31. Matthew 21: Entering Jerusalem

The Entry (Mt.21:1-10)

Jesus’ strategy now takes a quantum leap forward. The conflict brewing throughout his ministry with the Jewish religious leadership reaches full boil. He provokes it with a piece of strategic  messianic street theater we’ve come to call, rather ironically, the Triumphal Entry. 

But strategy is hand in glove with scriptural fulfilment here. No surprise in that with Matthew. Jesus moves according to the Father’s will. The essential props come first. Jesus sends out two disciples to fetch his ride. And this ride resonates not only with the explicit text Matthew provides but implicitly with other Old Testament texts that speak to Jesus’ identity. The props Jesus wants are a donkey and a colt (v.2). The prophecy from Zech.9:9 foretells this: a royal arrival for the people, a king humble riding on a donkey and a colt. Now donkeys are not highly thought of in our time and place but in that time they were royal steeds (cf. Judg.10:4; 12:14; 1 Sam.9:1-5; 2 Sam.18:9; 1 Ki.1:32-40). Not to bear the king in time of war but rather in time of peace. Further, “(d)onkeys are unclean animals, representing Gentiles; Jesus rides into the city of the Jews with a symbolic demonstration that He is the master also of the nations.”[1] Jesus is announcing himself as the king of Abrahamic Israel!

An implicit scriptural allusion confirms this:

“Jesus intends to allude to Jacob’s blessing to his son Judah designated him as the royal tribe, the tribe of the scepter and the ruler’s staff, and then he adds, ‘He ties his foal to the vine, and his donkey’s colt to the choice vine; He washes his garments in wine, and his robes in the blood of grapes’ (Gen. 49:8-12). When Jesus’ disciples find a donkey tied, they know that they are finding it for the seed of Judah, the king, the one with the scepter. The donkey itself is a sign of kingship.”[2]

Matthew’s mention of both a donkey and a colt, which he alone has, creates some confusion for us. Where did this second animal come from? I assume Matthew does not intend us to imagine Jesus somehow balanced on two beasts turning his entry into some kind of vaudeville act. Some have proposed a historical answer: “Matthew alone mentions two animals (cf. Mark 11:4, 7; Luke 19:33, 35), which adds a touch of historical reminiscence. An unbroken young colt would be controlled best by having its mother ride alongside to calm it in the midst of the tumult of entering Jerusalem.”[3] This is not impossible but I’m inclined to think Matthew was thinking biblically, typologically, and styles Jesus’ entry to Jerusalem in accord with the texts cited above. He wants to tell us that Israel’s king, Abrahamic Israel’s sovereign, comes in peace to his people. In anticipation of the unfathomable mysteries of the week ahead and his Father’s promise that in and through it “all righteousness” will be fulfilled (3:15).

The donkey is procured. Jesus enters Jerusalem accompanied by the Hosannas of the crowds on their cloaks and palm branches spread on the ground before them (vv.8-9). With spread cloaks the people had welcomed an earlier monarch (2 Ki.9:13). And with palm branches the people had two centuries before welcomed the hero who had defeated Israel’s Gentile oppressors and won Israel a century of independence, Judas Maccabeus.[4]   The “Son of David,” the promised Davidic royal, is coming to take up his rule.

Jesus’ “triumphal” entry is matched the beginning of this Passover week by another royal procession. The memories of Exodus celebrated at this time stirred national memories of God’s great deliverance of his people from Egypt. Above all other times their fervor stoked by these dangerous memories might tempt the people to revolt against their Roman overlords and Jewish collaborators. So the Roman governor would enter Jerusalem at this time in full pomp and circumstance with his troops as a powerful object lesson in the folly of any imagined revolt.[5]

Picture it. Jesus and his crowds staging a royal entry to Jerusalem couched in symbols and imagery of his subversive kingdom movement while at the same time Pilate and his court and troops arrive in full royal might and splendor, the very definition of kingdom by worldly standards. The former comes bearing only a divine promise of victory but no other signs, symbols, or evidences to suggest that victory. The latter arrives with all marks of royalty and rule prepared to enforce that rule by whatever means necessary.

No wonder Matthew tells us “When (Jesus) entered Jerusalem, the whole city was in turmoil” (v.10). And he was a major cause of it!

Jesus Enters and Leaves the Temple (Mt.21:11-17)

When a ruler visited cities under his rule he would be greeted by a crowd acclaiming him upon entry and would proceed first to the temple to sanctify that reign by the gods of that place. Jesus has entered Jerusalem as a conquering ruler (though not uncontested as we have seen) and proceeds on to the temple. But he is not there to seek validation from the temple, its leaders, or even its God (the God that sponsored the temple’s regime and practice).

Instead, Jesus enacts a piece of street theater designed to announce the temple’s judgment and destruction. He is “cleansing” the temple as this scene is popularly titled. It’s not as though it needs a divine “maid service” to give it a floor-to-ceiling spiffing up. No, its need an extreme makeover, and that makeover has just arrived in person. The greater than this temple is present; the old one is no longer needed. Even had it faithfully performed its services to God, its end was to cease and cede its role as the meeting place of God and his people to the temple-in-person, Emmanuel, “God with us.” The temple has not performed its services faithfully, though, so Jesus’ coming to it is fraught with judgment.

It’s the temple as a whole in all its functions Jesus finds fault with and judges unworthy. He is not protesting the unjust economic practices connected with buying and selling sacrificial animals. If so he would not have driven out buyers, the “victims” of the injustice as well as the supposed “victimizers,” the sellers. Such financial interactions were necessary and mandated in the Pentateuch (Dt.14:22-27). No, it’s the whole functioning of the temple’s sacrificial ministry he effects as a sign that it service to God has come to an end – an end in judgment because it so-called service has been a massive disservice.

N. T. Wright is correct:

“It isn't the buying, selling and money-changing he's objecting to in itself. When he says, 'You've made it a brigands' lair', (“den of robbers, NRSV) the word brigand doesn't mean a thief. 'Brigands' were revolutionaries, people who believed so strongly in God's coming kingdom of justice and triumph for Israel they were prepared to take the law into their own hands. They were the violent ones Jesus had commented on earlier in the gospel (11.12). The Temple itself, instead of being regarded as the place where Israel could come to God in prayer, had come to stand for the violent longings of the 'brigands' for a great revolution in which the kingdom of God would come by force. It was everything Jesus had opposed throughout his lifetime, not least in the Sermon on the Mount. Now his warnings against 'the house' were to come true.”

By disrupting the sacrificial system Jesus symbolically announce the end of temple’s rationale for existence. It no longer was the site where forgiveness was to found. Jesus’ counter-temple movement we noted earlier is taking on a deeper and more profound reality here. The temple cannot be “cleaned up” and made serviceable anymore. Because it’s appointed run is at an end with Jesus’ coming. And it points to the end even in its disobedience as he announces prophetic judgment against it for serving other ideologies about Israel’s identity and vocation than the one it was intended to serve. The temple is now toast! And Rome will be the broiler that makes it such with the present generation.

Is Jesus being violent here? I don’t think so. He is certainly performing an aggressive prophetic action not unlike some Old Testament prophets. But he is not uncontrollably angry lashing out at others. This is a part of his strategy (mentioned earlier) to provoke the authorities to action against him. They already were scheming to put him to death (12:14). Jesus is exercising his sovereignty in setting the terms of his inevitable demise. He does fashion himself a whip but there is no indication in the texts that it was used on either humans or animals. The sharp crack of a whip in the air is usually sufficient to get people moving. And apparently it was so with this crowd.

Jesus so-called “triumphal entry” set the stage for this last week of his life. It posed him and his oddly paradoxical way of ruling against Rome and those Jews who collaborated with Rome. His temple action set him against traditional Judaism which deeply revered the temple and its significance.    

Yet some, the wounded and outsiders, flocked to Jesus there in the temple. He heals them and they acclaim him “Son of David” there in the temple. These acts of power and their affirmation by the crowds, buttressed by Matthew with another Old Testament text, further angered those who had already decided to kill Jesus. These provocations in the temple surely sealed his fate in the near term. Jesus seems to know this and departs the temple for Bethany where he spends the night (v.17).

Israel’s God has returned to the temple. His glory departed at the time of the exile (Ez.10:18) and had never returned, even when the temple was rebuilt after the return from Babylon. Until now. And it has been rejected. Sparks are about to fly!

Jesus and a Fig Tree (Mt.21:18-22)

The next morning on his way into the city Jesus was hungry and wanted some figs from a fig tree they passed by. On inspection, the however, the tree had nothing but leaves. No fruit. Jesus seems to lose his cool at this point and curses the fig tree: “May no fruit ever come from you again!” And it immediately withered” (v.19). What happened to the fig tree, the disciples wonder. Not an unreasonable question it seems. Jesus’ answer, however, is even more befuddling than usual. He tells them they will do this kind of thing too. And, even more astonishingly, if they tell “this mountain” to throw itself into the sea, it will! (v.21). Prayer and faith are what is required (v.22).

Let’s unpack this a bit. Leithart gets us started:

Fig trees are signs of Israel’s peace and prosperity. The Lord brings Israel into a land of vineyards and groves and fig trees. The land that flows with milk and honey is a land of fig trees. During the height of Israel’s prosperity, each Israelite had his own vineyard and his own fig tree (1 Kings 4). Israel lived under the sign of plenty and peace. Picking up on this Solomonic imagery, the prophets often describe the desolation of Israel as the withering of the vine and the fig tree (cf. Deut. 8:8; 1 Kings 4:25; Jer. 5:17; 8:13), a curse falling on Solomonic peace. Jesus is the Lord of the land, the Lord of Israel. Israel has the land only by His favor, and they owe Him fruit. When He comes to collect fruit, there is none. Israel has become a fruitless people, capable only of producing Adamic fig leaves (Gen. 3:7). Jesus curses the fig tree as He will curse the Jewish leaders (Matthew 23).”[6]

Another prophetic sign, then, this barren fig tree, points to the reality of Israel’s fate in its response to Jesus.

More astounding still, Jesus promises his disciples that if they pray for the judgment on “this mountain, the temple mount, that is, pray according to the will of Jesus and of God, what they ask will come to fruition. Jerusalem will be judged! Wright summarizes aptly:

“Suddenly, therefore, the lines of Jesus' work all through the earlier days in Galilee come together with a new force. All along he'd been acting as if you could get, by coming to him, the blessings you'd normally get by going to the Temple. Now he is declaring, in powerful actions, that the Temple itself is

under God's judgment. We shall see in the following chapters what this will mean. The warnings become clearer still. The head-on conflict between Jesus and the Temple reaches its climax in the confrontation between the prophet from Galilee and the Temple's own ruler, the high priest.”[7]

Now the battle has been joined in earnest and enters its final phase as Jesus once again enters the temple.

Jesus vs. the Jewish Religious Leaders (Mt.21:23-46)

“By What Authority” (Mt.21:23-27)

Authority is always at issue in conflicts between groups. And it’s the same here. Jesus has ridden into town, done what amounts to claiming to be the Messiah, and drawn a goodly array of followers from among the people. Why does he think and act this way? That’s what the chief priests and elders want to know. Or more realistically, they want to find something to condemn him with or destroy his reputation with the people. So they ask about his authority for what he says and does.

Jesus says he’ll answer them under one condition: if they tell him what authority John the Baptist operated on – heavenly or some other kind (vv.24-25). Now Jesus has them between a rock and a hard place, and they know it. Say “heavenly” and Jesus will ask why then don’t you believe me; say “human” and the people who respect John as a God-appointed prophet will turn on them. They decide to be noncommittal and Jesus responds in kind (v.27). They did not answer him so he will not answer them. Fair enough!

The Parable of the Two Sons (Mt.21:28-32)

Jesus follows up with a story condemning the religious leaders. Imagine two sons, he says. One refuses to go and work the vineyard as his father asks. The second son agrees to go and do the job. The first relents and goes and does the job. The second son defaults on his commitment to do it. “Which of the two did the will of his father?” Jesus asks. The leaders give the right answer, “the first” and Jesus brings the hammer down on them. Prostitutes and tax-collectors, the “first son,” he declares will go into the kingdom of ahead of the religious leaders, the “second son.”

The former believed John and heeded his call, the latter did not. And even when they saw how the “first son” changed his mind (repented) and did God’s will, the “second son” did not. Thus they stand condemned. 

The Parable of the Landowner and the Tenants (Mt.21:33-44)

I agree with Leithart that this parable is about the temple and its leadership. He lays it out like this:

“This is possibly a parable specifically about the temple, the vineyard of the Lord, and the tenants are specifically the priests who take care of the vineyard, vineyard growers. In Jesus’ telling, Yahweh lent Israel a kingdom and a land, and expected Israel’s leaders to produce fruit in it. But when Yahweh sent servants, the prophets, to collect the fruit, the tenants of the vineyard refused and abused the servants. When the son, Jesus, arrives, the tenants – the leaders of Israel – plan to kill Him. The result is that the kingdom/vineyard is taken from the leaders of Israel and given to another nation, the church (21:43). When Jesus asks what the vineyard owner should do, the listeners stretch their imaginations to think of appropriate tortures. It is not enough to bring the  vineyard owners to an end; the vineyard will be taken and given to another people. It is another parabolic trap, as Jesus, like Nathan before David, leads them to judge themselves (21:41). The Jewish leaders go away and ironically fulfill the parable by making plans to seize Jesus, but they still fear the crowd (21:46; cf. v. 26).”[8]

Some object to the harsh punishment meted out by the landowner to the tenants that it reflects unworthily on God. This seems to me an unwarranted moralizing. If we allow the following scriptural citation from Jesus to determine our interpretation of the parable as Jesus does we will see that matter in a different light.

Jesus quotes Psa.118:22-23 for his interpretation of this parable. In it a stone features large, indeed the cornerstone rejected by the builders which has become, in the marvelous wisdom and power of God, the indispensable stone in the building (the temple). And that building signifies the presence and power of God in an ultimate way.

There’s another story in the Old Testament about a stone deeply etched in the nation’s memory (Dan.2). Daniel interpreted a dream presented to him by King Nebuchadnezzar of Babylon. It’s a dream that haunted the king and no one could interpret it for him. Daniel could and did when brought into the kind. In this dream four successive empires are presented made of different and increasingly inferior metals – gold, silver, bronze, and iron (mixed with clay). Babylon is the gold kingdom and the others follow it. But after these will come a stone. This stone will smash the feet of the iron/clay empire. It will become an empire itself, a mountainous empire. “A new sort of kingdom, ruling the whole world in a new sort of way,”[9] as Wright puts it.

This stone in Christian interpretation is obviously Jesus as he is obviously the stone become cornerstone in Psa.118. The two images coalesce in early Christian imagination. When Jesus uses them here he intends us to see the cornerstone as the stone of God’s kingdom which crushes all opposition. But the manner of that crushing is given a paradoxical twist by its identification with Jesus. This Christological connection, I submit, saves the action of the landowner from the violence some find in it by interpreting it through the peculiar saving work of Jesus the stone.

Conclusion (Mt.21:45-46)

The Jewish religious leadership takes in all these parables of Jesus. They get his point that they are in deep do-do with God and don’t like it at all. This only intensifies they opposition to him. But they stop short of arresting him for fear of his popular support among the people.  

---

[1] Leithart, The Gospel of Matthew: 2117.

[2] Leithart, The Gospel of Matthew: 2112-2117.

[3] Wilkins, Matthew: 4447.

[4] Wright, Matthew for Everyone: 86.

[5] Marcus J. Borg and Dominic Crossan, The Last Week: What the Gospels Really Teach About Jesus's Final Days in Jerusalem (HarperOne, 2007).

[6] Leithart, The Gospel of Matthew: 2266-2272.

[7] Wright, Matthew for Everyone: 73.

[8] Leithart, The Gospel of Matthew: 2633-2642.

[9] Wright, Matthew for Everyone: 79.