_TO JERUSALEM._
MATT xx. 17-xxi. 17.
I.--THE GOING UP (xx. 17-34).
We have now reached the last stage of the long and sorrowful journey
to Jerusalem. From the corresponding passage in the second Gospel we
learn that the disciples were greatly moved by something in their
Master's manner: "they were amazed; and as they followed, they were
afraid." It would appear, indeed, that they had considerable
hesitation in following at all, for it is pointedly mentioned that
"Jesus went before them," a hesitation which was no doubt due to the
same feeling which prompted Peter, on the first announcement of the
journey to Jerusalem and what it would involve, to say "Be it far from
Thee, Lord"; and as then, so now, the Saviour felt it as an obstacle
in His onward path which He must resolutely put out of the way; and it
was doubtless the new and severe effort required of that heroic will
to set it aside, and in doing so to face the gathering storm alone,
which explained His unwonted agitation as He addressed Himself to the
last stage of the fatal journey.
Still, He longs to have His disciples in sympathy with Him. He knows
well that not yet have they fully appreciated what He has said to
them; accordingly, at some convenient point on the way, He takes them
by themselves and tells them once again, more distinctly and
definitely than ever, what must be the issue of the step He is now
taking (vv. 17-19). St. Luke tells us that even yet "they understood
none of these things." Their minds must have been in a state of great
bewilderment; and when we think of this, we may well admire that
strong personal devotion to their Master which made them willing,
however reluctantly and hesitatingly, still to follow Him into the
dark unknown. With the one sad exception, they were thoroughly loyal
to their King; they trusted Him absolutely; and though they could not
understand why He should be mocked and scourged and crucified in His
own capital, they were willing to go with Him there, in the full
expectation that, in some way they then could not imagine, He should
triumph over his enemies and erect those thrones and bring in that
glory of the kingdom of which He had spoken.
This failure of theirs to comprehend the real situation, which one
Evangelist mentions, is well illustrated by an incident which happened
on the road as recorded by the others--one of those evidently
undesigned coincidences which continually meet us, and which, in a
higher degree than mere circumstantial agreements, confirm our faith
in the accuracy of the sacred writers. "Then came to Him the mother of
Zebedee's children with her sons, worshipping Him, and desiring a
certain thing of Him,"--the "certain thing," as it turned out, being
that the two sons should have the chief places of honour in the
kingdom. From the form in which the request was presented it would
seem as if it had been founded on a misapprehension of one of His own
sayings. In St. Mark's Gospel, where the part which the two sons
themselves had in it is related, the very words of the application
are given thus: "Master, we would that Thou shouldest do for us
whatsoever we shall desire," as if to remind Him of His promise to any
two of them who should agree as touching anything they should ask
(xviii. 19), and to claim the fulfilment of it. It need not be assumed
that the request was a purely selfish one. However vague their ideas
may have been as to the days of darkness that awaited them in
Jerusalem, we cannot suppose that they left them wholly out of view;
and if not, they must have been prepared, or have thought themselves
prepared, to take foremost places in the battlefield as well as in the
triumph that would surely follow. There may well have been, then, a
touch of chivalry along with the grosser motive which, it is to be
feared, was their main inspiration.
This makes it easier for us to understand the possibility of their
coming with such a request at such a time. We all know how easy it is
to justify a selfish proceeding when there is something to offset it.
We ourselves know how natural it is to think of those scriptures which
suit our purpose, while we conveniently forget for the moment those
that do not. Was it, then, unnatural that James and John, forgetting
for the moment what their Lord had taught them as to the way to true
greatness in His kingdom, should satisfy themselves with the thought
that they were at all events taking up their cross in the first place,
and as to the ulterior object were certainly acting up to the very
plain and emphatic word of the Master Himself: "I say unto you, that
if two of you shall agree on earth as touching anything that they
shall ask, it shall be done for them."
This view of their state of mind is confirmed by our Lord's way of
dealing with them. He first asks them what it is they have agreed
upon; and, when the mother tells Him, He quietly shows them that, so
far from agreeing together, none of them know what they are asking.
They are all using the same words, but the words might as well be in
an unknown tongue,--better perhaps, inasmuch as to misunderstand is a
degree worse than not to understand at all. He then proceeds to show
them that the fulfilment of their request would involve issues for
which as yet they were by no means prepared: "Jesus answered and said,
Ye know not what ye ask. Are ye able to drink of the cup that I shall
drink of?" Their answer confirms the view suggested, that they did not
leave out altogether the thought of cross-bearing; but we have only to
remember what took place in the course of a week to see that in saying
"We are able," they knew as little of what they were promising as they
had known of what they were asking. He will not, however, break the
bruised reed of their devotion, nor quench the feeblest spark of
self-denying courage; accordingly He does not slight their offer, but,
in accepting it, He reminds them that the honours of the kingdom of
heaven are not for favourites, or for those who may first apply, but
only for those who approve themselves worthy in the sight of Him Who
seeth all, and who rewards every man according to his deeds (ver. 23).
The ten were not much better than the two. It was natural, indeed,
that, when they heard it, they should be "moved with indignation";
but, though natural, it was not Christian. Had they remembered the
lesson of the little child, or even thought deeply enough of that very
recent one about the last and the first, they would have been moved
with something else than indignation. But need any one wonder that
selfishness should be so very hard to kill? Is it not true to nature?
Besides, the Spirit had not yet been given, and therefore we need not
wonder that even the plainest teaching of the Lord Himself failed to
cast the selfish spirit out of His disciples then. "_Knowledge_ comes,
but _wisdom_ lingers." On the other hand, think of the marvellous
patience of the Master. How disappointing it must have been at such a
time to see in all of them a spirit so wholly at variance with all
that by precept and example He had been labouring to instil into them!
Yet without one word of reproach He teaches them the old lesson once
again, gives them liberally the wisdom which they lack, and upbraids
them not.
The words of Christ not only meet the case most fully, but reach far
beyond the immediate occasion of their utterance. Thus He brings good
out of evil, and secures that even the strife of His disciples shall
make for "peace on earth." He begins by showing how absolutely in
contrast to the kingdoms of the world is the kingdom He has come to
establish. In them the great ones "lord it over" (R.V.) others; in it
the great ones are those who serve. What a revolution of thought is
involved in this simple contrast! of how much that is great and noble
has it been the seed! The dignity of labour, the royalty of service,
the pettiness of selfish ambition, the majesty of self-sacrificing
love; the utter condemnation of the miserable maxim "Every man for
himself"; the world's first question "What shall we have?" made the
last, and its last question "What shall we give?" made the very
first,--such are some of the fruits which have grown from the seed our
Lord planted in so ungenial soil that day. We are, alas, still very
far from realising that great ideal; but ever since that day, as an
ideal, it has never been quite out of sight. Early Christianity under
the guidance of the apostles strove, though with all too little
success, to realise it; the chivalry of the middle ages, with its
glorification of knighthood,[16] was an attempt to embody it; and what
is the constitutionalism of modern times but the development of the
principle in political life, the real power being vested not in the
titular monarch, who represents ideally the general weal, but in a
_ministry_, so designated to mark the fact that their special function
is to minister or serve, the highest position in the realm bearing the
humble title of _Prime Minister_, or first servant of the state. It is
of value to have the principle before us as an ideal, even though it
be buried under the tombstone of a name, the significance of which is
forgotten; but when the kingdom of heaven shall be fully established
on the earth, the ideal will be realised, not in political life only,
but all through society. If only the ambition to serve our generation
according to the will of God were to become universal, then would
God's kingdom come and His will be done on earth even as it is in
heaven.
Of this great principle of the heavenly kingdom the King Himself is
the highest illustration: "even as the Son of man came not to be
ministered unto, but to minister, and to give His life a ransom for
many." There are those who write about "the service of man" as if the
thought of it were a development of nineteenth-century enlightenment;
but there it is in all its truth and grandeur in the life, and above
all in the death, of our Lord and Saviour Jesus Christ! His entire
life was devoted to the service of man; and His death was but the
giving up in one final act of surrender what had all along been
consecrated to the same high and holy ministry.
These closing words of the great lesson are memorable, not only as
setting before us the highest exemplification of the law of service,
which as "Son of Man" Christ gave to the world; but as presenting the
first intimation of the purpose of the great sacrifice He was about to
offer at Jerusalem. Again and again He had told the disciples that it
was necessary; but now for the first time does He give them an idea
why it was necessary. It is too soon, indeed, to give a full
explanation; it will be time enough to unfold the doctrine of
atonement after the atonement has been actually made. Meantime He
makes it plain that, while His whole life was a life of ministering as
distinguished from being ministered unto, the supreme service He had
come to render was the giving of His life as a ransom, something to be
rendered up as a price which must be paid to redeem His people. It is
plain from this way of putting it, that He viewed the giving up of His
life as the means by which alone He could save the "many" who should,
as His redeemed or ransomed ones, constitute His kingdom.
* * * * *
On the way to Jerusalem lay the beautiful city of Jericho. The place
now called by that name is such a wretched assemblage of miserable
hovels that it is difficult for the traveller to realise that the
Jericho of the days of our Lord was not only the most luxurious place
of resort in Palestine, but one that might vie with its fashionable
rivals throughout the Roman Empire. Since the days of Herod the Great
it had been the winter residence of the Court. Jerusalem being on the
cold hilltop, it was convenient to have within easy reach a warm and
sheltered spot in the deep valley of the Jordan; and with a delightful
winter climate and a rich and fertile soil, Jericho needed only the
lavish expenditure of money to make it into "a little Paradise," as
Josephus calls it. With its gardens of roses and groves of palm, it
was, even before the time of Herod, so beautiful a place, that, as a
gem of the East, Antony bestowed it on Cleopatra as an expression of
his devotion; after it passed into the hands of Herod, a theatre was
erected and an amphitheatre, and many other noble and costly
buildings; and during the season it was thronged by the rich and the
great of the land, among whom would be distinguished visitors from
foreign parts. What effect would all this grandeur have on Christ and
His disciples as they passed through it on their way to Jerusalem? We
are not told. Two things only are noted as worthy of record: the
salvation of a rich publican (Luke xix. 1-10), and the healing of two
poor blind men. Not the gardens and palaces of the city, but its sins
and sorrows, engage the Saviour's thoughts and occupy His time.
As a rule, we regard it as waste of time to deal with the
"discrepancies" between the different Evangelists; but as one of the
most serious of them all has been found here, it may be well to look
at it, to see how much, or how little, it amounts to. First, the other
Gospels speak of the cure of a blind man, and tell his name,
Bartimæus; this one says that two blind men were cured, and does not
mention any name. If the other Evangelists had said that only one was
healed, there would have been a real discrepancy; but they do not.
Another "discrepancy" which has been noticed is that St. Matthew says
Christ "touched their eyes," while the others do not mention the
touch, but only tell us what He said; but surely there is no
difficulty in supposing that Christ both touched the eyes and spoke
the words at the same time. It is true that the words as recorded by
St. Mark and St. Luke are not identical, but they are precisely to the
same effect; and it is quite possible that every word which both of
them report was actually said, and that other words besides were
spoken which have not been preserved.
These differences are not discrepancies at all; but there remains one
which may fairly enough be so characterised. The first and second
Gospels represent the cure as taking place on the way into Jericho;
the third puts it on the way out.
Various suppositions, more or less plausible, especially less, have
been made to "reconcile" these two representations: such as the fact
that there were really two Jerichos, the old and the new, the cure
being wrought as the Saviour passed from the one to the other, so that
both accounts would be strictly accurate; or again, that cures may
have been wrought both in entering and in leaving Jericho. But why
should we trouble ourselves to reconcile so small a difference? It is
not of the slightest consequence whether the cure took place on the
way in or on the way out. If it had been a point on which strict
accuracy was essential, care would doubtless have been taken to note
the very moment and the very spot where it took place--as, for
example, in the case of the cure of the nobleman's son at Capernaum
(John iv. 52); but it was not; and therefore we have no more reason to
wonder at the variation in so unimportant a detail than at those
variations from the accurate text which we continually find in the
quotations from the Old Testament Scriptures. The discrepancy does
not in the slightest degree affect the credibility of any of the
witnesses; it only serves, together with the other variations, to show
the independence of the different accounts. How small must be the
minds, or how strong the prejudices, of those who find support for
their unbelief in discrepancies of which this is acknowledged to be
one of the gravest examples!
It so happens, too, that there is no story in all the Gospels which
shines more lustrously in its own light. It is full of beauty and
pathos in all the versions of it which have come down to us; but most
of all in the graphic story of St. Mark, to whose Gospel therefore its
illustration may be regarded as belonging by special right.
II.--THE ROYAL ENTRY (xxi. 1-17).
Travelling from Jericho, it is probable that our Lord reached Bethany
on the evening of Friday, a week before His crucifixion. The next day,
being the Jewish Sabbath, He would spend in retirement, probably in
the house of Lazarus, whom a short time before He had raised from the
dead. The following day, the first day of the week, would therefore be
the date of His entry into Jerusalem as the Royal Son of David, come
to claim His kingdom.
That this entrance into the capital is a most important event in the
history of Jesus is evident not only from its nature and consequences,
but also from the fact that it is one which all the four Evangelists
record. Indeed, it is just at this point that the four narratives
converge. The river of the water of life, which "was parted and became
four heads" diverging at times in their course, now unites its waters
in one channel broad and deep; and all the four Evangelists, though
in different accents still, and with variation in the selection of
details, combine to tell the same wondrous story of our Saviour's
passion, the story of "the decease which He should accomplish at
Jerusalem."
This was the first occasion on which our Lord distinctly put forth His
claim to royalty. From the beginning of His ministry He had shown
Himself to be a "prophet mighty in word and in deed," and to those who
followed Him it became manifest that He was the Prophet foretold by
Moses, for whose coming they had been taught to look with eager eyes
(see Deut. xviii. 15-19). From the beginning of His ministry, too, the
Saviour had been proclaiming "the gospel of the kingdom"; but when we
examine carefully all He says about it, we find that He never
expressly asserts that He Himself is King. Not that He conceals the
all-important truth: He speaks of the kingdom in such a way that those
who have ears to hear may learn that He is King Himself--as, for
instance, when He says, "Suffer the little children to come unto Me,
and forbid them not: for of such is the kingdom of heaven." One might
quite readily infer from these words that Jesus Himself was King; but
the claim is not thereby formally made. Besides, not only is it true
that up to this time He did not formally assume the royal title, but
He even resisted attempts made to thrust it upon Him (_e.g._, John vi.
15). For this refusal to be crowned by the multitude there was only
too good reason. Their ideas of royalty were entirely different from
His. Had He allowed Himself to be borne on the tide of popular favour
to royal honours, His kingdom would have been thereby marked as "of
this world," it would have been stamped as something very different
from the kingdom of "righteousness and peace and joy in the Holy
Ghost" He had come to establish. Had He been a mere enthusiast, He
would undoubtedly have yielded to such a tidal wave of public
excitement; but His unerring wisdom taught Him that He must reach His
throne by another path than that of popular favour. Rather must it be
through popular rejection--through the dark portals of despite and
death; and for that, His hour had not then come.
Now it has come. He has been steadily advancing to Jerusalem for the
very purpose of accomplishing that decease which is to be the portal
of His royalty. Already fully revealed as Prophet, He is about to be
made "perfect through suffering" as our great High Priest. It is time,
therefore, that He reveal Himself as King, so that no one may have it
afterwards to say that He never really claimed the throne of His
father David.
How, then, shall He assert His right? Shall a herald be sent to
proclaim with the sound of a trumpet that Jesus of Nazareth is King
over Israel in Jerusalem? To take such a course would be to court
misunderstanding. It would be to raise the standard of revolt against
the Romans. It would stir the city in a very different fashion from
that in which the Prince of Peace would have it stirred. It would be
the signal for tumult, bloodshed, and disastrous war. The ordinary
method is evidently not to be thought of. How, then, shall it be done?
Our Lord is never at a loss for means to accomplish His designs in His
own way, which is always the best. He sends to a neighbouring village
for a young ass, mounts it, and rides into the city. That is all He
does. Not a word said about royalty, no herald, no trumpeter, no
proclamation, no royal pomp, nothing whatever to rouse the Roman
jealousy or ire--nothing but the very ordinary circumstance of a man
riding into the city on an ass's colt, a mode of conveyance not in
itself calculated to attract any special notice. What was there, then,
in such an act to secure the end? Nothing in itself; but a great deal
when taken in connection with a remarkable prophecy in the Book of
Zechariah well known to every Jew, and much in the thoughts of all who
were looking for the promised Messiah. It is true, indeed, that an
ordinary man might have done the same thing and the people have taken
no notice of him. But Jesus had become the object of very great
interest and attention to large numbers of the people on account of
the miracles He had been working--notably that great miracle which
still stirred the minds of the whole community, the raising of Lazarus
from the dead. The chief priests and scribes, indeed, and the men of
influence in Jerusalem, regarded Him with all the greater rancour on
account of His miracles of mercy, and they had been specially
embittered against Him since the raising of Lazarus; but it was
different with the body of the people, especially those who had come
or were coming from Galilee and other distant parts of the land to be
present at the great Paschal feast. We are told by St. John that a
large number of these had gone out the day before to Bethany, both to
see Lazarus, who was naturally an object of curiosity, and also to see
Jesus Himself; these accordingly were precisely in the state of mind
in which they would most readily catch up the idea so naturally
suggested by the significant act of our Saviour's riding into the city
of David on a colt the foal of an ass. The result, accordingly, was
as had been intended, and is thus described by our Evangelist; "The
most part of the multitude spread their garments in the way; and
others cut branches from the trees and spread them in the way. And the
multitudes that went before Him, and that followed, cried, saying,
Hosanna to the Son of David; Blessed is He that cometh in the name of
the Lord; Hosanna in the highest" (R.V.).
The excellence of the method adopted by our Saviour to set forth His
royal claims will still further appear when we consider that it arose
quite naturally out of the circumstances in which He was placed. So
much was this the case that some have thought He was taken by
surprise, that He had no intention of calling forth the testimony of
the people to His royal claims, that in fact He was only giving way to
a movement He could not well resist; but this shallow view is plainly
set aside, not only by what has been already advanced, but also by the
answer He gives to the Pharisees who ask him to rebuke and silence His
disciples: "I tell you that if these should hold their peace, the
stones would immediately cry out" (Luke xix. 39, 40).
Not only did the means adopted by our Lord rise naturally out of the
circumstances in which He and His followers were placed, but they were
specially suited to suggest important truths concerning the kingdom He
claimed as His own. We have already seen that, if He had entered the
city in regal pomp and splendour, it would have conveyed an entirely
false idea of the kingdom. The method He did adopt was such as to give
a true idea of it.
First, it strikingly suggested the kingliness of lowliness, which, as
we have seen, was one of its great distinctive principles. As we look
back over His recent instructions to His disciples, we see how very
much this thought was in His heart and how great was the importance He
attached to it. He had just taught them that the Son of man had come,
not to be ministered unto, but to minister and to give His life a
ransom for many; and His manner of entering into His capital must be
in harmony with the lowly, self-renouncing work He has come to do.
Thus He shows in the most impressive way that His kingdom is not of
this world. There is no suggestion of rivalry with Cæsar; yet to those
who look beneath the surface He is manifestly more of a king than any
Cæsar. He has knowledge of everything without a spy (ver. 2); He has
power over men without a soldier (ver. 3); He has simply to say "The
Lord hath need," and immediately His royal will is loyally fulfilled.
Evidently He has the mind of a King and the will of a King; has He not
also the heart of a King, of a true Shepherd of the people? See how He
bears the burden of their future on His heart, a burden which weighs
so heavily upon Him that He cannot restrain His tears (Luke xix.
41-44). There is no kingly state; but was not His a kingly soul, Who
in such humble guise rode into Jerusalem that day?
Not less than lowliness, is peace suggested as characteristic of His
kingdom. First by the manner of His entrance; for while the horse and
the chariot were suggestive of war, the ass was the symbol of peace.
And then, the prophecy is one of peace. Immediately after the words
quoted by the Evangelist there follows this remarkable promise: "I
will cut off the chariot from Ephraim, and the horse from Jerusalem,
and the battle bow shall be cut off; and He shall speak peace unto
the heathen; and His dominion shall be from sea even to sea, and from
the river even to the ends of the earth." It would seem, indeed, that
some at least in the multitude realised that through the Messiah was
to be expected a deeper peace than that between man and man. This
deeper peace may have been suggested to their minds by the words
following next in the prophecy, which goes on to speak of prisoners of
hope rescued from the pit, and turning to the stronghold; or by the
Psalm from which their cry "Hosanna in the highest" was taken (Ps.
cxviii.); certain it is that their minds did rise to a higher
conception of the work of the Messiah than they had given token of
before; for the cry of some of them at least was "Peace in heaven, and
glory in the highest" (Luke xix. 38). A striking proof this, of the
fitness of His manner of entering into His capital to suggest the
purest, highest and best thoughts concerning the kingdom which He
claimed as His own.
As Jerusalem was the city of the great King, the Temple was His house,
His royal palace, and accordingly He enters it and takes possession in
His Father's name. We are told by St. Mark that "when He had looked
round about upon all things, it being now eventide, He went out unto
Bethany with the twelve." But St. Matthew, who is accustomed to pay
more attention to the logical than to the exact chronological sequence
of events, proceeds at once to relate the purging of the Temple, which
really took place the following day, but which was so plainly the
natural sequel of His royal entrance that he very properly gives it in
close connection therewith. Besides, what the King did on entering the
Temple the next day admirably illustrates the prophecy. For what
saith the prophet? "Behold thy King cometh unto thee: He is just, and
having salvation." "He is _just_,"--therefore He will not tolerate the
unholy traffic in the Temple, but "cast out all them that sold and
bought in the Temple, and overthrew the tables of the money-changers
and the seats of them that sold the doves; and He saith unto them, My
house shall be called a house of prayer; but ye make it a den of
robbers" (R.V.): "_and having salvation_"--accordingly, when He sees
the blind and the lame in the Temple He does not turn them out, He
does not turn away from them, "He healed them." The casting out of the
traders illustrated the _righteousness_ of the kingdom, the healing of
the blind and lame, its _peace_, and the shouts of the children which
followed, its _joy_.
This coming of the King to His capital has been familiarly spoken of
as "the triumphal entry." The term seems unfortunate and misleading.
The waving of palms, the strewing of branches and leaves, the
spreading of garments on the way--all this gave it something of the
aspect of a triumph; but that it was no triumph none knew better than
the Man of Sorrows, Who was the centre of it all. There was certainly
no triumph in His heart that day. If you wish to look into His heart,
watch Him as He comes to the turn of the road where first the great
city bursts upon His sight. How it glitters in the sun, its palaces
and towers gleaming in the splendour of the day, its magnificent
Temple, which had taken nearly half a century to build, rearing its
stately head high above all, into the glorious heaven--a city and a
temple for a king to be proud of, especially when seen through waving
palm branches held in the hands of a rejoicing throng who shout
"Hosanna to the Son of David, Hosanna in the highest!" Surely His
soul must be thrilled with jubilant emotion!
Ah! but look at Him: look at Him closely. Go up to Him, near enough to
see His face and hear what He is saying. Is He jubilant? His eyes are
wet with tears; and with tears in His voice He is speaking "the
saddest words of tongue or pen": O Jerusalem, "if thou hadst known,
even thou, at least in this thy day, the things which belong unto thy
peace! but now they are hid from thine eyes. For the days shall come
upon thee, that thine enemies shall cast a trench about thee, and
compass thee round, and keep thee in on every side, and shall lay thee
even with the ground, and thy children within thee; and they shall not
leave in thee one stone upon another; because thou knewest not the
time of thy visitation." Ah! well the Man of Sorrows knew what all
that shouting and rejoicing were worth; not even for a moment was He
misled by it; no less certainly now, when the plaudits of the
multitudes were ringing around Him, than when He had been on the way
going up to Jerusalem, did He know that, though He was the rightful
King, He should receive no king's welcome, but should suffer many
things and die. He knew that it was to no royal palace, but to the
bitter cross, He was advancing, as He rode down Olivet, across the
Kedron, and up to the city of David. Yet it is not the thought of His
own cross that draws the tears from His eyes; it is the thought of the
woes impending over those whom He has come to save, but who will have
none of Him. O the depth of divine love in these self-forgetful tears!
One thrill of joy the day had for the King of sorrows. It was His
welcome from the children. The plaudits of the multitude He seems to
have received in silence. Why should He be moved by _hosannas_ from
the lips of those who, as soon as they shall find out what manner of
King He is, will cry "Away with Him"? But the hosannas of the children
are genuine music to His soul. The little ones at least are true.
There is no guile in their spirits. "Of such is the kingdom of
heaven." It is most touching to observe how lovingly the heart of the
Saviour goes out to the little ones at this most trying time. The
climax of pathos in His lament over Jerusalem is reached when, after
speaking of the fate of the city, He adds, "and thy children within
thee"; and the same deep sympathy with the little ones is shown in the
answer He gives to the mean-spirited priests and scribes who were
moved with indignation and tried to silence their sweet voices: "Have
ye never read, Out of the mouth of babes and sucklings Thou hast
perfected praise?"
"And He left them, and went out of the city into Bethany, and He
lodged there,"--not in the house of Lazarus, we may be sure, or He
would not have "hungered" when in the morning He returned to the city
(ver. 18); no doubt under the open canopy of heaven, or at best under
some booth erected as a temporary shelter. What were His thoughts,
what His feelings, as He looked back on the day and forward to the
week?
[16] The knight was originally a _Knecht_ = a servant or slave.