BOOK IV St. Mark xiv. 41 a 6 For he was essentially dishonest, a thief,' and covetousness was the underlying master-passion of his soul. The money, claimed for the poor, would only have been used by himself. Yet such was his pretence of righteousness, such his influence as a man of prudence' among the disciples, and such their sad weakness, that they, or at least some,' expressed indignation among themselves and against her who had done the deed of love, which, when viewed in the sublimeness of a faith, that accepted and prepared for the death of a Saviour Whom she so loved, and to Whom this last, the best service she could, was to be devoted, would for ever cause her to be thought of as an example of loving. There is something inexpressibly sad, yet so patient, gentle, and tender in Christ's Let her alone.' Surely, never could there be waste in ministry of love to Him! Nay, there is unspeakable pathos in what He says of His near Burying, as if He would still their souls in view of it. That He, Who was ever of the poor and with them, Who for our sakes became poor, that through His poverty we might be made rich, should have to plead for a last service of love to Himself, and for Mary, and as against a Judas, seems, indeed, the depth of self-abasement. Yet, even so, has this falsely-spoken plea for the poor become a real plea, since He has left us this, as it were, as His last charge, and that by His own Death, that we have the poor always with us. And so do even the words of covetous dishonesty become, when passing across Him, transformed into the command of charity, and the breath of hell is changed into the summer-warmth of the Church's constant service to Christ in the ministry to His poor. Book V. THE CROSS AND THE CROWN. 'Ave, scala peccatorum, Qua ascendit rex cœlorum, Ut mundum redimeret.' Ap. DANIEL, Thes. Hymnol. vol. v. p. 183. The blessing from the cloud that showers, In wondrous twofold birth Of heaven is and earth He is both yours, ye hosts, and ours: For victory is won! He left us with a blessing here, Hosannah, David's Son, For victory is won!' (From an Ascension Hymn).-A. E. CHRIST'S ENTRY INTO JERUSALEM. 363 CHAPTER I. THE FIRST DAY IN PASSION-WEEK-PALM-SUNDAY-THE ROYAL ENTRY INTO (St. Matt. xxi. 1-11; St. Mark xi. 1-11; St. Luke xix. 29-44; St. John xii. 12-19.) It is surely one of the strangest mistakes of modern criticism to regard this Entry of Christ into Jerusalem as implying that, fired by enthusiasm, He had for the moment expected that the people would receive Him as the Messiah. And it seems little, if at all better, when this Entry is described as an apparent concession to the fevered expectations of His disciples and the multitude. . . the grave, sad accommodation to thoughts other than His own to which the Teacher of new truths must often have recourse when He finds Himself misinterpreted by those who stand together on a lower level.' 2 'Apologies' are the weakness of 'Apologetics-and any 'accommodation' theory can have no place in the history of the Christ. On the contrary, we regard His Royal Entry into the Jerusalem of Prophecy and of the Crucifixion as an integral part of the history of Christ, which would not be complete, nor thoroughly consistent, without it. 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— So notably Keim. Of course, the theory proceeds on the assumption that the Discourses reported by St. Luke are spurious. 2 Dean Plumptre on St. Matt. xxi. 5. CHAP. BOOK V Friedm. p. 55, last lines; Sot. 45 a; Tos. Pes. 8 b and both the one and the other were in accordance with the prophecy of old. It was a bright day in early spring of the year 29, when the festive procession set out from the home at Bethany. There can be no reasonable doubt as to the locality of that hamlet (the modern El-Azariye, of Lazarus'), perched on a broken rocky plateau on the other side of Olivet. More difficulty attaches to the identification of Bethphage, which is associated with it, the place not being mentioned in the Old Testament, though repeatedly in Jewish writings. But, even so, there is a curious contradiction, since Bethphage is Siphré, ed. sometimes spoken of as distinct from Jerusalem," while at others it is described as, for ecclesiastical purposes, part of the City itself. Perhaps the name Bethphage-house of figs'—was given alike to Pes. 63b; that district generally, and to a little village close to Jerusalem where the district began. And this may explain the peculiar reference, in the Synoptic Gospels, to Bethphage (St. Matthew), and again to Bethphage and Bethany.' For, St. Matthew and St. Mark relate Christ's brief stay at Bethany and His anointing by Mary not in chronological order,2 but introduce it at a later period, as it were, in contrast to the betrayal of Judas. d Accordingly, they pass from the Miracles at Jericho immediately to the Royal Entry into Jerusalem-from Jericho to 'Bethphage,' or, more exactly, to 'Bethphage and Bethany,' leaving for the present unnoticed what had occurred in the latter hamlet. 91 a; Menach. 78b; Baba Mez. 90 a e St. Mark and St. Luke d St. Matt. xxvi. 6-13; St. Mark xiv. 3-9 Although all the four Evangelists relate Christ's Entry into Jerusalem, they seem to do so from different standpoints. The Synoptists accompany Him from Bethany, while St. John, in accordance with the general scheme of his narrative, seems to follow from Jerusalem that multitude which, on tidings of His approach, hastened to meet Him. Even this circumstance, as also the paucity of events recorded on that day, proves that it could not have been at early morning that Jesus left Bethany. Remembering, that it was the last morning of rest before the great contest, we may reverently think of much that may have passed in the Soul of Jesus and in the home of Bethany. And now He has left that peaceful resting-place. It was probably soon after His outset, that He sent the 'two Comp. St. disciples'-possibly Peter and John -into the village over against' Luke xxii. 8 See also Caspari, Chron. Geogr. Einl. p. 161. The question as to the proposed identification (by some) of Bethany with the Beth Hini, or Beth Hanioth, where the Sanhedrin (apparently of Sad е ducees) sat after leaving the Temple, and which was destroyed three years before the City, must be left here undiscussed. 2 St. Augustine has it, recapitulando dixerunt. |