Matthew Chapter 21
As they near Jerusalem, in Bethphage, Jesus sends two disciples ahead to bring back a donkey colt for him to ride. This fulfills scripture in Is 62.11, Zec. 9:9.
11 Behold, the LORD has proclaimed to the end of the earth: Say to the daughter of Zion, "Behold, your salvation comes; behold, his reward is with him, and his recompense before him." [Isa 62:11 ESV]
9 Rejoice greatly, O daughter of Zion! Shout aloud, O daughter of Jerusalem! Behold, your king is coming to you; righteous and having salvation is he, humble and mounted on a donkey, on a colt, the foal of a donkey. [Zec 9:9 ESV]
2021 - Here is the ESV version of Matthew's quoting of the verse from Zechariah:
5 "Say to the daughter of Zion, 'Behold, your king is coming to you, humble, and mounted on a donkey, on a colt, the foal of a beast of burden.'" [Mat 21:5 ESV] In Greek, a very distinctively different word is used for the second "donkey" in Zechariah. Going back to the interlinear in Zechariah, what it says is that he would be riding a he-ass, the foal of a she-ass. But definitely a donkey in both places. The NT interlinear used by BLB is the Textus Receptus.
It is also interesting that in 2021 I am reading this on the day after palm Sunday.
I also notice this:
2 saying to them, "Go into the village in front of you, and immediately you will find a donkey tied, and a colt with her. Untie them and bring them to me. [Mat 21:2 ESV] Both the donkey and the colt are brought. In Mark and Luke, it is only the colt that Jesus requests. Matthew continues this way: 7 They brought the donkey and the colt and put on them their cloaks, and he sat on them. [Mat 21:7 ESV] So not a mistake. Matthew means both...and Matthew was there. Also this verse about the entry: 9 And the crowds that went before him and that followed him were shouting, "Hosanna to the Son of David! Blessed is he who comes in the name of the Lord! Hosanna in the highest!" [Mat 21:9 ESV] Crowds ahead of Jesus, crowds behind. A couple of items from MSB. First, Hosanna means "Save now", and comes from Ps 118:25: 25 Save us, we pray, O LORD! O LORD, we pray, give us success! [Psa 118:25 ESV] The next verse is also quoted: 26 Blessed is he who comes in the name of the LORD! We bless you from the house of the LORD. [Psa 118:26 ESV] Psalm 118 is clearly about the Messiah. Anyone reading it sees that immediately, so the "stir" may also have been that these crowds were proclaiming that Jesus was the Messiah, and that he had entered Jerusalem.
2024 - In Rummages sermon this past Sunday - Palm Sunday - he said that Hosanna meant "Save us now" and Hallelujah meant praise God now.
2021 - Hosanna is two words in Hebrew, as shown in the interlinear presentation. Transliterated it is "yoshaa" and "anna". The meaning is more complicated, with several English words used to translate them. I am increasingly disappointed in the ability of the English language to express other languages. Hebrew and Greek in particular seem much better designed to express subtle shades of meaning than does English. One last thing about this verse. It has a named "design", but I cannot remember the name. The verse goes a, b, c - c, b, a. I am sad that it is too late for me to master Greek and Hebrew. Also, the Textus Receptus has already transliterated the two Hebrew words into the word Hosanna, which we then take directly into English.
2023 - Here is a thought...Perhaps one of the factors that made this particular time the right time for Jesus to come was the presence of not one, but TWO languages which were understood on a more or less worldwide basis. Both Latin and Greek were studied by the most learned men of the time, both - but especially Greek - can express shades of meaning that not only cannot be expressed in English, but do not even exist in English. Jesus surely spoke all these, plus Aramaic. I found this:
"The book of Genesis speaks of a man who was called Shem (or Sem), from whom the Semites are descendant.
Shem had two sons, one named Heber and another named Aram.
From Heber came the Hebrews, and the Hebrew language.
From Aram came the Arameans, and the Aramaic language.
The Hebrew people are well known to all, they are also the people of Israel.
The Arameans, the sons of Aram, were a people who lived in the region of Syria. The country called “Aram” in the Hebrew biblical text, is translated into Western languages as “Syria“.
The language of the Arameans, the Aramaic, ended up taking over the entire Middle East region in the ancient world.
https://jonathan-frate.com/2020/12/17/the-difference-between-hebrew-and-aramaic/
I think there are places where we "believe" Jesus spoke Aramaic, and surely he would have spoken a lot in Hebrew. I don't know that we think he ever spoke Latin. After reading the above, he spoke the languages of the sons of Shem. Do we think Jesus sometimes spoke Greek? How would we ever know for sure? The apostles quoted the Septuagint, which I believe is the OT translated from Hebrew to Greek. If fishermen were able to read that, then Greek was pretty common to all in Jesus' time.
2023 - It also had to be a time when no one could "video" events. Else "blessed are those who believe and have not seen" would have very little meaning. Perhaps that is why the extra-Biblical documentation of the time is also pretty sparse.
These verses describe Jesus' entry into Jerusalem:
10 And when he entered Jerusalem, the whole city was stirred up, saying, "Who is this?" 11 And the crowds said, "This is the prophet Jesus, from Nazareth of Galilee." [Mat 21:10-11 ESV]
The whole city. Jesus entry was not a minor thing, noticed only by a few. Word spread and the whole city knew who had come because of the reception that he got, and because he was called "The Son of David".
2023 - The crowds believed - the GENERAL belief - was that Jesus was a prophet, notwithstanding those who were quoting Psa 118 as he entered the city. Did those recognize him as Messiah, or merely do as God willed to fulfill prophecy? I mean, did that colt that means so much to us mean anything at all to them, other than to make them wonder why a grown man was riding a colt when a full grown she-ass was right there?
2020 - I suspect the number of people accompanying Jesus also made an impression. This would have been a big deal.
Jesus drives out the money changers. His problem with them was that they were buying and selling - carrying on commerce - within the temple itself. The temple was not for business, it was for prayer.
After driving them out, Jesus remains in the temple, and the blind and lame come to him and are healed. Right there in public, he heals the blind and the lame. The bystanders, seeing these things and recognizing them as miracles from God, are praising Jesus with the words "Hosanna to the Son of David".
2020 - It was the children who were there that cried out with these words. Children would not have had in depth knowledge of OT scripture. The fact that it was children shows that the words - the proclamation - was in fact coming from God. This was a fulfillment of prophecy, not an accident, and these children were quoting it about Jesus. When the chief priests confront Jesus about these proclaiming him Messiah, he again points to scripture fulfilled, this time Psa 8:2, which is a Psalm of praise to God. MSB note says by quoting this Psalm, Jesus was claiming the right to be worshiped by the crowd. Only God can be worshiped. So Jesus was claiming, clearly and plainly, to be God. He was doing it right in the middle of the temple, as he did miracles that only God could do. And yet, they still denied.
2021 - What a demonstration of authority. He drove them out, though he was not a priest or a temple officer. He had not been designated or authorized to clean up the mess in the temple. He just did it. But right after that, he sat in that same temple healing the blind and lame for all to see. The Pharisees hadn't sent him, but whoever did send him made him able to do the impossible in public, with no strings or wires. Who would dare ask one doing these things who had authorized him?
The chief priests and scribes are very upset by this, thinking it blasphemy. They reproach Jesus because Jesus does not deny what they are saying. He is in fact demonstrating that they are correct, but the officials just won't see the truth. After this Jesus leaves for Bethany for the night.
Next day, Jesus curses the fig tree, says prayers asked in faith will be answered.
2021 - This plays on the events in Jeremiah that Bobby Kelly taught about. But note the severity of what Jesus says and the implications for the Jews:
19 And seeing a fig tree by the wayside, he went to it and found nothing on it but only leaves. And he said to it, "May no fruit ever come from you again!" And the fig tree withered at once. [Mat 21:19 ESV] No fruit ever again. If this whole thing is representative of Israel, then what are we to make of "never again" in light of what we know is coming in Revelation? In light of the future fulfillment of the promises to Abraham? Many questions come up. Will they receive but not bear fruit? Hardly seems likely, though in the last days I think only Jews will be converted, and maybe only the 144,000 will be doing any preaching? Or perhaps that fig tree would never bear again as a picture of how little Israel as a nation will do for God during the Age of the Gentiles.
He returns then to the temple. Second day.
The parable of the two sons (NOT the parable of the prodigal son. This is different!) - one who said he would and didn't, the other said he wouldn't but did. The true son was the one that did, despite what he had said. Sinners - tax collectors and prostitutes contrasted with scribes and chief priests - said no first, but then repented at the preaching of John. They are the good sons. But the Pharisees, "religious people" from childhood - but worshiping in body but not in spirit and truth - are the bad son. They claim to obey, but in their hearts they do not. This is a good definition of "religious" people. They go through the motions, and they want recognition, respect, even homage for their wonderful worshiping, but they neglect the salt, the core, the real object of worship. Their worship is about the rules, not about the ruler. 2020 - But Jesus relates this back to John the Baptist, whom he had focused his question back at the Pharisees about. Why do these go together? Why so much about John the Baptist here? This is important. Focus here next year. Especially the part in vs 32 that says even when they noticed this, they still didn't change their minds. ....Still 2020 - Forgot the 8:15 service is cancelled today, as is Sunday School. So I am back home with unexpected time. Hopefully, I can make good use of it...
2021 - This verse:
32 For John came to you in the way of righteousness, and you did not believe him, but the tax collectors and the prostitutes believed him. And even when you saw it, you did not afterward change your minds and believe him. [Mat 21:19, 32 ESV] It is ok to get it wrong the first time, to go way down the wrong road the first time. As long as you get it right in the end, you are still a son. But if you claim to be on board from the start, and go through the motions your whole life, but were never truly committed, never really a believer...then the worst of the worst who changed will have it far better than you.
Possible FB post.
2022 - Days later...interesting that he went to the two sons separately. Their father did not makes his request to them together at the same time. He asked the one for loyalty, and then asked the other.
So this is the second day in Jerusalem, when Jesus goes back to the Temple. The quotes from Messianic Psalms occurred the day before. Jesus has withered the fig tree on his way back into Jerusalem this second day - connecting with Jeremiah (13 When I would gather them, declares the LORD, there are no grapes on the vine, nor figs on the fig tree; even the leaves are withered, and what I gave them has passed away from them." [Jer 8:13 ESV]). So the nation of Israel is not bearing fruit. The Mosaic/Sinai covenant has become completely fruitless. (2023 - Ah. Here is the answer to fruitless. The Jews, under the Law, will not bear fruit any more. The New Covenant will supersede, and become the covenant under which fruit is counted. This makes perfect sense.) Jesus goes back to the Temple, and as he enters, the chief priests and elders accost him and ask what authority he has, and who gave him the authority, to do the things he's doing. He says he'll tell them, if they'll answer his question first: 25 The baptism of John, from where did it come? From heaven or from man?"...[Mat 21:25a ESV] John was baptizing as a way to "spot" the Messiah when he came. He preached the baptism of repentance in order to identify Jesus, the person, the Messiah in the flesh not the "concept". So is the question "Who told John that the Messiah was so close? Or, and I think this is closer, is Jesus asking whether John had come up with his ministry on his own, as a sort of itinerant preacher thing, or whether John was sent by God to deliver this specific message, which would make John the first true prophet in Israel since Malachi. Jesus posed a dilemma, and that was what it was? Was John a true prophet? If so...then they know who's authority Jesus has, because they know who John said Jesus was. And if they know, why do they ask? And they are too cowardly to say John was not a prophet, even though the context of the passage requires that this be what they believed. So they just punt and say they don't know. Jesus' answer labels them for the cowards they are. If they won't answer, he won't answer. So the point of this exchange was to establish who John really was, and that the religious elite denied John, so they must surely deny Jesus. You can't accept just one of them.
Then the parable of the two sons. One says he won't, but does. The other says he will, but doesn't. Jesus question is, "Which one did his father's will?" They absolutely have to answer that the one who actually did it, despite what he said, despite his initial disrespect, belligerence, and insubordinate attitude. In the end, he did it right. Just as we saw in the parable of the workers! They all did the work. There was a difference in quantity, but they all worked according to their contract. The Pharisees and priests were "born" to their calling, claimed to be faithful, but were not.
2025 - Here is another thought. The Pharisees saw themselves as sinless for their entire lives. Their pride was in their sinlessness, which meant they had personally earned salvation and owed no thank to God or anyone else. They were perfection embodied. And then Jesus says, the prostitutes and the taxpayers who listened to John and who recognized Jesus were FAR better than the Pharisees. Jesus tells them that obedience to man made rules has nothing to do with salvation. Humility before God, recognition of our own sinfulness and helplessness in the face of that sin, is the place salvation is found.
2022 - The scribes and Pharisees believed themselves sinless since birth. They had so distorted the commandments that it was possible to live a sinless life. It was living such a life that they believed gave them authority over others. They took great pride in never having sinned. They are the ones who SAY they obey, but when examined closely, according to what God really requires, they are just as guilty as the rest. Just as guilty as those who said no, and then repented at the preaching of John. What a good Post!
The rank and file made no claims to holiness, but believed when the time came, and followed Christ. Jesus drives this home with his second reference to John as prophet. John was a true prophet, and the elite did not believe him. They were saying "yes", but didn't do the work. But the poor and uneducated? They recognized John as a prophet, and responded to his message.
So this second parable is just a firm, solid, undeniable reinforcement of the priests' and elders' refusal, up to and including, that very day, to acknowledge that John had come from God. And if John was from God, so was his message, and his message, his witness, was that Jesus was the Messiah. The religious elite did not believe the OT prophets, and they still don't believe them in NT times. The parable of the tenants comes next, and makes the point still more forcefully. Those chosen to maintain the vineyard refuse to fulfill their responsibilities. They refuse to "pay up" for the blessings heaped on them by the master. So the kingdom is taken away. The case is made. OT rejection, NT rejection, all by the elite, but the rank and file believe. Therefore, all will be taken from the chosen, and given to the rank and file. From the Jews and given to the Gentiles.
2020 - Sunday morning, running out of time. Next year, read 21 first.
The parable of the tenants who keep killing messengers and finally the son of the owner who wants only what is due him from the tenants. He's not asking for extra. The tenants are those God has chosen - Israel in fact - yet in the main, they are rejecting his prophets, and now his son.
2020 - Ends with this verse: 43 Therefore I tell you, the kingdom of God will be taken away from you and given to a people producing its fruits. [Mat 21:43 ESV] The Jews are just not in the hunt right now. The history unfolding is not about them, doesn't include them, and yet is preparation for them. I wonder if Psa 122:6-9 is ...Yes of course it is.
2021 - This verse would be a good proof text that the kingdom of God is already here in some sense. The Age of the Gentiles is an earthly kingdom of God as run by those for whom it was never intended. I mean, it was, because all the nations of the earth were to be blessed through Abraham, but it does not say that all the nations were to participate in running the kingdom. This is a version of the kingdom but won't realize the full glory intended for the kingdom. That kingdom won't come around until the Jews come home to Zion and Jesus himself sits on his earthly throne.