna who felt slighted somehow, one cannot tell. One thing is certain —we are left with the chilling words that it would have been better for him had he not been born (Mat 26:24, Mrk 14:21, Luk 22:22). Surely no sorer verdict has ever been passed than this one; we suppose that this is the same sore verdict that befalls those miserable souls who find themselves without Jesus Christ at their end owing to their willful, informed rejection of Him —it would be better for the same had they not been born. How very tragic (Tab. 1: Judas Negotiates Jesus’ Betrayal).

G. Jesus’ Arrest in the Garden-Thursday/Friday

Our Messiah-King is now drawing ever so near that Messianic battlefield, the place of the Great Kingdom Fight, a fight our great Champion prepared Himself to win, only to the bruising of His heel.

Scripture tells us that Judas approached Jesus and identified Him with a kiss, as discussed above. We learn further that Judas was accompanied by a small army—this support was probably the design of the religious establishment. This detachment was comprised of Roman soldiers, and officers from the chief priests and Pharisees (probably security personnel from the temple complex). The Greek noun SPEIRA (=a band of men/soldiers) is used to relate the Roman part of the contingent. This word signifies some percentage of a legion of soldiers, that is, some percentage of six-thousand men. The possible range this word connotes is from three-percent (a maniple, equaling 180 men)—to ten-percent (a common designation, equaling 600 men), to as high as sixteen-percent (auxiliaries, equaling 960 men). So one can conservatively reckon that there were at least around two-hundred men with Judas that night in the garden. And they were sent equipped with lanterns/torches (so John), and were “armed to the teeth” so to speak. They were sent with Lanterns/torches because they obviously had been instructed to do their “business” at night. As pointed out by Dr. Melton, they were sent with weapons for several different reasons probably.

1. No doubt because their commissioners feared a riot by the populace at large, they reckoned that a great multitude outfitted with weaponry could quickly quell any general insurgence before it got out of hand.

2. They were probably uncertain of the extent and character of Jesus’ followers, and feared that some hidden following of His might fight for Him.

3. They knew that Jesus was a worker of mighty works and were in awe of Him personally.

Well, Jesus puts up no resistance of course (though Peter did); He is arrested, and whisked away to be queried by one dynast high priestly type named Annas (Tab. 1: Betrayal, Arrest, Desertion).

H. Before Annas-Friday

The immensely wealthy ⁵ Annas was the father-in-law of Caiaphas, who was the high priest of the Jews that year. Annas too once held the office, having been instated by Quirinius, the governor of Syria, sometime around AD 6 or 7, but he was later deposed by Valerius Gratus, the procurator of Judea (AD 15-26), for violating the exclusive Roman capital sentence mandate. Notwithstanding, he continued to wield significant influence on the affairs of the Sanhedrin and Jewish relations with Rome (“Annas”). It is noteworthy that Jesus was taken straight to Annas from the garden. We suppose that this was of design by Annas himself, and not for practical and/or logistic reasons. As we shall see, certain Sanhedrists and so-called witnesses had gathered at Caiaphas’ house. We suppose that Jesus was taken first to Annas to allow the necessary time for them all to be gathered there, for Annas could easily delay interrogation until he received word to that effect. Since there could not be any certainty as regards timing a priori once the events attending Jesus’ arrest began to unfold, Annas could as a sort of coordinating focal point serve as a time buffer as appropriate here; we suspect he did just that. Moreover, with the powerful allegiances that man had, he could do at this time quite freely just about anything he wanted to ensure all went well. He seems like the perfect first stop in their plans entrap Jesus. We actually know nothing of the proceedings before Annas; we do know that Annas bound our Lord and sent Him to his son-in-law Caiaphas (Tab. 1: Interrogation by Annas).

I. Before Caiaphas-Friday

Notice that our Savior is now taken to the house (!) of the one who first, in a public forum, pronounced it expedient for the nation to be rid of Jesus (Jhn 11:50). Notice also that certain, we suspect largely Annas-loyalist members of the Sanhedrin had conveniently gathered there as well. Caiaphas questioned Jesus about His teachings and His disciples; Jesus responded that He had openly taught and moved about, and that he, Caiaphas, could readily discover that answer from anybody who had heard Jesus during the course of His ministry, for which response Jesus received the first recorded physical blow of His Passion (for us). We can be sure that Caiaphas was probing Jesus for hints of messianic nationalism which could have been used against Him to His death with Rome, and for open utterances of blasphemy worthy of the death penalty according to Jewish law.

“Jesus appeared next before Caiaphas at his house where some of the members of the Sanhedrin had also gathered. Caiaphas at that time held the office of high priest and was Annas’ son-in-law. The meeting was not a legal session of the Sanhedrin because that body could not officially meet at night. The hastily gathered group was holding a preliminary meeting in expectation of ratification of their work at dawn by the full Sanhedrin. Witnesses brought charges against Jesus that would have convicted him of blasphemy if the accusers had been able to agree in their testimony. Because of the inconsistency of their testimony, Caiaphas tried another line of attack. He charged Jesus to testify under oath whether he was ‘the Christ, the son of God.’ ‘Yes, it is as you say’ was the reply. The high priest in a display of righteous indignation tore his garments and charged Jesus with public blasphemy. The whole group agreed that witnesses were now unnecessary, for Jesus had convicted himself of blasphemy by his own mouth. The Old Testament punishment for such a crime was death. The opponents of Jesus knew that they could not induce the Romans to execute Jesus on the basis of Jewish law. The Romans would not be impressed by a charge of blasphemy. But Jesus claimed to be the Messiah, and this could be the basis for a charge of sedition” (Niswonger 170).

It goes without saying that the case the religious establishment had against Jesus was concocted, and terribly weak at that. When Caiaphas asked Him, ‘are you the Christ (Messiah), the Son of the blessed God‘ (Mar 14:61), had Jesus simply refused to answer (but He was under oath of course, and under considerable hostile pressure…), He likely could have eventually walked out of the house, for the (false) witnesses had contradicted themselves—the case against Him was defunct. The full Sanhedrin the next morning might have been differently motivated. It is most noteworthy that Jesus not only answered, but He did so with an emphatic yes, for His answer, as communicated by the Greek manuscripts, was “EGW EIMI,” which is redundantly strong in the Greek language (the simple answer would have been translated as “NAI,” a simple yes [e.g., Mat 5:37, Mat 11:9]). The point is that in no uncertain terms Jesus professed His Messiahship and His deity. He even followed up His strong affirmative by referring to Himself as the Son of Man seated at the right hand of God (Dan 7:13, cf. Isa 63:1-6—this is the Messiah Judaism was anticipating)—an allusion that everyone in the house knew meant none other than Messiah. In other words, Jesus gave a strong sort of double yes replete with a referentially unmistakable follow-on example—He left no doubt, for sure.

Caiaphas’ question was well thought through, particularly seeing that he tethered our Lord to an oath beforehand. Not that Jesus would have lied or deceived in any way whatsoever, of course. Jesus obviously would have spoken the truth, would have given the same answer, with or without the oath—but the interesting observation is that they could never have reckoned just how binding that oath was to Jesus (if they had, they would have been on their faces before Him and professed Him their Messiah), so one must conclude that it was issued simply as part of their mundane judicial protocol—which is in keeping with their low valuation of oaths in general—we know from other places that oaths to most of them were largely instruments to be used in logically enterprising ways for the purpose of self-service. They may have thought that the oath might motivate the truth, perhaps, but it is impossible that they issued it with an understanding of how incredibly binding it would be to Jesus. It was unbeknownst to them how infinitely binding that oath was to Jesus. Of course Jesus answered in the way that He did because it was the truth (factual as to who He is), and He only speaks the truth, but He answered also the way that He did because He was under oath, and He would never have violated an oath, for that oath was actually in His own Name—for Him to violate that oath would be Like Him undermining His very nature, His very essence, and even by human thinking this is inconsistent, illogical; but there are higher reasons for its impossibility than human thinking. The humiliation of this oath must be reckoned as part of our Messiah’s Passion.

In Caiaphas’ question were both of the elements that he needed to be rid of our blessed Jesus (we suppose that the crafty and cool old veteran Annas had an influentially significant part in this clever line of interrogation). The point of kingship (Messiah part of question) was intended to be the death blow for Jesus, for only as a messianic figure would Rome execute Him; the point of blasphemy (Son of God part of question), a capital offense within Judaism, was really intended to be a locus around which the Sadducees could muster support and sympathy from the Jewish populace, and holdout Pharisees, in their plot to kill Jesus. So, in the wee hours of Friday morning, with an illegal, truncated assemblage, while most everyone was sleeping, our Messiah-King Jesus was convicted, and sentenced to die, by certain powermonger Sanhedrists—for the crime of blasphemy. In the next leg of their scheme they led Him to the quarters of Pontius Pilate (Tab. 1: Trial by Caiaphas).

J. Before Pilate-Friday

Now it comes as no big shock that the religious leadership here adroitly pivoted and focused its case on Jesus’ claims to Messiahship, not its own condemnation of blasphemy. They propound that Jesus is a threat to Rome—a messianic pretender—who must be executed, and that ‘only Caesar is king.’ Pilate, not well-disposed to the Jews (and vice-versa), initially refuses to impose the death sentence—he relates to the crowd that he finds Jesus innocent of the charges brought before him. Avoiding involvement in what must have looked like religious bickering to his pagan mind (he did not know who Jesus was; he never did grasp the motivations of the Jewish religion), he sends Jesus to (that fox [Luk 13:32]) Herod Antipas, who is in Jerusalem for Passover. Antipas questions a silent Jesus, puts a royal robe on Him (notice the consistent treatment of Jesus as royalty, whether in earnest, in mockery, or in sordid opportunity), and promptly sends Him back to Pilate. Pilate proposes alternatives to the Jews in lieu of the execution, but they resolutely demand that Jesus be executed; specifically, that He be crucified. And they issue a veiled threat by saying to him, in effect, ‘if you do not condemn this man to death, you are not a friend of Caesar.’ It almost sounds like, ‘if you do not act in our favor, we are going to tell Caesar that you spurned our witness about a professing messiah.’ With this veiled threat they put (the climber?) Pilate under considerable pressure, and in the end Pilate yields to the pressure, and the death sentence that was imposed by the Sanhedrin (it would seem right to keep the house of Annas squarely in the fore here) , is carried out by Pilate and Rome (Tab. 1: First Appearance Before Pontius Pilate ff).

K. The Crucifixion-Friday

Our Messiah-King is now ready to take His position on the Messianic battlefield. Complete surrender to the demands of the Kingdom of Jehovah God is His sole means for victory, and in His victory hangs our eternal fate. Throughout His ministry the enemy has repeatedly struck at Him such that He might avert this complete forfeiture of self and so compromise His mission; so compromise our Redemption (Mar 8:31-33, Luk 4:1-13, Jhn 6:14-15), but the fiercest blow the enemy would deliver in this attempt lay just ahead (Mat 27:39-43, Mat 27:46).

Death by crucifixion was intended to be a long, agonizing, humiliating death. Care was taken not to puncture any major arteries or organs at crucifixion so that the crucified might linger in anguish longer; some could last as long as five or six days. It was not uncommon that the crucified went mad in the process.

“There was no more terrible death than death by crucifixion. Even the Romans themselves regarded it with a shudder of horror. Cicero declared that it was ‘the most cruel and horrifying death.’ Tacitus said that it was a ‘despicable death.’ It was originally a Persian method of execution. It may have been used because, to the Persians, the earth was sacred, and they wished to avoid defiling it with the body of an evil-doer. So they nailed him to a cross and left him to die there, looking to the vultures and the carrion crows to complete the work. The Carthaginians took over crucifixion from the Persians; and the Romans learned it from the Carthaginians. […]

Crucifixion was never used as a method of execution in the homeland, but only in the provinces, and there only in the case of slaves. It was unthinkable that a Roman citizen should die such a death. Cicero says:

‘It is a crime for a Roman citizen to be bound; it is a worse crime for him to be beaten; it is well nigh parricide for him to be killed; what am I to say if he be killed on a cross? A nefarious action such as that is incapable of description by any word, for there is none fit to describe it.’

It was that death, the most dreaded in the ancient world, the death of slaves and criminals, that Jesus died […]

The routine of crucifixion was always the same, when the case had been heard and the criminal condemned, the judge uttered the fateful sentence: ‘Ibis ad crucem,’ ‘You will go to the cross.’ The verdict was carried out there and then. The condemned man was placed in the centre of a quaternion, a company of four Roman soldiers. His own cross was placed upon his shoulders. Scourging always preceded crucifixion and it is to be remembered how terrible scourging was. Often the criminal had to be lashed and goaded along the road, to keep him on his feet, as he staggered to the place of crucifixion. Before him walked an officer with a placard on which was written the crime for which he was to die and he was led through as many streets as possible on the way to execution. There was a double reason for that. There was the grim reason that as many as possible should see and take warning from his fate. But there was a merciful reason. The placard was carried before the condemned man and the long route was chosen, so that if anyone could still bear witness in his favour, he might come forward and do so. In such a case, the procession was halted and the case retried” (Barclay 250-251; cf. “Crucifixion”).

And so the Lamb of God that came to take away the sins of the world, and to bring in the Kingdom of Jehovah God, to bind and seize and purge the Kingdom of evil that laid claim to what is rightfully His, our Messiah-King and Champion and Savior, makes His way to that brutally wicked Messianic battlefield on our behalf. He goes there with great zeal—He is in no way compelled against His will—He has set His eyes on this enemy from the bowels of eternity past. He is fully prepared to engage this enemy. He is a fierce warrior—the fiercest. He accepts no alternative but complete victory; woe to His enemies, for they are about to be utterly defeated, and their place shall be found no more; such is the extent of the victory He brings in shortly. (Tab. 1: The Road to Golgotha).

L. Jesus’ Death-Friday

The Messianic battle is now in full rage—all of the evil forces that hell can muster—visible and invisible—are arrayed against our Champion. Of the agony of His body, His soul, His spirit, we cannot comprehend. But He does not come down from that Cross, for there are captives to set free, a Kingdom to reclaim. The fight must linger until Messiah has vanquished. Then, in the majesty of His divine nature, the God-man, in control like a King upon His throne, commands the time of His last breath, and as He releases it, He brings in with it the Kingdom work of His heel (Gen 3:15; “We Have You Yeshua”).

It is noteworthy that Jesus died after some six hours on the cross; He did not linger for days. Even Pilate seemed to be amazed that Jesus died so quickly (Mrk 15:44). The Gospel writers are very reserved in their communication of the physical details attending Jesus’ death. Some other points are related for our edification and encouragement. We are told that at His death the sun was darkened, the earth shook, and that tombs opened (Tab. 1: Events Attending Jesus’ Death). The point that interests us here particularly is the rending into two pieces of the temple curtain (veil) that separated the inner sanctuary from the outer (Mat 27:50-53, Mrk 15:37-38, Luk 23:44-46). Notice that these authors are agreed that the veil was rent, but not precisely so in relation to Jesus’ death. And it would seem that it is in keeping with the humility of God that He would place focus on open access to Himself (fellowship—love embraces He to us and back and forth consequent to our holiness in Christ), rather than on His death that made it possible, a seeming disparity to some of us maybe, but His thoughts are higher and nobler than ours. Now it is commonly understood that the significance of the rending of the veil into two pieces is that it signalizes the removal of the barrier that prevented access to Jehovah God as a consequence of sin. Jesus’ death removed that barrier (Eph 2:13, Hbr 6:19, Hbr 10:19-22), and that is what Redemption is all about (“A Letter of Invitation”). The rending of the veil, in one succinct picture, completely symbolizes the end goal of God’s entire redemptive program, and the sequence of Matthew and Mark (see just above) shows this death of Messiah-access to God connection very well. Luke too, in his own way, does precisely the same.

There can be little doubt that the activity attending our Champion’s death signalized His complete victory—the very nature blinked and shook, captives were freed, barriers were rent, and access to Jehovah God was now shown to be wide open—His Kingdom had prevailed. We suppose this was heaven’s way of assuring those of His day, before His resurrection, that their Messiah-King had won the battle that raged during those long six hours when He was on the cross (Tab. 1: First three Hours on the Cross, Last Three Hours on the Cross). After the fact, we/they realize/d the same through the Resurrection—in this way each group of believers is being/was graciously consoled and encouraged.

M. Jesus’ Burial-Friday, Evening

“If a man has committed a sin worthy of death and he is put to death, and you hang him on a tree, his corpse shall not hang all night on the tree, but you shall surely bury him on the same day (for he who is hanged is accursed of God), so that you do not defile your land which the LORD your God gives you as an inheritance” (Deu 21:22-23 NASB).

“On this occasion it was even more important that the bodies should not be allowed to hang on the crosses overnight, because the next day was the Sabbath, and the very special Sabbath of the Passover […]

So Jesus died, and what had to be done now must be done quickly for the Sabbath was almost begun and on the Sabbath no work could be done. The friends of Jesus were poor and could not have given him a fitting burial; but two people came forward. Joseph of Arimathaea was one. He had always been a disciple of Jesus; he was a great man and a member of the Sanhedrin, and up to now he kept his discipleship secret for he was afraid to make it known. Nicodemus was the other. It was the Jewish custom to wrap the bodies in linen clothes and to put sweet spices between the folds of the linen. Nicodemus brought enough spice for the burial of a king. So Joseph gave to Jesus a tomb; and Nicodemus gave him the clothes to wear within the tomb” (Barclay 261-63).

If Jesus died at 3 p.m., that means that Joseph of Arimathaea and Nicodemus had approximately three hours to see Pilate, request the body, remove it from the cross, and prepare it for burial (assuming a sunset [~6:00 p.m.] start for the Sabbath). It is near sure that Jesus’ burial was hasty. What Joseph and Nicodemus did was probably cleanse the body, wrap it in linen, roughly embalm it, and place it in the tomb. Now it was the intent of the women who had followed Jesus to see to a proper burial, but with the Sabbath at hand and no work now allowed, they simply prepared the spices and ointments that they were going to use to embalm Him, and then waited for the Sabbath to pass, intending to come back early the next day to do it (Tab. 1: The Burial of Jesus)..

N. The Resurrection-Easter Sunday, Dawn

It was the women, who had kept vigilance, who had persevered in their faith in and love for our blessed Messiah-King, upon returning to the tomb on the day after the Sabbath, that first encountered the risen Jesus Christ. All four gospels agree that He was physically raised from the dead on Sunday, the first day of the week. It is recorded that He manifested Himself alive to His disciples many times during the forty-day period leading up to His ascension into heaven (Act 1:3).

After the Resurrection the disciples were a changed group. Imagine, from their vantage point, the despair of the Crucifixion—their beloved Messiah was dead—and all their hopes and dreams had been pinned on Him. Furthermore, He had died humiliatingly; they were now the laughingstocks of Jerusalem. And what of all the things He had told them about life, and death, and the Kingdom? Were they believable? Were those really miracles that they saw Him perform or not? But imagine now, after they had some time to dwell on these things, the rush of courage, and confidence, and faith, and joy, and renewed hope, that Jesus’ appearance must have engendered in their souls. A comparative analysis of their demeanor before and after makes it clear that they were never the same again. On their reinvigorated backs, then, the Holy Spirit built a Church—some two-billion strong, by today’s poll, at least.⁶ Taken together with the other primary-source evidence to the event, the fact of the Resurrection is hardly deniable.

“The importance of the Resurrection as a crucial element in the faith of the early church is indisputable. For Paul it was more than a mystical event in the realm of faith; it was an objective fact without which one’s whole faith would be useless [1Cr 15:14] ” (Niswonger 175). (Tab. 1: The Women Watch, The Women Visit the Tomb).

We end our discussion of Holy Week here, though there are volumes left unsaid…

V. Concluding Comments

We began the study by discussing how the Passion Narrative probably came together first and then became the foundation for the gospels proper; this we said was so because Jesus’ life could not be understood without considering His destiny, which destiny is embodied by His Passion. In this way the gospels were likely conceived from “back to front,” that is, from Jesus’ death back to His birth. We said that the Passion Narratives are solid historically, and that each likely contains in it a pastoral perspective that is unique to it, and is largely a function of the spiritual needs of the writer’s readership—we believe that the Holy Spirit was in this way addressing these needs, and the spiritual needs of countless others quite apart from the Gospel writers’ readership in time and location.

We discussed the major themes of Jesus’ teaching during His final week on earth. We pointed out that there were largely two dominant themes: Jesus warned the disciples and the people at large about the hypocrisy and evil of the Jewish religious leaders, and He predicted events that were imminent and distant, in sundry discourses.

We talked about the role of Judaism in the unfolding of the events of Holy week. We related that conflict with the religious establishment had begun already in Galilee, with the Pharisees mainly; it followed Jesus in His travels from Galilee to Jerusalem (still largely Pharisaic resistance), and then it intensified greatly in Jerusalem, in the domain of the Sadducees—who had sufficient power with Rome to bring about our Savior’s death.

We pointed out that Jerusalem, at Passover season, was like a powder keg–history conclusively shows that the slightest spark could ignite bloody revolution, and the temple complex, especially the outer courts region, was often the staging area in that regard. At Passover one can rightly imagine a Jerusalem that is teeming with a Jewish population up to fivefold, maybe more, the usual level, largely disgruntled with the Roman Eagle, and reminiscing about miraculous deliverance by God, particularly at the first Passover, and no doubt at the time of the Maccabees.

We discussed the events of Holy week next. The Triumphal Entry was discussed over against the messianic expectations within Judaism at that time; we pointed out that it was never Jesus’ intention to establish an earthly throne, but that many onlookers probably mistook His processional entry as being a Davidic, (mundane) messianic claim. The Cleansing of the Temple—which which took place in the dangerous outer courts region, where messianic revolution usually started, disrupted the big business that had taken root there; we suggested that this was a particularly perturbing event to the Jewish religious authorities, who made a good living off the financial dealings that took place there (esp. the house of Annas). Jesus said the place had become ‘a den of thieves,’ and so He cleansed it in deference to our Father, and no doubt to establish a holy precedent. A day of encounters followed wherein Jesus was hounded and pressed by the religious leaders through sundry questions that belied an innocent religious and political curiosity; Jesus faced, and utterly confounded their tactics in a display of sheer genius. He did this in the heat and dust of conflict, “on the fly,” so to speak. A day of prayer and rest probably came next, followed by the day of Passover Observance where our blessed Jesus instituted the Lord’s Supper. From this point up to the Resurrection the events take on a tragic nature. The Agony in Gethsemane followed the Last Supper; then Jesus’ Arrest and Trial before Caiaphas. We pointed out that this incredibly speedy trial violated Jewish Law by being conducted at night—this thought presupposes that Mishnaic mandate as being in force in the first-century AD; one cannot be absolutely sure about that. We said that in the course of the trial the truncated assembly of the Sanhedrin had found false witnesses that contradicted themselves and that the case they had against Jesus was therefore defunct. As such, we related how Caiaphas deftly resorted to asking Jesus a twofold question that had in it the components he needed to have Jesus both executed at the hands of Rome, and, not only induce a capital conviction under Judaic Law, but also garner support from the Jewish populace at large and holdout Pharisees. That is, he asked Jesus if He was the Messiah and the Son of God. We pointed out that if Jesus had simply not answered He could have probably eventually walked out of the house since the case against Him was defunct (He knew He could have delayed until the morning when the full Sanhedrin would have been involved—not that entire body was anti-Jesus). We said that Jesus not only answered the question, but He answered it with a strong affirmative (consistent with the unfolding of His destiny). In essence He said, in no uncertain terms, ‘I indeed, I am’ ( the Messiah and the Son of God). This then gave the religious leaders a case to present before Rome, who alone could execute Jesus. We discussed Jesus’ appearance before Pilate and pointed out that Pilate found Jesus innocent of the charges the Sanhedrin brought against Him, but that in the end he gave in to the pressure of the Jewish crowd and religious leaders, who resolutely demanded Jesus’ execution. We discussed Jesus’ crucifixion, and some of the events that attended His death. We discussed Jesus’ burial at the hands of Joseph of Arimathaea and Nicodemus, and said that His burial was probably a hasty one due to the onset of the Sabbath. We pointed out how the women that attended to Jesus throughout His ministry remained faithful to Him, and were courageous in the tough last days and hours of His life, not deserting Him. We pointed out that it was these women, who had determined to give our Savior a proper burial after the Sabbath, that first encountered the risen, living, Jesus Christ.