Jesus’ Entry into Jerusalem, 1544 (Metropolitan Museum of Art)

Those that thronged around the Saviour on Sunday do not so much acclaim Him as they acclaim themselves.

ON this Palm Sunday, the profound reflections below by Fr. Edward Leen in Why the Cross? may help you better understand that day in history and challenge the common misconception that because Jesus was hailed by palm-waving crowds in Jerusalem he therefore had popular support. He did not have popular support then, he certainly does not have popular support now and he would never in all human history be accepted by the majority of the human race, not even by the majority of Christians.

From Fr. Leen’s book:

On the morning of the Sunday in the last week of His mortal life, Jesus entered Jerusalem amidst the enthusiastic acclamations of a multitude composed of citizens and strangers. His malignant enemies saw their snarling protests drowned in the tumult of rejoicing. They felt themselves to be like straws tossed helplessly on the swelling tide of popular favour on which the Nazarene was borne triumphantly. The Pharisees therefore said among themselves : ‘Do you see that we prevail nothing? Behold the whole world is gone after him.’ And yet, five days later, Jesus was hurried through the streets of the city of His triumph amidst the execrations of the multitude and the silent dismay of His friends. Such a sudden reversal in the fortunes of the prophet of Nazareth baffles human reason. Some explanation might be furnished by the ordinary laws of mob psychology, but the explanation is far from satisfying and, to a mind approaching the problem without prejudice, appears wholly inadequate.

[…]

Much has been made of the supposed devotedness of great numbers of the simple country people to the cause of the Saviour. The entry into Jerusalem is pointed to as the occasion on which this enthusiastic devotion overbore all opposition and had a free course. The mood of the populace is supposed to have undergone a complete change in the course of a few days, owing to the machinations and the skilful propaganda of the priests. It is undeniable that the Nazarene had some sincere and devoted followers, but they must have been comparatively few in numbers. They did not constitute the great throng that went out at the city gates, on the morning of Sunday, to welcome Him with loud acclamations and the waving of palms.

Looking at events as dictated by the dispositions of human souls, the execrations of Friday were not inconsistent with the acclamations of Sunday. The change in the attitude of the people presents no problem, for there was no change. Those that thronged around the Saviour on Sunday do not so much acclaim Him as they acclaim themselves. To be more accurate, they glorified, not the real Jesus of Nazareth, but a creation of their own earthly dreams and ambitions. “Hosanna to the Son of David,” they cried, “Blessed be the kingdom of our father David that cometh” They acknowledge Jesus as King, but as invested with a kingship which He abhorred and from which He shrank. They honoured Him, not for what He truly was, but for what their imaginations made Him. Their loyalty was offered not to Him Who had come and Who, at that moment, was riding into their city upon an ass and upon a colt, the foal of an ass, but to One Whom they falsely supposed Him to be and Whom they are yet expecting. There was a tragic irony in that triumph. The acclamations were in themselves just, and Holy Church has taken them for her own. The Jews uttered truths, in a certain sense unconsciously, but what their lips extolled was not the Person to Whom their applause was actually directed. They uttered truth and yet judged falsely. And the truth itself was falsehood on their lips.

Please follow and like us: