Matthew 21

CHAPTER XXI

XVII

Christ Enters Jerusalem, His Last Teaching Ending with the Woes upon the Pharisees, Chapters 21–23

Matthew 21:1

1 This section of the Gospel is well marked, Jesus enters the city and the Temple, does his last public work there, and then departs (24:1, beginning the next section). From Jericho (20:29) we are without further remark transferred to the Mount of Olives to witness the royal entry into Jerusalem. And when they drew near to Jerusalem and came to Bethphage to the Mount of Olives, then Jesus sent two disciples, saying to them: Go into the village over against you and immediately you shall find an ass tied and a colt with her. Having loosed them, bring them to me. And if anyone shall say anything to you, you shall say, The Lord has need of them; and immediately he will send them. John materially supplements the accounts of the synoptists which he assumes are well known to his readers.

From him we learn that the day is the Sunday before Jesus’ death. While Jesus makes ready to ride into Jerusalem, the multitude of festival pilgrims, having heard of his coming, starts out to meet and to receive him (John 12:12). In v. 9 two multitudes are referred to: one that was with Jesus, and another that went out to meet him. John makes this point clear. From him we also learn that the enthusiasm grew so high because of the raising of Lazarus and that, after spending the Sabbath in Bethany, Jesus started from this village for his entry into the city.

Judging from the way in which Mark and Luke combine Bethphage and Bethany, the two were close together, the former lying in the direction toward Jerusalem. All trace of Bethphage has disappeared, but Bethany is still known; it lies a little over the ridge and on the far side of Mount Olivet. Here Jesus paused.

Matthew 21:2

2 This time he will not walk but will ride into Jerusalem. No one knows which two of the disciples were sent to secure the necessary animal. They receive the most explicit orders. Bethphage is visible, right before them. All they need to do is to go in, and at once, without effort, they will find an ass tied (δεδεμένην, the perfect with its present implication: “having been and thus still being tied”) and a colt with her, also tied (Mark and Luke, who add that the colt had never been ridden). These animals the disciples are to untie and to bring to Jesus Mark tells us just where the animals were found.

Matthew 21:3

3 The disciples are further told just what to answer in case anyone says anything to them about their taking the animals. One word will be enough: “The Lord has need of them.” There will be no difficulty whatever. Mark and Luke add that this also happened, and that the owners at once let them have the use of the animals. We draw the obvious conclusion that these owners were very good friends of Jesus and of his disciples. Matthew alone tells us about the two asses, the dam and her colt. Here again he shows his independence.

Both animals are brought together, for neither would be content if they had been separated. Jesus rode the colt, the dam trotting by its side. The orders of Jesus to the disciples reveal his divine knowledge of which, as of his other divine powers, he makes such use as his work requires. Here especially, when fulfilling one of the remarkable prophecies concerning the Messiah, it was eminently fitting that his divine personality should reveal itself.

Matthew 21:4

4 Now this has occurred in order that it might be fulfilled what was spoken through the prophet saying:

Say you to the daughter of Zion,

Lo, thy King comes to thee,

Meek and riding upon an ass

And upon a colt, a son of a burden-beast.

The point to be noted is the fact that already here, when Jesus gives this order to the two disciples, Matthew makes the statement that the prophecy was fulfilled; he does not wait and say that it was fulfilled after v. 7, after Jesus mounted the colt and rode forward. This can have only one meaning, namely that Jesus himself knows and by his order proceeds to fulfill this prophecy. He did not fulfill it unconsciously in the way in which the Jews ignorantly fulfilled so many prophecies concerning him. Matthew employs the same formula that he used in 1:22 and repeated in 2:15, 17, 23; 8:17; 12:17, which see. The passive τὸῥηθέν points to God as the speaker, and διά makes the prophet his medium or mouthpiece. This is the Biblical doctrine of Inspiration—a fact, not a “theory.”

Matthew 21:5

5 The prophecy is quoted from Zech. 9:9. This begins with a jubilant tone: “Rejoice greatly, O daughter of Zion; shout, O daughter of Jerusalem!” For this jubilant call Matthew substitutes the more sober line: “Say you to the daughter of Zion,” which is taken from Isa. 62:11. The idea underlying the substitution seems to be the fact that, when the daughter of Zion is told who is coming, she will rejoice greatly. She certainly ought to rejoice. But it is necessary that she be told who this is that comes, for she does not recognize him as what he is nor the joy he brings to her. The substitution is interpretative. The Biblical writers refuse to quote mechanically, in slavish fashion. We shall see this a second time in what follows.

The great news is intended for “the daughter of Zion.” Matthew omits the synonymous term “daughter of Jerusalem”; the former alone answers his purpose. “Zion” seems to have been the name of the locality where Jerusalem was built and was then restricted to the highest eminence in the city. The Temple, however, was not erected on this high point but on the lower hill called Moriah. “The daughter of Zion” thus names the people according to the most prominent eminence which distinguished its capital. By a legitimate transfer this poetic title is now applied to the New Testament Israel, the Christian Church. “Lo” dramatically points to the figure of the Peace-King who is now most literally “coming to her.” Zion is to awake out of its indifference and its unbelief, and is to welcome this King. The great moment has at, last come.

“Thy King” is more than “the King destined for thee”: by his very birth as the Son of David he belongs to Zion (2 Sam. 7:12, etc.; Ps. 110:1, 2; Rom. 1:3). He is a King indeed, none is like him; he has a kingdom that is not of this world and lasts forever. “He comes,” ἔρχεται recalls one of his Messianic titles; ὁἑρχόμενος, “the One Coming.” In this verb “he comes” lies the thought of all that he brings. Hence “to thee” has the sense of “for thy benefit, for thy salvation.” The subjects of other kings humbly come to them, this King comes to his subjects. Other kings draw all that they have from their people, this King gives all that he has to his people. Luther writes: “He is a peculiar King: thou dost not seek him, he seeks thee; thou dost not find him; he finds thee; for the preachers come from him not from thee; their preaching comes from him not from thee; thy faith comes from him not from thee, and all that thy faith works in thee comes from him not from thee.”

Matthew omits Zechariah’s next line, but he scarcely does this because of its faulty translation in the LXX, which has crept into our A. V.; for Matthew could have given an independent translation of the Hebrew. This line is not: “He is righteous and having salvation,” but: “He is righteous (i.e., has God’s verdict in his favor) and experiences God’s rescue”; not σώζων, saving others, but σωζόμενος, himself saved or rescued (Isa. 53:8 a; Phil. 2:9). In Acts 3:14, 15 Peter calls Jesus “the Just or Righteous One” (Acts 7:52; 22:14), just as Zechariah had done, and points to God’s act of raising him from the dead, which is the rescue Jesus experienced. The Hebrew niphal nosha‘ is passive and not active like the hiphil. All this explains why Matthew omits this line.

It does not pertain to the royal entry into Jerusalem, it describes the resurrection and the exaltation of Jesus. The prophet saw all this together with the humble entry as one picture.

Here we see that the evangelists never quote mechanically and are not misled by wrong translations in the LXX; they quote with full use of intelligence. This line describes the Messiah’s relation to God, and Matthew is stressing his relation to Zion. God’s verdict in favor of Jesus which is declared by raising him from the dead as “One Rescued,” belongs after the royal entry and is not a part of this entry.

The same insight leads Matthew to retain the LXX translation πραΰς, “meek,” for the Hebrew ‘ani, “one who cannot resist” (C.-K. 964); he does not change it to πτωχός or ταπεινός. “The Messianic King appears in an unexpected form and conducts himself contrary to all expectation, not as one armed and exercising force, not panoplied and on a steed.” C.-K. 965. The claim that the Hebrew word for “meek,” sanftmuetig, is not ‘ani, but ‘anaw, is settled by Ed. Koenig, Heb. Woerterbuch, who accepts sanftmuetig as the proper rendering of Zech. 9:9 and of other passages, and regards it as closely synonymous with ‘anaw; and C.-K. defines the first as “one who cannot resist” (with force), and the second as “one who does not resist.” The very mission on which Jesus came excluded his use of force as he told Pilate in John 19:36, 37, and as he proved throughout his passion. He came to win men’s hearts with the truth not to coerce them with force.

This is symbolized by his riding into Jerusalem astride an ass. This animal is nothing but the common ass of the Orient, of which it has been well said: “The ass, the camel, and the woman are the burdenbearers.” All efforts to make the ass on which Jesus rode a very superior beast (Smith, Bible Dictionary, and others), one that has nothing to do with the meekness of Jesus, are unsatisfactory. Since the times of Solomon no king bestrode an ass. The Hebrew has “an ass and a colt of asses,” such as asses have. The LXX translates this: “on a burden-beast, a new colt,” and Matthew: “on a colt, son of a burden-beast.” Whatever other asses of superior type and breeding existed, the animal that Jesus used was entirely ordinary; nor would Bethphage have a man who owned very superior stock. Nor is the ass more peaceful than the horse, it is only far inferior. The idea of peace may, however, be added to this King’s meekness because asses were employed for the humble tasks that go with times of peace, horses especially in wartimes.

In his meekness the great Prince of Peace enters his capital riding only an ass. To call the colt “untamed” and thus to see in its use by Jesus a symbol of his power over nature, is fancy. The colt was gentle enough. When Luke 19:30 says that it had never been ridden he indicates that it was fitting for this King to use because it was not an old animal, on which others had ridden but one that was entirely new. The assertion that Zechariah had in mind only one animal: “an ass, namely a colt,” etc., but that Matthew understood him to have two asses in mind: the colt plus the dam, is unwarranted, as Matthew’s own words show. The fact that Jesus rode only the colt is beyond question.

The fact is worth noting that the Jews referred Zechariah’s prophecy to the Messiah. All the evangelists report its literal fulfillment; Matthew and John quote the prophecy. This fulfillment would not have been so striking if Jesus had usually ridden about the country (like the good Samaritan, Luke 10:34) but he always went on foot until this time when, by his own orders, this beast was found for him. Yet, although it was so striking, the fulfillment of the prophecy was not at the time perceived even by the disciples (John 12:16), to say nothing of the Jews generally or of their rulers.

Matthew 21:6

6 And the disciples, having gone and done just as Jesus appointed them, brought the ass and the colt and put on them their robes, and he sat thereon. The two aorist participles report what the two disciples did in Bethphage according to Jesus’ orders. Mark records more details.

Matthew 21:7

7 Matthew writes “the disciples,” referring, of course, to the two sent to Bethphage. They are the ones that brought the animals. Because of the brevity of his account Matthew does not extend the subject when he says that “they put on him their ἱμάτια,” their long, loose outer robes. That he does not intend to restrict this action to the two disciples we see in the last clause ἐπάνωαὐτῶν, referring to the robes not to the two asses, even considered successively. Several of these thin, long robes were thrown over the back of the colt, and on these Jesus sat. Robes were thrown also over the dam, for the disciples did not at once know which of the two animals Jesus would use.

They did not ask. We may imagine that because of the crowd that came from Bethany with Jesus (John 12:9, 17) it was not convenient to ask. This act was spontaneous on the part of the disciples.

Matthew 21:8

8 And most of the multitude spread their own robes on the road, and others were cutting branches from the trees and were spreading them on the road. And the multitudes, those going before him and those following, kept shouting, saying: Hosanna, to the Son of David, blessed the One Coming in the Lord’s name! Hosanna in the highest! As Jesus starts to ride toward the city, the multitude, actuated by the same feeling that moved the disciples, make a carpet of their himatia and place them on the dusty road so that he may ride over them (cf., 2 Kings 9:13). This act is one of submission combined with the bestowal of the highest honor. Collectives such as ὄχλος may have a plural verb.

In fact, the multitude outdoes itself and exhausts its resources in its efforts to honor Jesus as its Messiah-King. The people cut branches from the trees and strew them on the road. But here Matthew turns to imperfects and drops the aorists; R. 838 says that the aorist lifts the curtain, and then the imperfects continue the play. They describe the scene as it progresses, they are like a moving picture.

John alone tells us that these were palm trees and palm branches. Palms have long ago disappeared from Olivet; in fact, the country has long ago been denuded of forests and of trees generally. All that the evangelists report is that the crowds made a path that was carpeted with their clothes and with palm branches. The fact that they also waved branches is possible although it is not stated. There is no need to refer to the custom of carrying a “lulab” or festive spray as was done at the time of the Feast of Tabernacles. On the character of palms see the author’s commentary on John 12:13.

Matthew 21:9

9 Matthew plainly distinguishes two sections of the crowds and even uses the plural ὄχλοι: one that preceded, and one that followed. We might suppose that this was just one multitude that was spread out along the road before and behind Jesus; but John gives us the information that there were two crowds: one had assembled in Bethany to see Jesus and Lazarus risen from the dead and had started to Jerusalem with him; the other came out from Jerusalem to meet him when it got word that he was coming. The crowd that met him was the one in front of him. But both crowds joined in the acclaim, “Hosanna,” etc. The words are from Ps. 118:25, 26, to which interpretative additions are made, some shouting one, some another expression (compare the different evangelists). Psalms 113–118 constituted the Hallel which was sung at the Passover when the festive procession was received by the priests; it was also sung in sections before and after the Passover meal (Mark 14:26).

The most distinctive part of the chant was “Hosanna,” three of the evangelists recording a transliteration of the Hebrew Hoshi’ah-nna’, schaffe Heil, “grant salvation” (“save now,” A. V.), reminding us of the nosha‘ used in v. 5. It is scarcely safe to assume that the people did not understand the real meaning of this expression although they seem to use it less like a prayer and more like a joyful acclamation, like our: “All hail!” The significant addition made by the multitude is the ethical dative: “to the Son of David” (see 20:30, 31). This title is both royal and Messianic. Some said, “the coming kingdom of our father David” (Mark); others, “the King coming,” etc. (Luke), or, “The King of Israel” (John). Here at last Jesus enters the great capital as the divinely prophesied Messiah-King and accepts the jubilant applause of the nation as it is represented in these great crowds of pilgrims who have come from all parts of the Jewish land. But the character of his kingship and royal rule is not made secular or political by any feature of this royal entry.

The words: “Blessed the One Coming in the Lord’s (Yahweh’s) name!” constitute a welcome. The perfect participle εὐλογημένος, “having been blessed,” has its usual present force, “having been and thus now still being blessed.” Ὁἐρχόμενος here, too, has its Messianic meaning, “the One Coming,” the promised Messiah. This is re-enforced by the phrase “in the Lord’s name.” The enthusiastic multitudes thus acclaim Jesus as being blessed by Jehovah, not merely with a verbal benediction, but, as Jehovah always blesses, with the gifts and the treasures implied in the benedictory words; and they acclaim him as coming and bringing all these blessings to them and to their capital and their nation. John shows what these crowds had in mind when he pictures how their enthusiasm was fired by the latest miracle of Jesus, that performed upon Lazarus, which was a climax to all his other deeds. “In the Lord’s name” does not mean “by the Lord’s authority”; for the ὄνομα is the divine revelation by which the Lord makes himself known (see 6:9).

“Hosannah” is repeated in the shouting with the added phrase “in the highest,” a neuter plural, ἐντοῖςὑψίστοις, which signifies the abode of God (R. 670) and resembles “out of the house of the Lord” which is found in the Psalm. The grammarians prefer to regard this ἐν as a locative (R. 525), the hosanna is to sound in heaven itself; but in its first and fundamental meaning ἐν signifies “in connection with,” hence here, “in connection with God’s abode.” It is just like the previous phrase, “in connection with Jehovah’s revelation.”

The full import of all that was done in connection with this entry of Jesus even the disciples did not realize until later as John 12:16 confesses. But this in no way reduces the action and the acclaim of the multitudes. It is fruitless to speculate on just what they had in mind when they used the words of the Psalm as they did. Whatever of wrong earthly expectation still clouded the vision of the “disciples” (Luke) and of the multitudes of pilgrims, this is certain, a holy enthusiasm caught their hearts on this Sunday, a wave of real spiritual feeling and joy, the direct product of “all the mighty works they had seen” (Luke), which moved them when thus welcoming Jesus to “praise God” (Luke). This helps us to understand why Jesus accepted this welcome and by his every act lent himself to this enthusiasm as he rode into the city as the King of Israel that he was.

Matthew 21:10

10 And when he came into Jerusalem, the whole city was stirred up (σείειν), saying, Who is this? But the multitudes kept saying, This is the prophet, Jesus, he from Nazareth of Galilee. His coming into the city in the remarkable manner just described caused this universal stir. The news spread far and wide, and those who had not witnessed the entry, wanted to know who this man was (οὗτος, a good example of the purely deictic use without a derogatory tone, R. 697).

Matthew 21:11

11 The ὄχλοι, the pilgrim multitudes that had accompanied Jesus (v. 9, this same plural), offer the correct information. They keep telling all questioners that the man whom they hailed as the Messiah-King is the well-known prophet (hence the article ὁπροφήτης) whose personal name is Jesus and who hails from Nazareth of Galilee. This reply sounds as though it was made by festival pilgrims from Galilee. We may note the tone of pride with which they name his home town. Most of the ministry of Jesus had, indeed, been devoted to Galilee, and these pilgrims from Galilee sum it up in the title “the prophet.” Perhaps they told of his wonderful teaching and of his astounding miracles.

Matthew 21:12

12 We take it that the entry took place in the late afternoon of Sunday, and that Jesus proceeded to the Temple but on this afternoon did nothing more than to look around “upon all things” going on in the Temple, presently retiring to Bethany with the Twelve, Mark 11:11. The next morning the incident with regard to the fig tree occurred, as Mark reports, and on Tuesday morning, when the tree was found dead, Jesus gave his explanation. In other words, Mark 11:13–26 reports the actual sequence of events. The cleansing of the Temple thus occurred on Monday morning after the cursing of the fig tree. Matthew’s account is sachlich (factual) instead of chronological. He thus combines into one paragraph all that pertains to the fig tree (v. 18–22) although this includes two mornings as the readers also will note.

In a similar way he places the royal entry and the authoritative cleansing of the Temple side by side since in both of these Jesus displays his Messianic greatness. Throughout his Gospel we meet this trait of Matthew’s that minor details are made subordinate or are even left out, and attention is focused on the main issues and subjects. Yet the supposition that therefore his chronology is loose as compared with that of the other evangelists, is unwarranted. We have seldom found that his attention to the subject matter makes him neglect the sequence of time; in fact, the other evangelists write more loosely in this regard than does Matthew. Yet here we have a case where the chronology is disregarded for an object that seems more important to the writer.

And Jesus entered into the Temple of God and threw out all those buying and selling in the Temple, and the tables of the money-changers he upset, and the seats of those selling the doves, and he says to them: It has been written, My house shall be called a House of Prayer; but you on your part are making it a robbers’ den. The cleansing of the Temple reported by John 2:13, etc., is not the same as the one reported by the synoptists. It is, therefore, unwarranted to assert that what John placed at the very beginning of Jesus’ ministry the synoptists placed at its very end, or that John put into the beginning what the others put at the end. The thesis that John corrects the synoptists is not acceptable. To be sure, the effect of the first cleansing was not lasting. Is anything needed to explain that fact beyond the hostility of the Sanhedrin toward Jesus?

So Jesus cleanses the Temple a second time. Both are Temple cleansings and thus resemble each other. But we should not overlook the differences, especially the greater ones. In connection with the first cleansing Jesus is at once confronted by the authorities, and his reply is made to them; in connection with the second cleansing no one dares to confront him and to challenge his act, and the word he utters is addressed only to the mob that he throws out. In connection with the first his word is first a rebuke and secondly a challenge; in connection with the second his word is a most scathing rebuke; in connection with the first Jesus uses words of his own, in connection with the second he quotes Scripture (even “robbers’ den” is a quotation). In connection with the first the disciples recall Ps. 69:9; in connection with the second they recall nothing.

On Monday morning Jesus returned to “the Temple of God.” Although τὸἱερόν is frequently mentioned in the New Testament, we never find τὸἱερόντοῦΘεοῦ, but here this unusual genitive is so appropriate for indicating the sacredness of the Temple that one is inclined to consider this genitive textually genuine in spite of the fact that important texts omit it. The ἱερόν refers to the Temple courts as distinguished from the ναός or Sanctuary proper into which only the officiating priests entered. Facing the Sanctuary and the court of the priests was first the court of the men and behind it the court of the women, and then came a large area, the court of the Gentiles, into which alone Gentiles were allowed to enter. In this extensive court of the Gentiles the present scene is enacted.

Cattle and doves were a necessity for the prescribed sacrifices but a poor excuse for making this great court of the Temple a stockyard. Places to change money were also needed; for a tax was collected from every Israelite who was twenty years old, Exod. 30:11–16. This was due during the month preceding the Passover (17:24, etc.) and was either sent in by those who lived at a distance or paid in person by those who attended the festival, who then, however, had to have Jewish coin, which fact compelled those who came from foreign parts to have their money exchanged. For this exchange a small fee was charged. But this necessity was no excuse for making the Temple a mart of petty bankers who were intent on business and rates of exchange. Moreover, the Temple authorities themselves controlled this volume of trade and in typical Jewish fashion operated what amounted to a grand lucrative monopoly. If one bought his animals here, had his money exchanged here, these would be accepted; otherwise he might have trouble on that score.

What all this did to the great Temple court may be imagined (cf. Farrar, The Life of Christ, 455, etc., quoted in the author’s commentary on John 12:14). Matthew, disregarding details, simply says that Jesus threw out all the sellers and the buyers—the latter as well as the former; and that added phrase, buyers and sellers “in the Temple,” points to their violation of its sacredness. The fact that the verb ἐξέβαλε is without a trace of gentleness is seen from Jesus’ upsetting of the little stool-like tables of the money-changers behind which they sat on the ground crosslegged. In a like manner he upset the benches of the sellers of doves. He most likely kicked these over.

Whether he again made a scourge no one knows. The κολλυβιστής is named from the κόλλυβος or small coin which he takes for making an exchange of coins. The picture of Jesus here presented does not please the tender souls who think only of “the gentle Jesus” without the holy, fiery indignation that makes him act as he here does. But read Mal. 3:3.

In connection with this second cleansing we note as little resistance as we observed in connection with the first. Yet at the time of the first cleansing Jesus came as one who was unknown, now he comes as the great Messiah-King who was acclaimed by the multitudes of festival pilgrims. The explanation of moral cowardice on the part of these transgressors is not satisfactory. Sin is often arrogant, especially when money is at stake. Were these sellers not within their legal rights, having duly paid for their concessions and doing business under the highest authorization? In regard to this second cleansing as in regard to the first only one explanation suffices: the Son of man wielded his divine authority.

But, it is asked, what good was this outward cleansing as long as the hearts were not cleansed? Let us at once say that, if the object of Jesus was only to stop this outward abuse, he would sink to the level of our modern reformers who try to mend the leaking ship by repairing the rigging. The question regarding this point may be misleading. Against flagrant abuse the law and the light and the knowledge men have must be applied. Nor is there a difference between the first and the second cleansings. Both are filled with the dire threat of the divine law.

Already at the time of the first cleansing Jesus tells the Sanhedrists that they will end by destroying their own Temple; and we need not ask how long God will tolerate a Temple that is called his House and yet is turned into a robbers’ den. What good is the law and its vindication on the part of God? It always vindicates God himself, his holiness, and his justice.

Matthew 21:13

13 No Temple police, no Sanhedrists hurry up to question the authority of Jesus as was done three years before. Did they know his authority by this time? With one word Jesus brands this desecration of the Temple: “It has been written (and thus stands forever, Isa. 56:7), My House shall be called a House of Prayer”; and to this he adds, “but you on your part (emphatic ὑμεῖς) are making it a robbers’ den,” the latter designation being quoted from Jer. 7:11. Here is the law “written” in their own Scriptures that tells them what Yahweh’s House was to be, what name it should bear; and here was the verdict on their crime, Jesus, their Judge, pronouncing it on these transgressors. This was to be God’s House where he might dwell among his people with his grace, and where they might enter into communion with him by means of prayer, προσευχή, often, as here, used in the wider sense of worship since prayer in some form is at the bottom of all true worship of the true God.

Matthew writes for former Jews and thus does not add the final phrase found in Isaiah; Mark, who writes for Gentile Christians, naturally adds it: a House of Prayer “for all nations.” That is why it contained this court of the Gentiles; and what a sight met the eyes of any visiting Gentile right here in this court? What must he think of a House whose greatest court was thus desecrated and of the God to whom such a House belonged?

When Jeremiah used the expression “robbers’ den” in the threat Yahweh commanded him to pronounce, he did not intend to say that the Jews robbed in the Temple. A robbers’ den is not used for robbing but as a refuge for robbers. Jer. 7:10 states that, after perpetrating the worst kind of wickedness, the Jews went to the Temple, thinking and saying, “We are delivered to do all these abominations,” i.e., we can go on in them as long as we have the Temple. Compare also v. 4. It was thus that they made the Temple a regular robbers’ den and refuge. That is exactly what the Jews are now repeating.

No matter what they do even by violating the sanctity of their Temple, they imagine that their adherence to this Temple will protect and shield them from any penalty. But no, God will not let his Temple serve as a refuge for robbers. The Temple will not protect the wicked who show right in the Temple how they regard the God of the Temple.

The church is no refuge for sinners who go on in their sin and think that they are safe when they go to the church; and certainly not for the sinners who support the church by desecrating the church and justify their desecration by crying, “It is for the church!” Jer. 7:12–15 declares what God would do with this Temple: he would destroy it even as he destroyed Shiloh for the same reason. So here the word of Jesus prepares us for 23:38 and 24:2, the same threat appears also in John 2:19.

Matthew 21:14

14 But the hour of doom had not yet struck; the work of grace continued to the very end; escape was possible even in the eleventh hour. Some at least might be led to escape. And there came to him blind and lame in the Temple (note the recurrence of this significant phrase), and he healed them. Matthew alone informs us regarding the miracles that were performed during the last days Jesus spent in the Temple. In the House of Prayer these sufferers prayed to Jesus, the Son in his Father’s House, and none of them prayed in vain.

Matthew 21:15

15 But when the high priests and the scribes saw the marvels which he did and the boys shouting in the Temple (again this phrase) and saying, Hosanna to the Son of David! they were indignant and said to him, Dost thou hear what these are saying? Not until this time did the Sanhedrists interfere with Jesus although they were determined to kill him. The high priests were members of the Sadducean family and connection of the ruling high priest Caiaphas, and the scribes were rabbis who were learned in the law and members of the Pharisaic party. “High priests and scribes” is a designation for the Sanhedrin, see 2:4. The “marvels” are the miracles Jesus performed and are called θαυμάσια only here, for that is the way they appeared to these Sanhedrists. These authorities saw the marvels and the effect these marvels had especially on the boys (παῖδες and not παιδία which means “children”) in the Temple courts. These were the lads who were twelve years old and over, who had come to Jerusalem as the boy Jesus had done at that age, for their first obligatory attendance at the Passover.

As boys are apt to do, they imitated what they had seen their elders do on the preceding day. In his famous picture of this scene the French painter Tissot depicts them as marching up and down the Temple courts in rows, with locked arms, shouting in unison what they had heard their elders shout the day before, “Hosanna to the Son of David!” They were voicing the praise of Jesus for the miracles he was performing here in the Temple.

Matthew 21:16

16 This was intolerable to the Sanhedrists, but their hands were tied. They dared not call out the Temple police to break up the demonstration the boys were making, and still less did they dare to assault Jesus. They knew what the multitudes of pilgrims filling the Temple courts would do. So they come to Jesus and ask him to stop this disorder of the boys, which he had caused by his wonderful deeds. We must catch the irony in this action as Matthew presents it. The most awful disorder of the buyers and the sellers, the stench of cattle, the bawling and the bleating, the haggling and the dickering, were quite acceptable to these priests and these scribes—there was money in it for them, but these innocent lads who were voicing the praise of Jesus and giving him the title which his great deeds demonstrated was his due, were intolerable to these men. Yet they venture to remonstrate only by implication. “Dost thou hear what these are saying?” Dost thou not see that this is improper here in the Temple?

But Jesus says to them: Certainly! Did you never read, Out of the mouth of babes and sucklings thou didst perfect praise? With his decisive ναί, “yes” or “certainly,” Jesus answers the accusing implication that these boys were doing something improper and that he were abetting them in the wrong. He places his fullest approval upon their shouting and their marching. He had come as the Son of David, the Messiah-King, and all who acclaimed him were doing exactly what he desired. And then Jesus seals his own approval by quoting that of God himself as stated in Ps. 8:2.

He answers question with question; but whereas he could begin with a mighty “yes,” they cannot begin at all. With disconcerting force he asks, “Did you never read” Ps. 8:2? You certainly act as though you had never even read this utterance of David’s.

God perfects praise (brings forth perfect praise) “out of the mouth of babes and sucklings.” This matches what Jesus said during his royal entry the day before when the Pharisees objected to the Hosanna shouting, Luke 19:40, that if the people would be silent, the stones would cry out. God will have the praise due him even if inanimate stones, inarticulate babes must offer it to the shame of men. We cannot agree with Delitzsch who says that ‘olel mean babes who are old enough to play, and yoneq sucklings of a similar age, since Hebrew mothers suckled their babes for about three years. The latter word would include not only babes who were nearing the end of their suckling age but equally those who had just been born. And the point which this interpretation makes is that all such babes—take them from birth until they are three years old, if you will—are as yet incapable of praising God. Others say that this praise comes from these babes and sucklings when they grow up to be like these boys in the Temple court, and then they obtain what seems an attractive thought to them: in these children Jesus sees the new Israel that leaves the unbelieving ways of its fathers and praises the Messiah in true faith.

These efforts seek to figure out how praise can be gotten out of the mouth of these babes. Delitzsch makes them old enough to lisp praise, the others go farther and say the praise is voiced when the babes have grown up. But neither the Psalm nor the use Jesus makes of it is concerned about this how, just as little as Jesus was concerned about how stones could be made to shout. All that Jesus says is that God will perfect praise for himself (note the middle), no matter how, if grown and intelligent men will not respond. The Sanhedrists considered these shouting boys as being too young to know what they were saying and doing. Jesus stuns these wise fellows by holding the passage from the Psalm before them which speaks of praise coming out of the mouth of babes and sucklings. When they are through with the Psalm let them talk about these boys and not until then.

The fact that this Psalm, as well as the rest of Scripture, makes room for infants in the kingdom, ought to be plain. They are intended for God who made them. The cooing of a babe glorifies its Maker as do the heaven and the earth, the moon and the stars and all the works of his fingers. What a blessed sight, then, when young boys, such as these in the Temple praise their God and Savior! It is all a lovely harmony. But the eyes of these Sanhedrists are blind, and their ears are deaf to it all.

The Hebrew has ‘oz, “founded strength,” which the LXX rendered, “perfected praise,” and which Jesus retained. Ed. Koenig calls this an abstract for a concrete and regards ‘oz in the Psalm as meaning maechtiger Chor. Hence the rendering of Matthew and of the LXX are not a mistranslation but one that is interpretative of the Psalmist’s meaning. The mighty chorus of these babes and sucklings rises like a bulwark before which the roarings of the Lord’s enemies sink to silence. Let men rave in their enmity, the very babes in their cradles reveal the Lord’s greatness and his glory.

Matthew 21:17

17 And having left them behind, he went on outside of the city to Bethany and passed the night (αὐλίζομαι) there. Jesus turned his back upon these Sanhedrists. Let them puzzle over these words (13:11, 12) One thing was plain even to them: Jesus used Ps. 8:2 as a reference to himself as God and as the God-Messiah, David’s Son, who was rightly being praised by the boys as well as by the multitudes on the day before.

Jesus spent the night “outside of the city” lest these Sanhedrists seek to effect his arrest. While he was sure that, until God sent his hour, no man could lay hands on him, he, nevertheless, never acted in a foolhardy fashion but always used proper caution. Jesus spent Sunday night in Bethany (Mark 11:11), also the succeeding night and many think that he spent these nights in the home of Lazarus. Where he spent the nights of Tuesday and of Wednesday no one knows. While the verb used often means to camp out in the open, it is also used for spending the night, which may then be done in some house.

Matthew 21:18

18 Now in the morning, returning to the city, he was hungry. This was not some indefinite morning of this week. Mark 11:11–13 does not permit the acceptance of such a view. It was Monday morning (see v. 12). The point we cannot explain from the records is the fact that Jesus was permitted to leave Bethany without having eaten breakfast. The supposition that he rose before daylight and slipped away for prayer is not acceptable. Even Mark who loves to add details states only the facts of his hunger.

Matthew 21:19

19 And having seen a fig tree by the road, he went to it and found nothing on it save leaves only; and he said to it, No more shall there be fruit from thee forever. And forthwith the fig tree withered. It should be noted that “by the road” (ἐπί is used in this sense, R. 603) indicates that this tree was ownerless; Jesus did not blast another man’s property. Some commentators think that εἷς means a “lone” tree (R. V. margin “single”) whereas this is only a substitute for the indefinite article; it is like our “a tree,” R. 674. But did Jesus not know that this tree had no fruit?

Sometimes all supernatural knowledge is denied to Jesus, but again he is expected to have and to apply such knowledge. Some say that he learns everything in the ordinary way, others that he ought to have extraordinary knowledge. We have already has occasion to note that Jesus used his divine power to know, just as he used his divine power to do, only when and where it was needed for his great mission.

The explanation of Trench that the act of Jesus by looking for fruit where he knew none was to be found, by leading men to think that he really expected fruit when he did not, was like telling a parable which is not an actual fact and yet is true in a higher sense because of the lesson it conveys, is not acceptable to all. A man’s acts are not parables, and Jesus never acted out parables. And here the parable (if one is pleased to use the term) is found not in this act of Jesus’ seeking fruit, but in the tree that has leaves but no fruit.

The fact that led Jesus rightfully to expect fruit was the full foliage of the tree, for Mark 11:13 writes: “Seeing a fig tree having leaves, he came, if haply he might find anything thereon.” If it had been without leaves, Jesus would not have gone to this tree; for the other fig trees were just sending out leaves, since, as Mark adds, “it was not the season of figs,” i.e., so early Here, then, was an exceptional fig tree that grew in so favored a spot that it already had full foliage and was far ahead of the other fig trees. Since in the spring the fig tree puts out its fruit first and lets its leaves gradually follow, the full foliage of this tree gave promise of fruit. Three crops of figs follow each other the early ones come in June, the second in August, and the third in December, these latter ones sometimes hang on the tree until spring. See the discussion on Mark in Smith’s Bible Dictionary.

Jesus was thoroughly disappointed, “he found nothing on it save leaves only,” not even green, unripe fruit, for this is what “leaves only” means. Jesus would not have blasted this tree if it had had even a little immature fruit. But here this tree with its grand foliage was nothing but empty pretense, and whereas it led one to expect that it might have at least a few figs that were fit to eat, it had absolutely nothing “save leaves only!” This lying tree did not make Jesus angry, nor did he curse it in his anger. The character of Jesus need not be defended against such a charge. His own words tell us why he cursed this tree. The subjunctive γένηται is volitive, R. 943; Jesus utters his will, and that will is done.

The tree withered παραχρῆμα, “forthwith.” This adverb does not mean: “right before the eyes of the disciples while they stood there and watched.” The tree dried up “from the roots,” and the disciples saw this fact the next morning, Mark 11:20, 21. Matthew indicates the interval of time only slightly and follows his constant practice of stressing the great essentials without weaving in a great deal of detail.

Matthew 21:20

20 And when the disciples saw it they marvelled, saying, How did the fig tree wither forthwith? This happened the next morning when Jesus again passed this tree on his way from Bethany, Mark 11:20. That is why we have the aorist ἰδόντες; if the tree had withered before the eyes of the disciples, the present participle would have been used. It was dark when Jesus and the disciples returned to Bethany on Monday night, so the condition of the tree was not noticed until Tuesday morning. What astonished the disciples was the fact that the tree had been struck dead by the word of Jesus and had died so suddenly. For all he had said was that it should never bear fruit anymore.

It was now dead and thus would never bear fruit. Hence their question is, not why, but how this happened. The answer is formulated accordingly.

Matthew 21:21

21 And Jesus answered and said to them: Amen, I say to you, If you have faith and do not doubt you shall do not only this of the fig tree but also, if to this mountain you shall say, Be thou taken up and cast into the sea, it shall be done. And all things whatsoever you shall ask in the prayer, believing, you shall receive. This explains how the tree was blasted so as not to bear fruit forever, it especially casts light on the phrase Jesus had used: εἰςτὸναἰῶνα, “for the eon,” in which the idea of death is suggested. The only thing that does not match the question exactly is the fact that Jesus speaks, not of what he has done, but, using what he has done as a basis, of what the disciples themselves shall most assuredly do although not of themselves but by the power they will receive from God through prayer. The weight of this answer is marked by the solemn introductory formula explained in 5:18.

The word about removing mountains has been explained in 17:20. Here only a few additional points need to be noticed. “Have faith” is made clearer by the negative, “and do not doubt.” The first verb is a present subjunctive, for to have faith is a continuous activity, the second verb is an aorist subjunctive, for the doubt deals with the single act regarding which hesitation occurs. For the moment the doubt blocks the faith and prevents the act faith should accomplish. The middle of διακρίνειν has the passive form in the aorist and really means “to be in conflict with oneself,” to hesitate and to waver, one thought pulling us in one direction, the other thought in the opposite direction: the act can be done (faith), it cannot be done (lack of faith). The blasting of the tree is made a small thing over against which a far greater impossibility is placed, the removal of a mountain, the sea swallowing it up completely. This word becomes more impressive when one has stood on this Mount of Olives.

From its ridges one is able to look right down into the Dead Sea 1, 292 feet below sea level. “The mountain” would disappear entirely in that deep depression. In the plain words of 17:20, “And nothing shall be impossible for you.”

Matthew 21:22

22 It should be noted that in v. 21 both ἄρθητι and βλήθητι are passives, “be thou taken up,” “be thou thrown.” The agent back of these passives is God. The disciples use only God’s power when they blast with judgment (the fig tree), and when they do the humanly Impossible (19:26). For this reason Jesus adds the promise given to prayer, in which αἰτεῖν is merely “to beg” something (used with reference to God or with reference to men), and προσευχή is the sacred word for prayer to God alone. The article points to the particular prayer involved in these special cases. On God’s part all is certain, but on our part this certainty must produce trust, πιστεύοντες, true reliance on that certainty. If doubt breaks this connection, insults God, instead of honoring him and his divine power, nothing will result.

But this is only the preliminary answer to the disciples. It shows only one part of what this miracle implies. The other part becomes evident in the following discourses, 21:23–22:14 and beyond. For it was at once obvious that a tree has no moral responsibility, and that Jesus used this tree merely for a higher end. It was similar to other illustrations in which trees were involved, cf., 7:17–20; 12:33; Luke 13:6–9; Joel 1:7; Ezek. 17:24; Ps. 1:3; Hos. 14:8; Num. 17:8. This fig tree made only a pretense at bearing fruit (leaves) and a great pretense at that. Men remove fruitless fruit trees.

This tree pictured unbelieving Judaism. Its withering because of the word of Jesus pictured the divine judgment that blasted this nation—Judaism stands blasted from the roots to this day. Read the agonized prayer for Israel in Isa. 63:7–64:12, and then the Lord’s answer of judgment on Israel in 65:3–7, and compare the author’s Old Testament Eisenach Selections, 118, etc. Jesus used a tree only for this one miracle of his which revealed the dreadful, deadly, and irrevocable divine judgment. As far as men were concerned, he had not come to judge them now (John 3:17), that would follow in due time (John 5:27, also the Baptist’s word with its imagery of the ax lying at the foot of the trees, Matt. 3:10)

Matthew 21:23

23 And when he came into the Temple there came to him, while teaching, the high priests and the elders of the people, saying, By what authority art thou doing these things, and who gave thee this authority? This occurred on Tuesday On the high priests see 2:4; on the elders 16:21 Mark and Luke add also the scribes. These two, however, would not be more exact than Matthew; for he seems to mention only the high priests and the elders because in this case the action was executive not legislative and thus not requiring the special function of the scribes although these, too, were present. Jesus was in the midst of his teaching, this is the force of the present participle. Luke makes this still stronger From Mark we learn that this important representation of the Sanhedrin did not interrupt Jesus in his teaching and preaching the gospel (Luke) but waited for a pause during which Jesus was walking around Then they came to him with all formality, but only to question him regarding his authority not to arrest him, not even to stop him in his work. When they had received their crushing answer they retired and attempted nothing further. The fact that they waited until Tuesday before challenging Jesus shows how these rulers feared the pilgrims who overflowed the city during these days (v. 26 and 46).

The form of their challenge is mild because it is a question. The two questions are really only one question, for “what” authority is made plain when the giver of this authority is named. The ἐξουσία is both the right and the power that goes with this right. “These things” implies more than the teaching, for any rabbi had the right to teach in the Temple or elsewhere. “These things” refer to the royal entry, the cleansing of the Temple, the whole bearing of Jesus, and his miracles. The challengers had always known that Jesus claimed authority from God, his Father. These men expect Jesus once more to assert that authority and are set on demanding the fullest proof from him that such, indeed, was his authority and are ready on their part to deny the validity of any proof Jesus might venture to offer. They had undoubtedly discussed the entire matter and had planned their procedure.

Yet we see that in three years they had not advanced a single step beyond the first challenge they made in John 2:18. Unbelief is really non-progressive.

Matthew 21:24

24 And Jesus answered and said to them, I, too, will inquire of you just one thing, which, if you tell me, I, too, will tell you by what authority I am doing these things. The baptism of John, whence was it? From heaven? or from men? The Sanhedrists knew the authority on which Jesus acted, but their one purpose was to deny him this authority, for to admit it was to accept Jesus as the Messiah, against which everything in them rebelled. But even under these conditions Jesus does not really refuse to declare to these Sanhedrists what he had declared and even proved all along. His counterquestion is not an evasion.

Jesus merely returns the question of the Sanhedrists to them by substituting John for himself. “Whence” and the two ἐκ denote origin, but origin is here authority: if “from heaven,” then John had divine authority; if “from men,” then his authority amounted to nothing. The authority of John and that of Jesus are identical. So Jesus says, “If you will answer me, I will answer you.” The right answer to the question about John was the right answer to the question about Jesus. A subtile irony is involved: these men ask of Jesus what they ought to know already from John’s activity. Hence the dignified verb ἐρωτᾶν. Jesus proceeds “to inquire”; see Trench, Synonyms, I, 195.

He is not asking for something that he needs to know, he is inquiring about something that he himself well knows. The idea of λόγονἕνα is “just one matter” and no more.

Matthew 21:25

25 “The baptism” sums up the essentials of John’s ministry, for which reason he is also called “the Baptist.” Here Jesus uses a deadly dilemma, a form of logic which caught the Sanhedrists on its two horns. The baptism of John was either from heaven or it was from men; it was either divine or not divine (only human) Tertium non datur A third possibility was excluded. The Sanhedrists are compelled to choose one of the two horns and thus to impale themselves. And they were reasoning with themselves, saying: If we say, From heaven! he will say to us, Why, then, did you not believe him? But if we say, From men! we are afraid of the multitude; for all hold John as a prophet. It was the unbelief of these Sanhedrists which caught them in this dilemma, unbelief and the type of immorality that goes with its defense.

They were not concerned about the truth regarding John, what was decisive for them were the consequences involved in the two possible answers they could give. They find themselves impaled by either answer Διατί asks for the reason, and they would certainly have none whatever to offer and would be self-condemned.

Matthew 21:26

26 On the other hand, the host of pilgrims attending the festival would condemn these Sanhedrists; for to assert that John’s baptism was from men openly denied that he was a prophet, and such a denial would inflame these pilgrims. To them John was a prophet, no matter how untrue they had been to his message and his baptism.

Matthew 21:27

27 They answered and said to Jesus, We do not know. They dared not take either horn of the dilemma. Their answer is the most pitiful and disgraceful surrender. They dodge the issue which no Jew dared to dodge. As Sanhedrists it was their supreme duty to know, and here they dare to say that they do not know. And to them said he, too, Neither do I say to you by what authority I am doing these things. The reply of Jesus implies that these Sanhedrists have refused to answer his question, deliberately refused as arrant cowards. Since the true answer to Jesus’ question is the true answer also to the question of the Sanhedrists, by refusing to give the one they refuse to receive the other; and so Jesus is compelled to refuse to offer it to them.

Matthew 21:28

28 While the Sanhedrists stand before Jesus with their defeat rankling in their wicked hearts, Jesus utters a simple, lucid parable that ends in a question that could be answered in only one way. He elicits this answer; and then by means of this answer exposes the wickedness of the unbelief of these Sanhedrists. It is done with perfect mastery, psychological and otherwise. And how does it seem to you? A man had two children. And having gone to the first, he said, Child, go work today in the vineyard. But he, answering, said, I will not! Yet afterwards, having regretted it, he went. And having gone to the second, he said likewise. And he, answering, said, I will, Lord! and he did not go. Which of the two did the will of his father?

The parable makes the whole scene objective and thus enables even these Sanhedrists to give an answer that is wholly objective, which they then also do without hesitation. The subjective application is entirely hidden; it will be made presently with tremendous effect. This was a perfect manner of penetrating through the unbelief and the hostility of these men, and it was so effective because it made them themselves state how wrong their own conduct was. Jesus is going to leave the whole matter to them, “And how does it seem to you?” or, “What do you think of it?” Compare 17:25; 18:12.

Here is a man who has two “children,” and he addresses each as “child.” This intends to bring out the idea that because they were born to their father, he held them dear, and, because they were his children, they should hold him dear. Fatherly and filial love is the bond between them, and this involves the most tender obligation on their part. This relation between the children and their father is the basis of what is here presented. The word υἱός, “son,” is far less tender, for it points more to the legal relation involved, while τέκνον points to affection as is so evident in 1 John 2:18; 3:7, 18; 4:4. We are “sons” by adoption, legally, but “children” by birth (1 John 5:4). The father goes to the one child with the kindly address, “child,” and bids this child, “Go, be working today in the vineyard,” the article meaning “my” vineyard.

No connective is needed between ὕπαγε and the next imperative. Work and vineyard is similarly connected in 20:1, etc.

God’s vineyard is an image that is frequently found in the Scriptures, and pictures his church on earth. That is why it is so fitting in this parable although no special use is made of the vineyard in this instance. The application which Jesus makes of the parable shows that “work” should here not be restricted to good works as distinct from faith. The father means, “Child, go show thyself as a child today by helping in my vineyard!” In the application Jesus speaks of those who “go into the kingdom,” and of those who “believed” John. So we must combine faith (John 6:40) and good works (John 15:8). This helps to explain “today.” Whenever it is called upon, a child of God should show its relation to God by its works of faith.

Matthew 21:29

29 The reply of this first child comes as a shock; it is blunt, rude, without a trace of respect: “I will not!” “He has dismissed even the hypocrisies with which others cloak their sins; cares not to say, like those invited guests, ‘I pray thee have me excused’; but flatly refuses to go.” Trench. Οὐθέλω—the will is wrong. In 23:37, “I willed,” ἠθέλησα, but “you willed not,” οὐκἠθελήσατε. But what happened? Later on this wicked child “regretted” his refusal, and while μεταμέλομαι is not as strong as μετανοεῖν, the sense is much the same. This is certainly not strange. Everything he knew about his “father,” about his own relation as a “child” of his father, and about his obligation toward that father, and about his unnatural and wicked action in treating his father as he had done, led him to regret his shameful course.

The same power of grace is today effective in all who know anything about their heavenly Father. So, a changed man, this child “went away” to the vineyard; now he was indeed a true child.

Matthew 21:30

30 The father speaks to the second child exactly as he had done to the first. He wanted both to work in his vineyard. The kingdom has room for all of us. One takes another’s place only when the former will not take his own place. Aequitas vocationis, Bengel. The call is no stronger in the case of the one than in the case of the other, so that neither may excuse himself by saying, “I would have come if the Father had asked me as he asked my brother.” The response is again astonishing: Ἐγώκύριε! an emphatic “I” with the implication, “to be sure” and the very respectful address, “lord.” The reply sounds as though this son at once turned and ran for the door, caught up spade and pruning hook from the wall, and rushed for the vineyard.

His readiness takes away our breath. That is, indeed, how we all ought to respond and never cease responding. Jesus does not add a third child, one that said “yes” and then worked as it should. He leaves it to us to supply this third child. But alas, the second child “went not.” His promise was false, his character is plain.

Matthew 21:31

31 When Jesus now asks, ‘Which of the two did his father’s will?” only one sane answer is possible. He says “did,” ἐποίησεν, and thus wants the answer to disregard what each child said. They say, The first. Jesus says to them: Amen, I say to you, that the publicans and the harlots are going into the kingdom of God ahead of you. For John came to you in the way of righteousness, and you did not believe him, but the publicans and the harlots did believe him; moreover, having seen it, you did not regret later on so that you believed him. By their ansswer the Sanhedrists condemn themselves.

So will every man who refuses to do the Father’s gracious will utter his own damning verdict. David did it before Nathan. The case against every transgressor, when it is viewed in the clear light of reality, will be so overwhelmingly simple and strong that he himself will do either what the Sanhedrists did here: damn himself with his own words, or what the foolish fellow did in another parable (22:12) remain dumb and thus damn himself.

All that Jesus needs to do is to draw the curtain aside and to show these Sanhedrists what their answer says concerning themselves. He begins with the solemn formula of verity and authority (see 5:18). With this he, first of all, seals the undeniable fact that the publicans (see 9:9) and the harlots, the two most despised classes of open sinners, are actually going into the kingdom ahead of the Sanhedrists, the highest men among the Jews, to whom he is talking. The last sentence of v. 32 makes it plain that προάγουσιν implies that the Sanhedrists are not going in at all. To them, as to the second child, the Father had also said, “go in,” but, though they said they would, they did not go in. So this, Jesus tells these men, is exactly what your answer means.

You are right in commending that first child; these publicans and harlots who at first openly refuse the obedience of faith and yet later on regret their wickedness and go, believe and obey. You are again right in not commending the second child who said “yes” but went not—but this child pictures you yourselves with your refusal of faith and its obedience. They go in, you stay out of God’s kingdom (see 3:2). On the latter see 23:3: “they say, and do not”; Exod. 19:8, “we will do,” and they did not; and Isa. 29:13.

All those who today confess with their lips but deny by their lives are like these Jewish rulers. But mark that the parable represents the publicans and the harlots and these Sanhedrists and Jewish dignitaries as brothers. All the self-righteous, haughty, and proud are today brothers of the outcast and the criminals. Rom. 3:22. Romans 2 and 3 put Jew and Gentile on the same basis as brothers. See Rom. 12:32. Among these brothers in disobedience and sin the publicans and harlots “go in before.”

Matthew 21:32

32 The present tense, “go before into the kingdom,” makes the statement uttered in v. 31 general, really without any particular reference to time. But the explanation now added with γάρ advances to the specific facts and therefore has the historical aorists. Here are the things that actually occurred. “John came to you in the way of righteousness.” The term ὁδός, “way or road,” like the Hebrew derek, is often used in an ethical sense to represent a course of life that is controlled by a certain doctrine or principle and then also to designate that doctrine or principle itself. Thus faith in Christ is pre-eminently THE WAY. The genitive is qualitative: the way marked by righteousness, by the approving verdict of God which declares righteous. John’s teaching, baptism, and life were marked by righteousness, and his coming or mission brought this righteousness to “you,” the Sanhedrists.

John labored to have you, too, walk this way. “He preached the baptism of repentance for the remission of sins,” Luke 3:3. In the language of the parable, the father bade you, too, to go and to work in the vineyard as he did his other child. But you Jewish rulers who professed to be God’s dearest children, the most diligent observers of his will and Word, when the test came through the activity of John, “you did not believe him.” “The Pharisees and lawyers rejected the counsel of God against themselves, being not baptized of him,” Luke 7:30. “They went not” into the vineyard, into the kingdom. These facts are beyond dispute. By not commending the second child the Sanhedrists did right. Their verdict stands: they condemn themselves.

But the publicans and the harlots “did believe him.” Note the direct opposite. This fact, too, cannot be disputed. Though they were flagrantly wicked at first, they regretted it (repented) and changed. “Believed” records this change. The fact of the change was visible, for Jesus can say to the Sanhedrists, “you saw it.” See Luke 7:29. Yet even this did not affect the Sanhedrists. Even when they saw others believe and beheld the power of righteousness from the change wrought in them, these rulers “did not repent” later on and also become like the father’s first child, “so that you believed him” (John).

The infinitive with τοῦ denotes result, B.-D. 400, 5. The Sanhedrists actually had a double reason for believing John (and thus also Jesus), namely not only the saving truth of righteousness preached by John but also its saving effect in the case of great sinners. But the very richness of the grace thus vouchsafed to them made them the more stubborn and vicious in their unbelief.

Matthew 21:33

33 The preceding parable presents the past (John, not believed—then believed). The one now related advances to the present and the future. The first deals with the Sanhedrists as men; the second deals with them as the rulers of their people, in their official capacity. Guilt and punishment are according: in the first, remaining outside of the kingdom; in the second, the vineyard taken away and these miserable men destroyed. The second parable is the complement of the first.

Another point of difference between the two parables is the fact that the first presents likely imagery, the second imagery that never did and never will happen. A man may have two sons that act like the two presented in the parable; but no owner of a vineyard who had had a servant killed would then send other servants also to be killed and on top of that his own son, only to have him killed also. He would immediately bring the police down upon these men and at once end their career in the vineyard. The reason for this astounding imagery is that in his longsuffering God does act, in fact, did act in the way here depicted. There is no imagery within the experience of men that can picture the amazing grace and patience of God. The hearers might well exclaim: “Why, we never heard of an owner doing such a thing, not stopping until his own son was killed!” Of course, they had not.

But this is the very point Jesus wants to make. With this unheard of imagery Jesus pictures the unheard of wickedness of these Jewish leaders who murdered not only the prophets sent for their salvation but were now about to murder God’s own Son.

Hear another parable. This sounds as though the Sanhedrists tried to leave and that Jesus detained them while a crowd of pilgrims gathered close around him. There was a houselord, such as planted a vineyard and set a fence around it and dug a winevat in it and built a watchtower and leased it to vinegrowers and went abroad. A few simple strokes, and the entire picture is before us in vivid, plastic form. It matches the striking parable recorded in Isa. 5:1, etc., but the action is entirely different. Isaiah makes Israel as such guilty; Jesus, the rulers of Israel.

The apposition ἄνθρωπος is merely pleonastic and is dropped in the translation (R. 399). This great and wealthy houselord establishes a grand vineyard on his estate and leaves out nothing that a complete vineyard ought to have. “The vineyard of the Lord of hosts is the house of Israel, and the men of Judah his pleasant plant,” Isa. 5:7. The details show all it took to make Israel such a vineyard. The vines had to be “planted.” “A fence” had to be built all around to protect the place. In this we may see the law which acted as “a middle wall of partition,” which protected Israel from the Gentiles, all its regulations and ceremonies keeping even the minds of the Jews from Gentile ways. The law was aided by the geographical location of Israel.

It was tucked away in a safe corner of the world by itself, having the high Lebanon mountains on the north, lakes and the Jordan gorge on the east, desert to the south, the Great Sea on the west.

The winevat is dug out of the rock floor, like a figure eight, the upper half being a basin for treading out the grapes, the lower half (or lower part of it) being a deeper basin into which the juice flows and from which it is dipped out. The author saw such a “winepress” on the grounds of the Garden Tomb (the real tomb in which Jesus may well have been buried). “The two vats were usually hewn in the solid rock, the upper broad and shallow, the lower smaller and deeper.” Fausset, Bible Encyclopedia. The tower was built for watchmen and at the same time as a storehouse. The vineyard lacked nothing.

So Israel had everything for its religious needs, from the Temple on down. “What could have been done more to my vineyard, that I have not done in it?” Isa. 5:4. And now, after all was completed, the owner “leased it (“gave it out,” ἐξέδοτο, some texts have ἐξέδετο, R. 308) to vinegrowers,” his rental being a part of the grape harvest as the following shows (not cash, as some suppose). He did this because he “went abroad,” literally, “far away from home.” We have this same feature in other parables, 25:14, 15; Luke 19:12; Mark 13:34. This going abroad pictures the great trust God imposed on the leaders of Israel—the precious vineyard of God’s people was completely in their care. Yes, God brought Israel from Egypt into Canaan, planted, fenced it, equipped it there, and placed it under these spiritual rulers, whose office was continuous—the prophets appear elsewhere in the picture, they were sent for a special purpose at special times.

Matthew 21:34

34 And when the season of fruit drew nigh, he sent his slaves to the vinegrowers to receive his fruit. And the vinegrowers, having taken his slaves, hided the one, killed another, stoned another. A vineyard is naturally planted for the sake of the fruit it will yield. But this parable does not center our attention on the productivity or unproductivity of the vineyard or of its vines, as does the parable recorded in Isa. 5, but on the vicious actions of these vinegrowers to whom the vineyard had been leased and who now had to meet the terms of that lease. In what condition the vineyard was under their management, whether it was full or empty of fruit, is not the point to be brought out. Our eyes are focused altogether on these outrageous vinegrowers who were in possession of the precious vineyard when the great owner now at the proper season sends for the fruit that is due him according to the lease.

The δοῦλοι are thus clearly distinguished from the γεωργοί. The slaves are sent at this particular time, the vinegrowers are in permanent charge. As the latter are the permanent religious rulers of Israel, so the former are the prophets who were sent at particular times. In the imagery these times are naturally compressed into one time although even in Matthew and still more in Mark and in Luke intervals are indicated. These slaves are sent “to receive his fruits,” αὐτοῦ referring to the owner not merely to the vineyard. When the prophets were sent to Israel, God expected the fruits of contrition, faith, and obedience.

It is a mistake to think only of the law and of fruits which the law might work, namely “the need of a redemption.” Vineyard means law and gospel, the full riches of divine grace with fruits according, the chief of these being faith.

Matthew 21:35

35 The tertium comparationis is not these fruits, it is the vinegrowers and their unheard of atrocity: they hided the first slave (literally “flayed” him, beat him bloody); they killed the next (just murdered him); and stoned the third (as though he were a criminal). We note the climax. For the reality see 23:34; Acts 7:52; Heb. 11:37, 38. Jesus is past mincing words. He makes the stark, bloody, devilish reality stand out in all its horror. It is without a single mitigating circumstance. More than this, Jesus is looking these very vinegrowers who murdered the owner’s representatives squarely in the eye—and they knew that Jesus referred to them, v. 45. Let us not overlook this supreme dramatic feature.

The fact that no ordinary lessor of a vineyard ever did a thing such as that depicted here only brings out the more the enormity of what is illustrated. Nor would any owner of a vineyard send a second and a third slave as this owner did. The patience of God toward Israel’s rulers is without parallel in all human history. An illustration must be invented to picture it, and the illustration must be unreal.

Matthew 21:36

36 Again he sent other slaves, more than the first ones; and they did to them likewise. And finally he sent to them his son, saying, They will respect my son. The unheard of action continues on both sides: more and more slaves, and all being treated in the same way. The reality required that the parable should be carried to such a length.

Matthew 21:37

37 Now comes the climax: the owner actually sends his own son to these murderers. At this point the parable becomes prophetic: Jesus is speaking of himself. Where is the earthly father who would send his son as God actually sent his? But the parable had to say also this about the son. The son, too, is “sent.” In this respect God’s Son resembles the prophets, and yet they were only δοῦλοι, he is and remains ὁυἱόςμου. The prophets were God’s slave-servants as a result of being sent; Jesus is sent as a result of being the Son. In the one case the mission makes the man, in the other the Man makes the mission.

The second future passive of ἐντρέπω, “to regard someone,” is used without the passive idea (R. 819), it is like the transitive aorist; yet this future is scarcely prophetic (R. 873) since it merely expresses expectation. “They will respect my son” is similar to the previous imagery, the sending of other slaves after the first ones. The problem of the foreknowledge of God does not belong here. As regards God, this entire imagery goes far deeper. On the one hand is the incomprehensible love and patience God exhibited in all these sendings; yet on the other hand is the justice of God which lets the Jewish leaders fill the measure of guilt to the very top, yea, to overflowing, by killing even his Son.

Matthew 21:38

38 But the vinegrowers, when they saw the son, said among themselves: This is the heir. Come let us kill him, and let us have his inheritance! And having taken him, they threw him out of the vineyard and killed him. Jesus here tells his murderers exactly what they are even now on the point of doing. What they as yet kept under cover he tells them openly to their faces before the assembled crowds (21:26). Note that each generation of Jewish leaders sanctioned the deeds of their fathers by repeating them. They made all the previous murders their own by adding to them; and the climax was reached by the last generation of these leaders when it killed Jesus. The lessons in killing taught them by all former persecutors of the prophets they put into final practice by killing God’s own Son.

At this point the parable is exceedingly exact. “They said among themselves, This is the heir” does not refer only to the secret thoughts of the Sanhedrists; John 11:47–53 reports that this is the very thing they said. They killed Jesus because they feared to lose their own positions. Their blind unbelief hid the spiritual nature of the kingdom from them, and thus the fact that they could never hold the outward rule while its inwardness was foreign to them, remained hidden from them. “Let us have” means “possess” the inheritance; and the aorist definite possession. They wanted to possess the branch on which they sat by sawing it off from the tree which bore that branch.

Matthew 21:39

39 Jesus does not say merely that they took and killed him; no, they first threw him out of the vineyard. This agrees too closely with the place where Jesus was put to death, John 19:17, and Heb. 13:12, 13, “without the gate,” “without the camp,” to be a meaningless feature of the parable; compare 1 Kings 2:13, Acts 7:58. Jesus was taken to Calvary which was outside of Jerusalem. This indicates that this parable referred especially to Jerusalem, the seat of the Sanhedrin. “Cut off in the intention of those who put him to death from the people of God, and from all share in their blessings.” Trench.

Matthew 21:40

40 And now, as in the previous parable (v. 31), Jesus asks the same kind of a question. When, therefore, the lord of the vineyard comes, what will he do to these vinegrowers? They say to him: As wretches wretchedly will he destroy them, and his vineyard will he lease to other vinegrowers, such as will duly give him the fruits in their season. The hearers are to complete the parable. Note that Isa. 5:3, 4 makes a similar appeal. It is simply taken for granted that something will happen to these vinegrowers; likewise, that now “the lord of the vineyard” will come. This is the same noble designation that was used in the parable recorded in 20:8. The greatness of this “lord” intimates similar greatness for his son. This lord’s coming in person pictures God’s coming on Jerusalem in judgment.

Matthew 21:41

41 Jesus must have told the story so dramatically that his hearers at once gave him the answer. These, however, must have been the pilgrims not the Sanhedrists (v. 45). We have the same λέγουσι in v. 31, both leave the subject to be supplied; yet in v. 31 the context: αὐτοῖς in v. 27, and ὑμῖν, twice, in v. 28, leads us to think of the Sanhedrists in v. 31. There is no such connection in v. 41. This answer is so correct because these pilgrims have their minds only on the objective facts stated in the parable and do not realize who these vinegrowers really were. They thus follow their own sense of justice, that justice which will vindicate God’s judgments on all unbelievers.

The answer thus keeps to the imagery of the parable. Κακούς is the predicate apposition to αὐτούς, and κακοὺςκακῶς forms a striking paronomasia, R. 1201, which we have sought to imitate in our translation. We regard the future tenses in both the question and the answer as volitive and not as predictive (R. 873). Who these “other vinegrowers” would be Pentecost began to reveal.

Matthew 21:42

42 Jesus says to them: Did you never read in the Scriptures:

A stone which those building rejected,

This became corner head.

From the Lord came this,

And it is marvelous in our eyes?

For this reason I say to you: The kingdom of God shall be taken away from you and shall be given to a nation producing its fruits. And the one fallen on this stone shall be crushed together; but on whom it falls, it shall pulverize him. The parable is dropped, its possibilities being exhausted since its imagery could not picture the resurrection of Jesus. From their own people the Sanhedrists present have heard their terrible verdict. It is, of course, the verdict of Jesus himself as Luke 20:16 also presents it. According to Luke some of the hearers must have perceived what this verdict really involved and thus cried out, “God forbid!” The true verdict is now endorsed by the Messianic word quoted from Ps. 118:22, 23 (the very psalm from which shortly before this the Hosanna cries were taken!) and then restated by Jesus himself in the plainest possible literal words.

“Did you never read?” raises this question in order to make all these people think and try to understand what, of course, they had read, “This psalm was, most likely, composed to express the joy of the people after their return from the Babylonian Captivity, either at the time of the laying of the cornerstone of their new Temple, or at the time of the dedication of the completed structure. It contained the prophetic lines which Jesus now quotes. More will happen than the rejection of the Sanhedrists and their replacement by better leaders. An entirely new structure will be raised. The old covenant shall yield to a new covenant of which Jesus, rejected by the Jews, will be the mighty cornerstone.

The climax of the parable, the death of the son himself, is repeated in the first line of the psalm: “A stone which those building rejected” (λίθος is attracted into the accusative by its relative, R. 718). The killing=the rejection, and ἀποδοκιμάζειν means “to discard after testing.” Those building are the Jewish leaders, the Sanhedrin, the vinegrowers of the parable. But what happened? That very stone “became corner head” (the absence of the articles stressing the quality of each noun). Jesus is the “son” that was killed, the “stone” that was thus rejected as being entirely unfit for the building. But his death and his rejection did not eliminate him.

The very contrary is true: this made him what the new structure needed: “corner head,” cornerstone. The dead Jesus arose from the grave. The cornerstone does not mean “bearer and support” of the building. This would be the whole foundation. Jesus may, indeed, be called the foundation (θεμέλιος) as he is in 1 Cor. 3:11; but in Eph. 2:20 he is distinguished from the foundation, he is the cornerstone. As such he is set at the chief corner and thus governs every angle of both the foundation and the building itself.

This Jesus does in the great spiritual temple of God, the new covenant.

“From the Lord came this” in the execution of his wonderful plan. The Greek places the emphasis on both ends of the sentence by putting the phrase first and the subject last. The feminine αὑτή (for τοῦτο) and, following it, the feminine θαυμαστή is probably due to the Hebrew which uses the feminine instead of the neuter for abstract ideas; or it may be due to the feminine κεφαλή which precedes, R. 655. The εἰς is also frequently found in predicate nominatives: zwm, Eckstein. Rightly the psalmist adds: “And it is marvelous in our eyes,” ἐν is like the Latin coram, R. 587. It causes all the godly who see this deed of Yahweh’s to wonder and to praise.

Matthew 21:43

43 Now all figurative language is dropped, and the tenses become literal futures instead of prophetic aorists. “For this reason” means: because the son who was killed by the vinegrowers, the stone rejected by the builders, did not remain killed and rejected, but—speaking of the stone alone—was made the corner head by God himself. “The kingdom of God,” namely his power and his grace in all that he works through Christ (see 3:2), “shall be taken away from you” by God. We find little distinction between “the kingdom of God” and “the kingdom of the heavens,” both of which Matthew uses. The one names the ruler, the other his throne. Why the former should cover the rule of grace in both covenants, and the latter his rule only in the new, is difficult to see. Hitherto the kingdom had been confined to the Jews. This was true even with regard to the ministry of Jesus; but now this would be changed. “From you” includes both rulers and people.

The Jewish nation as such no longer has what it so shamefully abused. This is evident from the contrast: “from you”—“to a nation.” But here ἔθνος does not refer to an individual nation such as the Jewish nation. This would imply merely substituting one nation for the other. Nor is this singular the equivalent of τὰἔθνη, the Gentiles. This would substitute them for the Jews. This new “nation” is defined as one that produces the fruits of the kingdom.

It is the new spiritual Israel of true believers, composed of men of all nationalities including also Jewish believers, but because of this very fact distinct from both the mass of hostile Jews and the masses of Gentile unbelievers, a “nation” with the God of grace ruling in their hearts through Christ. The term “fruits” recalls the parable but only in such a way as to describe the “nation” referred to. These fruits are, of course, contrition, faith, and works of faith.

Matthew 21:44

44 The textual evidence for the genuineness of this verse is far too strong to justify its elimination. Jesus might have stopped with the judgment on Jerusalem and the Jews (“the kingdom shall be taken from you”) and with the continuation of the work of grace (“given to a nation,” etc.); but he makes his prophecy complete by announcing the judgment that shall come upon all, whoever they may be, who set themselves against the Christ of God. He does this by using the figure of the stone in a new way, one that is independent of the idea of a building. In a striking way Jesus presents the two possibilities: one may fall on this stone by opposing Christ; and the stone may fall on such an opponent, Christ may strike him with his judgment. The singulars speak of the individual persons, for the guilt of unbelief and hostility is always personal. In both Isa. 8:14 and Luke 2:34 Christ is presented as a stone of stumbling and a rock of offense.

A fall on this stone never hurts the stone but only damages the one who falls (ὁπεσών, the aorist, to denote the one act): “he shall be crushed together,” keeping the figure. Trench thinks that this need not be fatal in every instance; and the imagery is such that the possibility of recovery may be admitted. But when this stone itself falls on an unbeliever, “it shall pulverize him,” λικμήσει, as the dust is winnowed out of grain, the verb after a fashion suggesting Ps. 1:4 and Matt. 3:12. The chaff, reduced to fine particles, shall fly like dust. Judgment can be pictured with no greater severity.

Matthew 21:45

45 And when the high priests and the Pharisees (see 3:7) heard his parables, they realized that he was speaking concerning them; and, though seeking to lay hold of him, they feared the multitudes since they continued to hold him a prophet. The elders mentioned in v. 23 are now termed Pharisees. The two articles designate two classes, for the high priests belonged to the Sadducees. While they were united against Jesus, Matthew here conveys the thought that each group was affected by the parables in its own way. Both groups realized at least that these parables dealt with them, λέγει is retained from the direct discourse: “he is speaking about us.” The fact that this stirred their anger instead of giving them pause, need not be stated.

Matthew 21:46

46 The present participle, ζητοῦντες, does not imply that these rulers now resolved to get hold of Jesus, for they had resolved this long ago. But now, having this determination in their hearts although Jesus here condemned them to their very faces, they dared not stir a finger. Why did they not arrest Jesus then and there? They were afraid of the hosts of festive pilgrims who were thronging all parts of the Temple courts. These people, speaking generally, considered Jesus to be at least a prophet—to be no more definite about it. John’s Gospel offers us more details. Εἰς has the same force as the one used in v. 42 (R. 481). With the jubilation of these crowds (v. 8, etc.) fresh in mind, and the courts filled with the easily excited throngs, it certainly behooved the Sanhedrists to take no radical measures with regard to Jesus.

C.-K. Biblisch-theologisches Woerterbuch der Neutestamentlichen Graezitaet von Dr. Hermann Cremer, zehnte, etc., Auflage, herausgegeben von D. Dr. Julius Koegel.

R. A Grammar of the Greek New Testament in the Light of Historical Research, by A. T. Robertson, fourth edition.

B.-D. Friedrich Blass’ Grammatik des neutestamentlichen Griechisch, vierte, voellig neugearbeitete Auflage besorgt von Albert Debrunner