Down an Unfamiliar Road

NEW TESTAMENT CONTEXTUAL COMMENTARY

by Dr. Robert R. Seyda

GOSPEL OF MATTHEW

CHAPTER TWENTY-ONE

Part IX

Verse 33a: “Listen to this story: There was a man who planted a vineyard.”

We are not told how large this vineyard was, but according to Jewish tradition: “When a man has planted a row of [at least] five vines, the School of Shammai say, This constitutes a vineyard.”¹ I believe we can assume that the vineyard in Jesus’ parable was at least that large, if not larger. But it should not have come as a surprise that Jesus uses a vineyard in His story right after their discussion about John the Baptizer and the Jewish religious leaders’ failure to recognize him as being sent by Heaven. After all, do not the Scriptures say: “The vineyard that belongs to the LORD All-Powerful is the house of Israel?”² These religious philosophers were accustomed to allegories and metaphors being used in debates about morality and righteousness.

In Chrysostom’s sermon on this parable, he speaks about the reason for this story about a vineyard and Jesus’ patience in taking care of it. He says: “This parable suggests many things: God’s providence had been at work toward the Jews from the outset; their disposition was murderous from the beginning; nothing had been neglected of whatever pertained to an attentive care for them. even when prophets had been slain, God had not turned away from this people but had sent them His very Son; it is now clear that the God of both the New and the Old Testaments is one and the same; we know that the Son’s death will effect great blessings; we learn here that they were to endure extreme punishment for the crucifixion; here we learn of the calling of the Gentiles and the turning aside of the unbelieving Jews. Jesus presents this parable after the previous one that He may show the charge to be even greater in this case and highly unpardonable. In what way? Although the Jews had received so much care from God, they were now found to be worse than harlots and publicans, and that by a wide margin.”³

Verse 33b: “He put a wall around the field.”

The area separating the vineyard proper from the land around it was called in Hebrew the “mehol.” It was along this space that the fence was erected. According to their verbal tradition, it had to meet specific dimensions: “[The space] between the vineyard [proper] and the fence. If it does not measure twelve cubits (6 yards) [the minimum according to the School of Hillel]; i.e., after allowing for four cubits (2 yards) of service-border and after deducting the four cubits close to the fence which are not sown (so that people walking there will force down the earth and harden the earth, supporting the fence).”⁴ As far as the wall was concerned, we are told: “The wall surrounding the vineyard was ten handbreadths (2½ feet) high.)”⁵ In His parable, most scholars believe that this hedge was a metaphor for either the written law or the verbal law, and perhaps including the traditions of the elders.

But in reading other Jewish writings we also find out that the wall was built for other purposes. First, it marked the territory of the owner. Second, it kept people from using it as a walkway or shortcut. And third, it kept out animals that might ruin the young vines.⁶ Also, an Eastern vineyard was usually surrounded by a ditch, and the earth from the digging of it is thrown along the inner side of the ditch, and upon this, a fence of posts, branches, and twigs is built with thorn-branches on top. Oftentimes a wall of either stones or sun-dried mud takes the place of the fence. This serves as protection from foxes, jackals, or other animals, as well as from thieves.⁷

Chrysostom gives us his impression of this wall or hedge built to preserve and protect the vineyard. He writes: “Observe the great care that the owner took with this place and the extraordinary unmanageableness of the people. He himself did the work the tenants should have done. It was he who planted a vineyard, and set a hedge around it, and dug a winepress in it and built a tower. He left little for them to do. All they had to do was take care of what was there and to preserve what was given to them. Nothing was left undone but all accomplished. But they made little effort to be productive, even after they had enjoyed such great blessings from him. For when they had come out of Egypt, he gave a law, and set up a city, and built a temple and prepared an altar. Then he ‘went into a far country.’ He was patient with them. He did not always keep a close account of their sins. The meaning of ‘going into a far country’ is God’s great patience.”⁸ Many Bible scholars believe that the “going into a far country” was Jesus’ way of indicating what He would do once His work here on earth to establish a new vineyard was finished.

Verse 33c: “…and dug a trench for a winepress,⁹ then he built a watch-tower.”

By now, I wonder if the listeners did not start thinking about what was written in the prophet Isaiah: “I want to sing a song for someone I love, a song about my loved one and his vineyard. My loved one had a vineyard on a very fertile hill. He dug up its stones and cleared them away, planted it with the choicest vines, built a watchtower in the middle of it, and carved out in its rock a winepress.”¹⁰ According to some Rabbis, this tower referred to the Temple.¹¹

We see this also mentioned in the Targum on this scripture: “Now I will sing unto Israel, who is like unto a vineyard, the seed of Abraham, my beloved, a song of my beloved, concerning his vineyard. My people, my beloved Israel, I gave to them an inheritance in a high mountain, in a fat land. I sanctified them, and I made them glorious, I propped them up as a precious vine; I built my sanctuary in the midst of them, and I gave also my altar to make an atonement for their sins.”¹² But our Lord now adds His part in this story:

Verse 33d: “He leased the land to some tenant-farmers and then left on a trip.”

According to Jewish writings, these renters would have been one of the following three: “Farmhands, tenant-farmers, or labor contractors.”¹³ They say that farmhands were: “Gardeners or land cultivators who receive from the owner of the field or orchard a certain proportion of the produce for their labor.”¹⁴ Tenant farmers were those: “Who pay a fixed annual rent in money or in kind.” ¹⁵ And contractors of labor were those hired to fill in because the owner was busy with other business.¹⁶

Furthermore, based on the context and possible timeline involved, related to God planting Israel as His vineyard and when He ended up sending His Son, we might be able to see this as the 400 years between Malachi and the birth of the Messiah. It was during this time there were few if any prophets that spoke on God’s behalf to the exiled children of Judah and Israel. Therefore, the husbandmen being referred to here are seen as the priests, Levites, Rabbis and religious leaders that led the Jews during this period.

The most well-known group were the Maccabees. There are two books that were part of the OT Canon in the Christian Bible: I & II Maccabees, let it tell you their story. The important thing about these growers and gardeners is that they were under contract to the owner. Without him, they’d have no vineyard to tend and no income from their labors. All they had to do was share and give him his part of the harvest. Here we find a similar story line as that of Solomon: “Solomon had a vineyard at Baal Hamon. He put men in charge of the vineyard. Each man brought in grapes worth 1000 shekels of silver. Solomon, you can keep your 1000 shekels. Give 200 shekels to each man for the grapes he brought. But I will keep my own vineyard.”¹⁷

We find in Jewish writings that it was common for owners to rent out their fields in return for their portion of the crop. For vineyards, sometimes the owner would receive payment in the form of wine,¹⁸ or in grapes,¹⁹ and sometimes as a tithe, should the owner be a priest.²⁰ There’s an interesting story in Jewish tradition about Rabbi Simeon bar Kahana who was assisting Rabbi Eleazar as they took a walk along a road that ran by a vineyard. According to the story, Rabbi Eleazar said to Rabbi Kahana, “Bring me a wood chip from the fence so I can pick my teeth. But he changed his mind and said to him, Don’t bring me anything, for if you bring it to me, people will regard it as permission to do the same and the man’s fence will be destroyed.”²¹ Jesus then continues with His parable.

NEW TESTAMENT CONTEXTUAL COMMENTARY

by Dr. Robert R. Seyda

GOSPEL OF MATTHEW

CHAPTER TWENTY-ONE

Part VIII

Verses 25b-26: The priests and the Jewish leaders discussed Jesus’ question. They said to each other, “If we answer, ‘John’s baptism was from Heaven,’ then He will say, ‘Then why didn’t you believe John?’ But we can’t say, ‘John’s baptism was from some human source.’ We are afraid of the people because they all believe John was a prophet.” So they told Jesus, “We don’t know the answer.” Jesus said, “Then I will not tell you who gave me the authority to do these things.”

The Aramaic Version says here: “…they were reasoning among themselves.” Reasoning actually means: “trying to rationalize, to come up with an acceptable answer.” The question that Jesus asked was whether or not what John the Baptizer did authorized by God or man? In the Greek, it says, “from heaven or from men,” as does the Aramaic Version. This was not unusual in the vernacular of Jesus’ day. For instance, one Rabbi once asked: “If the moon did not appear at its proper time, they need not declare its existence, since Heaven already has declared it.”¹

In the Jewish mind, God did not make decisions on His own. After all, He did say: “Let us make humankind in our image, in the likeness of ourselves.”² A respected Rabbi said: “Under no circumstances does the Holy One do a thing in His world without consulting with the heavenly court.”³ Others believe God would consult with His ministering angels.⁴ However, another well respected Rabbi has a different take. He says, that the words “let us” should be understood this way: “It has been shown to you that God created something from nothing only on the first day, and afterward He formed and made things from those created elements, i.e., fire, wind, water, and earth. Therefore, when God said ‘us,’ He was talking to those created elements.”⁵ There is real cause to believe that the purpose for this last Rabbi’s explanation was to counter any belief in the Christian Trinity.

But the real pressure comes from what the Jews themselves taught: “He who defiles the sacred food, despises the festivals, abolishes the covenant of our father Abraham, gives an interpretation of the Torah not in line with Jewish laws, and publicly shames his neighbor, even if he has learning and good deeds to his credit, he has no portion in the future world, because he has despised the word of the Lord — this refers to him who maintains that the Torah is not from Heaven.”⁶ This reference to Heaven was a synonym for God, and considered so sacred, that they wrote: “Do not utter the name of heaven in vain.”⁷

We also see this use of “heaven” in the place of “God” in the writings of one Rabbi who says that Abraham was so generous that, “He arose and built stately mansions on the highways and left there food and drink, and every passerby at and drank and gave thanks to Heaven.”⁸ He goes on to say that if a person is lazy and does no work all week so that on the Sabbath he has nothing to eat, but took some of his consecrated funds to buy food, he would be guilty in the sight of Heaven.⁹ He also speaks of “mean heartedness toward Heaven.”¹⁰ Also, to be honored by one’s master should be as dear to a person as “the honor of Heaven.”¹¹

So whenever Heaven is spelled in Jewish writings with a capital “H” as a proper noun, it is always a reference to God’s realm of dominion and power. A respected Rabbi points out, that the Scriptures make this clear: “’Heaven is my throne,’ says Adonai, ‘and the earth is my footstool’,”¹² and then points to where the Psalmist says: “’Praise Adonai from the heavens! Praise Him in the heights! Praise Him, all His angels! Praise Him, all His armies’!”¹³

So Jesus took all this into account when He asked the community leaders about John the Baptizer’s ministry being ordained by Heaven or by man on earth. We do not know how long they conferred with each other, but it was not easy because of the way Christ formed the question. To this Jerome says: “By this, He shows both that they knew the answer but were unwilling to say it and that He also knows the answer but will not speak it because they remained silent. Immediately, then, He tells a parable designed to convince them of their own sinfulness and of the necessity that the kingdom of God be transferred to the Gentiles.”¹⁴

Verses 28-31a: “Tell me what you think about this: There was a man who had two sons. He went to the first son and said, ‘Son, go and work today in the vineyard.’ The son answered, ‘I will not go.’ But later he decided he should go, and he went. Then the father went to the other son and said, ‘Son, go and work today in the vineyard.’ He answered, ‘Yes, sir, I will go and work.’ But then he did not go. Which of the two sons obeyed his father? The Jewish leaders quickly answered, ‘The first son.’”

Jesus was not going to allow these uncommitted community leaders to get off that easy by not indicating whether they accepted John the Baptizer’s authority as coming from Heaven or from man. So He offers an indirect question in the form of a story. We find this same parable repeated in the Apocryphal Gospels.¹⁵ This was not a difficult riddle, and the Jewish leaders answered without hesitation. What they didn’t know was that they were identifying themselves. But Jesus had to point it out to them.

The story Jesus is telling encapsulates what His Heavenly Father also dealt with during the days of Ezekiel, “You people might say, ‘The Lord isn’t fair!’ But listen, family of Israel. I am fair. You are the ones who are not fair! If good people change and become evil, they must die for the bad things they do. And if evil people change and become good and fair, they will save their lives. They will live! They saw how wicked they were and came back to me. They stopped doing the evil things they did in the past. So they will live! They will not die!”¹⁶ In the same way, Jesus wanted to put the focus on these obstinate religious leaders and force them to realize that by being against John the Baptizer they were being against God.

Verses 31b: Jesus said to them, “The truth is, you are worse than the tax collectors and the prostitutes. In fact, they will enter God’s kingdom before you can get in.”

Early church Bishop Hilary saw a spiritual interpretation in this parable. He writes: “The first son represents the people sent by the Pharisees. Urgently admonished by God through the prophecy of John to conform themselves to His commandments, yet they remained insolent, disobedient and contemptuous to God’s warnings. They put their faith in the law and despised repentance from sin, glorying instead in the noble prerogative that they had from Abraham. Later they came to believe through the miracles worked by the apostles after the resurrection of the Lord, and, having returned by a faithful act of the will to evangelical works, they repented and confessed the guilt of their former insolence.”¹⁷ Scholars believe that since it would not be easy to interpret the parable of the two sons in relation to the call of the Jews and the Gentiles, that Bishop Hilary chose the first son to represent the sect within Judaism that represented those most committed to living by the commandments – the Pharisees.¹⁸

Then Bishop Hilary continues: “The second son represents the group of publicans and sinners who later returned to the sinful state in which they lived at the time. They were instructed by John to expect salvation from Christ and to be baptized and to believe in Him. When the Lord says in the parable that the second son did not go as he promised to do, he shows that these people believed John. But because they were not able to receive the teaching of the gospel through the apostles until after the Lord’s Passion (for it was then that the mysteries of human salvation were to be accomplished), they did not go. He didn’t say that they refused to go but simply that they did not go. Their failure to go does not make them guilty of disbelief because to do so would have been very difficult. Therefore, it is not that the second son did not want to do immediately what he was ordered to do but rather that he was unable to do it. His will is shown free from guilt by the obstacles of the circumstance.”¹⁹ Jesus does not leave this interpretation up to them. He then explains it.

Verse 32: “John came showing you the right way to live, and you did not believe him. But the tax collectors and prostitutes believed John. You saw that happening, but you would not change. You still refused to believe him.”

Jewish sources present an interesting description of these tax collectors, which are better known in the KJV as “publicans” (a Latin term that is shorthand for “public contractor”). The offices of these local tax agents existed among the Jews under Roman occupation. The Romans were accustomed to projecting fees ahead for five years, especially the customs due on exports. These were mainly added value taxes and therefore, as the value placed upon goods varied, it lent themselves to extortion; hence the unpopularity of the publicans, especially when, as under the Romans, they were seen as Jews exploiting their fellow Jews. Even Jewish scholars notice how such people of ill repute in the New Testament, were coupled with sinners¹ and the most degraded persons.²

The use of tax collectors and prostitutes in the New Testament as examples of the worst of sinners is found on many occasions. The common theme of the two was first and foremost, money. They did not do what they did out of the kindness of their hearts or for righteousness sake, but for the money they received. According to Jewish traditional teaching, what both of them did for a livelihood made them unclean and not permitted to participate in any religious function, nor to enter the Temple grounds. As such, they were considered to be the last to convert.³ But for each one that did, if it were available for them in that day they certainly would have sung those famous lyrics: “Amazing grace, how sweet the sound that saved a wretch like me.”

The Jews report that taxes were levied on pearls,⁴ – slaves,⁵ and boats.⁶ And you talk about guilt by association, Rabbi Simeon said: “But this shows you that there is not a family containing a tax-collector, in which they are not all tax-collectors; or containing a robber, in which they are not all robbers; because they protect him!”⁷ Jewish commentators state that tax-collectors were considered unscrupulous, often taking more than their due.⁸ Therefore, any other member of the family was consider a black sheep, just as they were.⁹ As a consequence, in the case of any transgression, the whole family was punished.¹⁰ Even so, an honest tax collector could serve as a witness in court, while herdsmen could not,¹¹

Jesus was not attempting to denigrate the leading priests and elders by making a literal comparison between them and the second son who lied, and pointing to the tax collectors and prostitutes as being represented by the first son. His main point here was to show the power of a repentant heart, something these religious leaders were sorely lacking. After all, they had the opportunity to believe John the Baptizer’s message, but didn’t, and now they had another opportunity to accept the truth with Jesus’ declaration but didn’t believe Him either. So in fact, they were worse than either one of these sons.

A careful perusal of this verse will also indicate that Jesus did not eliminate the possibility that some of these leading priests and elders would come to their senses and accept His role in the kingdom of God. He merely points out to them that they lagged far behind such disrespected people as the tax collectors and prostitutes in seeing that He was the door to that kingdom. Their hypocritical attitude and placing more emphasis on tradition than on the Word of God blinded these religious leaders. While none of them are excluded from salvation, their attitudes prevented them from seeing the only true door where they could enter in. But our Lord was not finished.

NEW TESTAMENT CONTEXTUAL COMMENTARY

by Dr. Robert R. Seyda

GOSPEL OF MATTHEW

CHAPTER TWENTY-ONE

Part VII

Verses 21: Jesus answered, “The truth is, if you have faith and do not doubt, you will be able to do the same as I did to this tree. In fact, you will be able to do more. You will be able to say to a mountain, ‘Go, mountain, fall into the sea.’ And if you have faith, it will happen.”

So here our Lord gives a clear reason for doing what He did to this fig tree. It was all about faith! But what brought on this need to explain the power of faith to His followers? He had just been greeted in Jerusalem as the Son of David, the Anointed One, with shouts of Hosanna and the waving of palm fronds. And although priests and scribes objected, they were drowned out by the cheers of the crowd and by the rejoicing of those who then came to the Temple to be healed by His power.

Chrysostom puts it this way: “That you might learn that it was for the disciples’ sake that this was done, that He might train them in confidence, listen to what He said afterward: ‘You also shall do greater things, if you are willing to believe and to be confident in prayer.’¹ All this was done for their sake, that they might not be afraid and tremble at plots against them. He repeated this to enable them to cling to prayer and faith. For you will not only do this, but you will also remove mountains; and many more things you will do, being confident in faith and prayer.”²

Let’s look at His statement concerning the moving of mountains by faith. We have no record that any of the apostles ever attempted or achieved this phenomenon. That’s why many Bible scholars take this as Jesus’ use of hyperbole to speak figuratively in explaining a potential result rather than a probable one. But it also had its ties to Jewish traditional teachings. In fact, one Jewish leader, named Rabba bar Nachmani, was referred to as the “rooter up of mountains,” because of his faith.³ So it was not a shocking statement to those who heard it.

Verse 22: “And if you believe when you pray, you will get whatever you ask for.”

This one verse is loaded with so much potential when we look at it grammatically. The first thing we notice is the qualifier: “If you believe.” And secondly, is the contingency: “when you pray.” Then thirdly, the potential: “you will get.” The apostle John no doubt was standing very close to our Lord when He spoke these words because we find a similar statement in his own letter where he writes: “When we can come to God with no doubts… we know that He gives us whatever we ask of Him.”⁴

But there is another factor to consider, and that is the purpose for which we ask God to give us the things are praying for. Jesus was not teaching and training His disciples to go live successful, productive lives for themselves once He was gone. He came to do His father’s will, and He was motivating and equipping them to continue doing God’s will once He went away. Jesus was not handing them a magic wand so they could have whatever they wanted for their own comfort and pleasure. It is all tied to doing God’s will for His honor, glory, and the promotion on God’s kingdom.

Verse 23: Jesus then continued on to the Temple area. While He was teaching there, the leading priests and the older leaders of the people came to Him. They demanded, “Tell us! By what authority are you doing these things you are doing? Who gave you this authority?”

When our Lord walked out of Bethany on His way back over to Jerusalem,⁵ after showing His disappointment with the fruitless fig tree, and then headed straight for the Temple again, little did His disciples know that Jesus knew He had another appointment with the chief priests and elders who were going to challenge His authority for coming into Jerusalem, wrecking havoc in the Temple courts, and then commencing with His teaching and healing ministry. His opponents may have thought it was going to be a surprise, but what they failed to reckon was that the man they intended to confront was no ordinary man.

Jesus knew He was dealing with the same dilemma that Solomon once described: “There is no good way to answer fools when they say something stupid. If you try to answer them, then you, too, will look like a fool. But if you don’t answer them, then they will think they are smart.”⁶ So Jesus decided to do what God told Isaiah to do, “Confuse them. Make them unable to figure out what they hear and see.”⁷ In fact, the situation got so bad that God expressed His frustration to Jeremiah: “Even the birds in the sky know the right time to do things. The storks, doves, swifts, and thrushes know when it is time to fly to a new home. But my people don’t know what the Lord wants them to do.”⁸ Jesus certainly would have found the same to be true in this situation as well,

Yet, our Master was not discourteous, He felt a burden in helping them see the truth in spite of their closed-mindedness. But on this occasion, by the elders accompanying the leading priests to confront Jesus, it sets a different tone. According to the rules and regulations of Mosaic law, Elders were the “leaders and judges” of the community.⁹ So they differed from the Pharisees and Sadducees. Their purpose was to maintain the correct interpretation of the written law, not the philosophy of the verbal law. So Jesus was on the mark by putting the pressure on them to answer why they had taken their position on what God was trying to tell them.

We find out who these leaders were when Joshua copied the law of Moses and put it inside the Ark of the Covenant. We read: “The elders, officers, judges, and all the Israelites were standing around the Box of the LORD’S Agreement. They were standing in front of the priests, the Levites who carried the Holy Box.”¹⁰ One revered Rabbi stated: “’Your elders’ – this refers to the high court. ‘And your judges’ – this refers to the king and high priest.”¹¹ In fact, another respected Rabbi said that this did not include all elders. Rather: “the distinguished ones of your elders, [namely] the Great Sanhedrin.”¹² This helps us understand the purpose of their question, and also the reply by our Lord. We must realize, they thought they were only carrying out their duty by ensuring that what this rogue prophet from Nazareth was teaching did not conflict with what they had approved for other teachers. Yet, there is little question that their motivation was also self-centered and not people-centered.

Early church Bishop Hilary gives his view of this confrontation. To him, these priests and elders foresaw that if they did not stop this Jesus of Nazareth before He persuaded all Israelites that He was the Messiah, then their positions of leadership and authority would be destroyed, and with it would go their livelihood and position in society. The control of all Israelites was under their thumb and they did not want to lose that power. But in so doing, they actually revealed another fear, that they too might be convinced of the truth that Jesus was preaching concerning the kingdom of heaven.¹³

Verses 24-25a: Jesus answered, “First let me ask you a question. If you answer me, then I will tell you what authority I have to do these things. Tell me: When John baptized people, did his authority come from God, or was it only from someone else?”

No doubt these religious leaders were not expecting such a response from this young Rabbi. After all, He was in His early 30’s. He should have been somewhat intimidated by these well-dressed clerics and community leaders. But they had no idea they were dealing with the Son of God who was able to read their thoughts and to know their intentions. It also indicates that they were part of the same group that confronted John the Baptizer and wanted to know by what authority he was preaching the message of repentance.¹⁴

At the same time, we must understand how the religious accreditation process worked among the educated Jews. In many synagogues, Rabbis had become well-known because of their interpretations of the Torah,¹⁵ as well as the Mishnah¹⁶ and Talmuds.¹⁷ So those who attended those synagogues became known as being part of that particular school of thought. During Jesus’ time, there was the eminent School of Hillel and the School of Shammai. They differed on their understanding of divorce as well as other teachings. So these priests and Jewish leaders were more or less interested in knowing what seminary Jesus attended and in whose name was He propagating His message because they could find no school with a record of His attendance.

One early church scholar who commented on Matthew had this to say: “Knowing their irreformable intentions, the Lord asked them an entirely rhetorical question, not that they might understand it and respond but that they should be hindered from interrogating Him further, for He had commanded, ‘Do not give what is holy to the dogs,’¹⁸ and it was not fitting that what the Lord commanded should be violated. But it would have profited them nothing, even if He had answered directly since a darkened will cannot discern what is of the light.”¹⁹ In other words, this anonymous writer feels that Jesus’ hesitation in just coming out and saying directly that His authority came from God the Father was two-fold. First, seeing that they really had no interest in knowing the truth, it would be wasted on them like throwing good food to dogs rather than feeding it to a hungry child. And second, the only way to get them to see their own hypocrisy and spiritual blindness was to have it pointed out to them by exposing their actions concerning a man of God that many had come to respect as being sent from God.

The writer goes on to say: “What good is it to show something beautiful to a blind man? Spiritual blindness consists of an evil heart, and evil people are not able to understand the mystery of devotion any more than the blind can gaze upon the splendor of the light. When a stealthy hunter sees a place to dig a trap, he also raises a net adjacent to it so that wherever the prey he is seeking to capture attempts to flee, it will either be caught in the net or fall into the pit. Likewise, the Lord set a trap for the chief priests and elders by means of His simple question, in such a way that if they professed John to have come from heaven, He would be able to ask them, ‘Why, then, did you not believe him?’ But if they replied that John was of the world, they would thereby have run into the danger of being stoned to death by the people, as though fleeing into a hunter’s trap.”²⁰ And it is clear from what followed that these religious leaders saw that trap and then tried to devise a plan on how to avoid it.

So the writer finishes: “It was proper that the Lord teach His interrogator and weaken His tempter in whatever way He could and confound the cleverness of His reproach with rational arguments, while not making known the truth of His own mystery. The Lord did virtually the same thing elsewhere to the devil, who had cited against Him a scriptural text without understanding it: ‘For it is written, “He will command His angels concerning you, and they will hold you in their hands, lest your foot stumbles on a rock.”’²¹ The Lord did not respond, “That is not what this Scripture means.” Rather, He left the devil ignorant of the true meaning of the text and instead refuted him with another clearer passage from Scripture in order to confound the devil’s arrogance without revealing the prophetic mystery.”²²

Here, Jesus gives us an example on how to deal when confronted by skeptics about our faith, our Christian living, and our message. If we are convinced beyond doubt that we are doing what Jesus said to do, then we need not defend ourselves based on our own logic, but point to the Word of God and say: “This is why I believe what I believe, live the way I live, and preach what I preach.” Let them then argue with the Word. By so doing, we recuse ourselves in favor of the great Judge above who will deal with those who have issues with His teachings.

NEW TESTAMENT CONTEXTUAL COMMENTARY

by Dr. Robert R. Seyda

GOSPEL OF MATTHEW

CHAPTER TWENTY-ONE

Part VI

Verses 18-19a: So, at daybreak, Jesus was on His way back to Jerusalem. He was very hungry, and when He saw a fig tree beside the road He went to get a fig from it. But there were no figs on the tree. There were only leaves.

The Latin word used here for “daybreak” is “prima luce”, which means “first light.” Getting up early in the morning was not odd or unusual in those days. When the sun rose, so did most people so they could go out in the fields, the vineyards, or on the waters to begin their work. Even Julius Caesar was an early riser. It is said of him: “After he had weighed anchor at the beginning of the second watch, he reached land at daybreak and brought in all the ships in safety.”¹ And since we have noted that area around Bethany was famous for its figs, this fits well into what Jesus did next.

The Greek text says that Jesus saw “one” fig tree. This could either mean it stood alone, or that He focused on one of the fig trees in the grove near the road. Mark tells us in his Gospel that it was still a long way off from where they stood when Jesus spotted it.² In speaking of the figs around Bethany, the Rabbis said: “One may eat dried figs until the unripe figs of Beth Hini are finished. Said Rabbi Judah: The unripe figs of Beth Hini were not mentioned except in connection with tithing, for we learned, The unripe figs of Beth Hini and the dates of Tobanya are subject to tithe.”³

Agriculturists tell us, that the common fig tree has all female flowers and needs no cross-pollination by another tree or by insects. This tree is quite unusual, however, because it generally bears two crops, the first appearing in spring on new shoots that grew since winter, and the second crop develops in late summer or early fall, from flowers that bloomed in spring on old branches from the previous season. The first crop usually is smaller, acid-flavored and inedible. The second crop is the tree’s main, edible crop, which should be allowed to ripen on the tree before picking.

But we are also told that the fig tree should bear fruit before the leaves grow. If the tree has leaves but no fruit, the tree is barren. That’s why many scholars say that it is most likely that this barren fig tree was a symbol of Israel, representing the empty and fruitless spiritual state of the people. Although this fig tree was resplendent in its abundance of rich, green foliage, yet in spite of its lofty pretensions, this tree could bear no fruit. It was barren, even though it had the look of respectability.

In fact, we find an interesting description of a particular species of figs in their writings. We read where it explains: “White figs which take three years to fully ripen have the seven year law applied to them in the second year of the seven-year cycle, since they ripen once in three years thus, if the fruit emerged during seven year cycle it takes the rest of that year and the next for it to ripen and then it is picked the following year. Rabbi Yehudah says: White figs [which take two years to fully ripen] have the law of seven year cycle applied to them in the year following the seventh year since they ripen once in two years. They said to him: This [that we identify the fig with the year that it emerged rather than the year that it was picked] was only said in regard to the species of white figs, however, are treated as vegetables and are identified as being of the year they are picked.”⁴

While we have no firm evidence, could it be possible that this was a white fig tree representing Israel which takes three years to fully ripen, and with Jesus coming to the end of His three year ministry sees that all of His miracles and teachings have borne no fruit, so He declares that Israel will never blossom and bear the fruit expected for His kingdom. But we do know that within some 35 years from that day, Israel ceased to be a viable nation, it’s Temple was destroyed, and the Jews were scattered to the far extremities of the earth. At the same time, we are informed that there was also a wild fig tree that bore its fruit twice a year.⁵ While it was not yet the season for cultivated fig trees to produce fruit, it may have been that the second crop from this wild fig tree was due, but it failed to produce any. In either case, our Lord had an answer for it when His disciples inquired as to why He caused the tree to die so suddenly.

However, not all Jewish scholars see it this way. Rabbi Isaac ben Abraham takes issue with what Jesus did here. He says: “Jesus acted here neither as a Divine person nor as a man in whom the Divine Spirit dwelt. For He surely might have known that the fig-tree bears its fruit only at the appointed season; nor would any discreet person cast a curse on a tree merely for being thus disappointed. Moreover, if Jesus, by His mere word, was able to render a tree barren, might He not as well, by the power of His word, have made the tree bring forth its fruit at the bidding of the moment, in order to appease His hunger? I, having once made use of this argument with a Christian, he explained it away by asserting that the passage has only a spiritual signification, and that the fig-tree named was but a symbol used by Jesus to represent the Jewish nation, in like manner as the prophets designate them the ‘vine-tree,’ and that Jesus had cursed Israel for having rejected Him as their spiritual teacher, I rejoined that, in our prophecies regarding the time of the expected and true Messiah, we are promised that in the days of the Messiah, knowledge, and prophecy shall increase and prevail throughout the world; as it is said: ‘You shall know that I am in the midst of Israel and that I am the Lord your God, and none else, and my people shall then never again be put to shame. And then I shall pour out my spirit upon all flesh, and your sons and your daughters shall prophesy.’⁶ From this prophecy, it is clear that many of the indispensable conditions, requisite for the advent of the Messiah, had not yet been fulfilled, but were still to come.”⁷

Again, we see where a critic of Jesus fails to understand the spiritual implications because of his focus on natural connotations. Had Jesus turned this barren tree into a fruitful one at His bidding, then it would have signified that the Jewish nation would suddenly believe in Him and follow Him. What our Lord was showing is that not even His word was enough for some Jews, they were barren and had no possibility of bearing fruit for the Kingdom of God.

We see this same exposition in the writings of one early church scholar. He writes: “It was not because Christ cursed it that the tree produced no fruit; instead, because the tree first produced no fruit, Christ cursed it to ensure that it would produce no leaves. Likewise, it wasn’t because God abandoned them that the Jews squandered His righteousness; rather, because they failed to produce the fruits of righteousness, God abandoned them to ensure that they would not have the appearance or reputation of righteousness. Just as it would have been better had there never been a tree at all than for there to have been a tree which produced no fruit according to its kind, so also would it have been better had there never been a man of God than for there to have been a man of God who did not live in accordance with God. If those who are not yours in the first place fail to obey you, you suffer nothing. You will suffer severely, however, if the one who belongs to you despises you and serves another instead. In this way, God’s wrath was not kindled nearly as much by the fact that people who were strangers to him openly served the devil as it was by the sight of his own possession doing the devil’s will.”⁸

Verse 19b-20: So Jesus said to the tree, “You will never again produce fruit!” The tree immediately dried up and died. When the followers saw this, they were very surprised. They asked, “How did the fig tree dry up and die so quickly?”

It looked good but it was all show. As a sign of His disgust, Jesus simply spoke to the tree saying that it would never bear fruit. The quickness with which this tree withered and died astounded Jesus’ followers. When they asked Jesus for an explanation, He more or less told them: “No faith, no fruit.” Then He goes on to tell them about the power of faith, no matter how small the amount. So often we read this scripture but fail to notice the crucial point. Most everyone knows about when Jesus said that even with little faith we can “move mountains,” but He qualifies that by specifying, if you have faith and “do not doubt,” and couples that with, “if you believe.”

This is the main point of His discourse in response to the disciples who were marveling over His making the fig tree wither. But the human ego always looks for the spectacular. The Empire State Building, in New York City, in all its grandeur would not exist were it not for the unseen foundation that lies blocks below the street. It is obvious that Jesus was not advocating that His disciples go around killing fig trees or getting rid of mountains, they all served a needed purpose; His emphasis was on the power of faith in which there is no doubt, and how it should be put it into action by believing that what you have faith for will happen.

Augustine has a lengthy exposition on this act by Jesus of putting a curse on this fig tree. He writes: “Now in order to convey this truth⁹ the Lord acted prophetically. By this, I mean that in reference to the fig tree, it was not His will merely to exhibit a miracle but rather through this sign to convey an intimation of that which was to come. He often taught and persuaded us by such means. So even when our will’s resist, He persuades us and brings us to faith.”¹⁰ By this we understand, that Augustine believes, as we do, that Jesus never did anything without it having a purpose and meaning related to His reason for coming to this world and its ramifications on the rest of the world’s existence.

Augustine continues: “We first ask how was it the tree’s fault that it had no fruit? Even if it had no fruit in its proper season, its season of mature fruit, still the tree would bear no fault. For the tree is without sense and reason, so it could not be blamed. But to this perplexity is added another, which we read in the narrative of the other Evangelist who expressly mentions this: ‘It was not the time for that fruit.’ For this was the time when the fig tree was just shooting forth its tender leaves, which come, as we know, long before the fruit. This sequence has a spiritual meaning. The time for fruit was soon coming with the day of the Lord’s Passion, which was at hand. And so to make this clear, the Evangelist, to his credit, notes that ‘the time of figs was not yet.’ So then, if it was only a miracle that was being demonstrated and not something to be prophetically prefigured, it would have been much more worthy of the clemency and mercy of the Lord if he had found a withered tree and restored it to life. This would seem more in accord with his healing of the sick, cleansing lepers and raising the dead.” In other words, Jesus was not fooled by the season. Rather, He wanted to teach a lesson so He chose the right object to fit that purpose.

Augustine goes on: “But to the contrary, as though against the ordinary rule of His goodness, He found a green tree, not yet bearing fruit, even before its fruit-bearing season but still awaiting the hope of fruit, and what does he do? He withers it straight away! This is a prophetic anticipation of things soon to come, by which he in effect says to us: ‘I have no delight in the withering away of this tree. By doing so I want to convey to you that I am not acting absurdly but for a lesson you might take more seriously. It is not this literal tree that I have cursed. It is not on an insensible tree that I have inflicted punishment. Rather, I have made you fear, whoever you are who considers this matter, that you should not fail Christ when he is hungry and that you might hope to be in the coming season of fruit than to be in the preparatory season of leaves.’ …”

Then Augustine finishes: “Therefore, beloved, I must tell you and teach you according to my poor abilities that which the Lord has given me for your benefit. I must convey to you what you may hold as a rule in the interpretation of all Scripture. Everything that is said or done is to be understood either in its literal signification, or else it signifies something figuratively; or it may contain both of these at once, both its own literal interpretation and a figurative signification also.…Thus Christ, wishing to convey this lesson to us, wanted us to produce fruit and in this way set forth for us a figurative fiction which is not a deceiving fiction but a fiction worthy of praise.”¹¹

So the lesson here was not what Jesus did to the empty tree, but why He did it. Obviously, had He not intended to teach about the power of faith, He would never have given it as His answer for why it was done. That’s why in reading about Jesus’ miracles we must always look for “why He did it” instead of concentrating on “what He did.”

NEW TESTAMENT CONTEXTUAL COMMENTARY

by Dr. Robert R. Seyda

GOSPEL OF MATTHEW

CHAPTER TWENTY-ONE

Part V

Verse 14: Then, some blind people and some who were crippled came to Jesus in the Temple area and Jesus healed them.

Something must have triggered this sudden rush of people surging into the Temple area to seek healing from this unknown prophet from Nazareth. It may no doubt have been from the testimonies of those who were following Jesus, some of which were healed prior to His coming there, and they had been following Him after they were healed. Could it be that among those giving witness to Jesus’ healing power were the two blind men healed as Jesus left Jericho a few days earlier?

What better way to attract people to Jesus than for those who’ve been healed and changed by His touch to testify to the miraculous change that came into their lives. There have been times when I’ve witnessed where such testimonies have prompted more people to turn to Jesus than a sermon. That’s why we must always keep in mind that we are not healed to be spectators, but ambassadors of the Kingdom of God.

Verse 15a: The leading priests and the teachers of the law saw the marvelous things He was doing. And they also saw the children praising Him in the Temple area shouting, “Praise to the Son of David.”

Once again, as in the case of blind Bartimaeus in Mark’s Gospel,¹ the leaders of the Jews were incensed at the people’s acknowledgment of Jesus as the Messiah, David’s son. After all, it was they themselves who were supposed to recognize and give credence to the Christ when He came, not the lowly masses. He was to be a friend of the High Priests, Scribes, and Levites, not the tax collectors, prostitutes, and the poor. He would praise the Sadducees and Pharisees, not condemned them. He would exterminate their enemies, not ask that they are prayed for.

However, if this Jesus loved by the multitudes is really the awaited Messiah, they will now have to acknowledge that fact and be reconciled with Him. This, they were not about to do. Their pride and positions in the community were at stake. Even as Christ Himself said, “We must become as little children and be converted to enter the kingdom of heaven.” To them, that did not fit the image of those would follow the Messiah. He was to be a champion riding in on His stallion, ready to rule the world. Problem was, they had the right person in Jesus of Nazareth, but were not placing Him in the right context; He had come to be the Savior of the world before He would return as the King of the world. So they were caught between the adoring crowds and their own skeptical religious leaders.

Surely they knew that Isaiah said this is exactly how the Messiah would minister, “Then the eyes of the blind will be opened so that they can see, and the ears of the deaf will be opened so that they can hear. Crippled people will dance like deer, and those who cannot speak now will use their voices to sing happy songs.”² Not only that, but their spiritual fathers had said this would come after they returned to Jerusalem from exile in Babylon and Persia, and that certainly was the case.³ But on top of that, they were further caught off guard because of all the other wonderful things Jesus was doing without their sponsorship or approval.

Verse 15b-16a: All this made the priests and the teachers of the law very upset, so they confronted Jesus, “Do You hear what these children are saying?”

As we can see, while the crowd is praising Jesus for His works with hosannas, and the children are praising Him for being the Messiah, calling Him the royal descendant of king David, the priests and scribes had a different reaction. What caused these leading priests and scribes so much concern about the children, is that their own teaching stated that if a child knows how to shake the lulab,⁴ they become responsible for what the lulab represents; and if they know how to drape the prayer shawl on their heads, their father must purchase one for them; and if they are old enough to speak, they must be taught the Torah and learn how to recite the Shema: “Hear O Israel, the Lord is our God, the Lord is One.” Not only that, but if they know how to purify themselves, they must be allowed to eat kosher foods; and if they know how to spread out their hands to say a benediction, then they must be allowed to partake of the terumah, which is a special food offering prepared so that a portion can be tithed for the support of priests.⁵

In other words, these were not just innocent, uninformed children crying Hosanna while mimicking the adults, but children who knew what they were doing. So as one respected Rabbi said: “If a child knows how to shake the lulab according to the instructions of the Sages,” then they are eligible to fulfill the commandments related to the Feasts.⁶ Instead, it made these religious leaders angry. The Persian Version renders it: “it displeased the priests;” the Aramaic Version says: “they were displeased;” the Arabic Version says: “they murmured;” the Ethiopic translation has: “it was not pleasant to them,” and an old Hebrew version of Matthew renders it: “The sages mocked.”⁷ It is ironic, that here the adults were wrong by being upset over what children were doing right.

Verse 16b: So Jesus answered them, “Yes I do. But have you never read where the Scriptures say, ‘You have prepared children and infants to give praise.’”⁸

I’m not sure if these aggravated Jewish religious leaders were prepared for the answer they received from Jesus on this matter. Instead of being defensive, He offered them an answer from a source they could not argue with. The Jewish Version or Psalm 8:2 reads: “From the mouths of babies and infants at the breast you established strength because of your foes, in order that you might silence the enemy and the avenger.” Even though Jesus did not say nor did Matthew include it here, the words of David in another psalm were certainly apropos on this occasion: “Give ADONAI His due, you who are godly; give ADONAI His due of glory and strength; give ADONAI the glory due His name; worship ADONAI in holy splendor.”⁹

Verse 17: Then Jesus turned and walked out of Jerusalem over to Bethany where He spent the night.

It appears that our Lord left the leading priests and teachers of the law standing with their mouths open, thinking about the Scripture He had just quoted them before He walked away. Matthew tells us that He went over to Bethany where Mary, Martha, and Lazarus lived. We are not told how many of the disciples went with Him, but we do know they were there the next morning to witness His encounter with a fig tree.¹⁰

Bethany is not mentioned in the Old Testament, but in the Babylonian Talmud it is referred to as Beth Hini.¹¹ Bethany was a village to the east of the mount of Olives, on the road to Jericho; about two miles from Jerusalem. When St. Jerome visited this area between 385-388 AD, he noted that the village was small and poor, and the cultivation of the soil around it is much neglected; but it is a pleasant, romantic spot, shaded by Mount Olive, and abounding in vines and long grass. He said, “Bethany is a village at the second milestone from Aelia [Jerusalem], on the slope of Mount of Olive, where the Savior raised Lazarus to life, to which event the church now built there bears witness” It consists of from thirty to forty dwellings inhabited by about 600 Mohammedans, for whose use there is a neat little mosque standing on a mound. Here they show the ruins of a sort of castle as the house of Lazarus, and a grotto as his tomb; and the house of Simon the leper, of Mary Magdalene, and of Martha, and the identical tree which our Lord cursed, are among the monk’s souvenirs of the place. According to Jewish sources, today this is the site of the village el-æAzariye on the southeastern slopes of Mount Olive. The identification is established by the name el-æAzariye which is the Arabic form for “Lazarium,” as Bethany was sometimes called by the Christians. The village, with its olive, fig, almond, and carob-trees, is a little oasis in that barren region. In Hebrew, figs are called te’enah, which are also mentioned in the Talmud, which probably contributed to giving the place its name of beth (home) of te’enah (figs).

Regardless of how blessed Bethany was because of Lazarus’ resurrection and Jesus’ many visits, we are told by the Jews that the day came when all the bazaars in Bethany were destroyed.¹² Bible scholars tell us: “These were stores set up on Mount Olive for the supply of pigeons and other commodities required for sacrifices, and owned by the powerful priestly families, to whom they proved a source of wealth, were destroyed three years before the fall of Jerusalem [in 70 AD].”¹³ In any case, this is where Jesus went to spend the night, either at the house of Lazarus, and his sisters Martha and Mary, or over at the house of Simon the Leper. To put it bluntly, He went there for a good night’s sleep because He knew what awaited Him the next morning back at the Temple in Jerusalem, and He wanted to be mentally and physically prepared.

A well-known British Christian writer made this statement in one of his novels some 100 years ago: “When it rains on your parade, look up rather than down. Without the rain, there would be no rainbow.”¹

Sometimes this is hard to do, especially after the rain has caused flooding that results in homes being swept away by strong torrents, mud slides that wipe out highways, bridges, and cause millions of dollars in damage. G. K. Chesterton was often referred to as the “prince of paradox.” And that is what we find in this saying. How can anything so negative, as rain on a parade, end up being so positive?

In fact, it’s not the rain. This has been part of nature since creation. Without rain providing lakes, rivers, and drinking water, mankind would find it hard to exist. The damage caused by torrential rains and floods is most often to those things man has built in places where more caution should have been taken before construction began.

It all goes back to Noah’s flood. There was so much wickedness in the world that God chose rain to wash all that evil away and begin again with Noah and his family. So it was after the rain stopped that God gave the rainbow as a sign that He was in control. Therefore, the rainbow can become a symbol of starting over with a clean slate.

So, as Chesterton suggested, the next time it rains on your parade and things flood into your life that can cause a major change in the way you act, think and live, don’t look down, look up, and see the rainbow that offers the promise of a new opportunity to build again. But this time, build on a rock above the flood plain, not down on the sand where it can happen again. – Dr. Robert R Seyda

WILL IT EVER STOP?

On Friday, July 13, 2012, the American Humanist Association asked the Wilmington, NC city council to stop holding sectarian prayers during public meetings because it is a violation of the separation of church and state. The prayers have frequently been expressly Christian in nature.

One year later on Wednesday, July 3, 2013, the Knoxville City Council was one the latest local government bodies in East Tennessee to be asked to stop opening its meetings with prayer. The Freedom from Religion Foundation sent a letter to the council asking them to stop opening its meetings with prayer. The council begins each meeting with an invocation and the Pledge of Allegiance. The foundation questions the legality of opening a government meeting with prayer. It also argues that opening each meeting with prayer, even if different religions are represented, isolates those who are not religious.

Then again on Tuesday, July 23, 2013, the American Civil Liberties Union of Florida sent a letter today to Jacksonville’s mayor asking that the city stop opening council sessions with sectarian prayer. “Beginning … any government session, with a prayer that consistently reflects only one faith tradition, impermissibly represents government preference for one particular faith over others…” said Glenn Katon, project director for the ACLU of Florida Religious Freedom, in a statement.

Such requests show a fundamental misunderstanding on the part of such secular groups about Christians. They are of the opinion that such things as prayer are apart and separate from a true Christian’s everyday life. In other words, it’s what Christians do, not what they are. They couldn’t be more wrong! Communion with God is like breathing; like a heartbeat; like a pulse to a born again child of God. Perhaps these anti-God secularists have come to this conclusion because they see so many people who call themselves Christian, relegating their contact with God to Sunday morning services or see them pray only in emergencies. In response to criticism, some Christians have resorted to silent prayer or a moment of silence.

Since the separation of church and state does not exist in the Constitution; and since freedom of religion is expressly guaranteed without government interference, then their demands must be considered a violation of the first amendment. Here’s what it says: “Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech…” By the way, this same amendment includes freedom of the press and the right of the people peaceably to assemble. You talk about a triple whammy! This amendment allows people to gather together peacefully; to speak their minds, even if it involves religious expression.

But don’t expect the courts, or even the Supreme Court, to honor this tradition and guarantee. More and more judges and justices are being persuaded that religious expression and practice are an amendment to life; something that can be put aside for the moment so as not to offend nonbelievers. Unfortunately, many churches, pastors, and their members have provided ample evidence of this theory. In addition, many of the prayers that are being objected to are not directed to God, but to the listeners. Prayer can be a personal conversation with God or a request to God. What offends them is the fact that when Christian’s pray, they pray to God the Father and do so in the name of Jesus His Son. To them, this represents the existence of a higher power; one that exercises control over the world and the universe. If they were to accept this reality it would curb their freedom to sin without consequence and deny their independence from God. This fear drives them to curtail prayer by Christians in public. They don’t like the conviction it brings.

I remember a well-known saying that  goes: “The family that prays together, stays together.” I’m persuaded then, that the nation that prays together, stays together. The three Hebrew children in the Bible defied King Nebuchadnezzar’s decree to stop praying in public. You saw what God did for them; imagine what He is capable of doing for us. – Dr. Robert R Seyda

NEW TESTAMENT CONTEXTUAL COMMENTARY

by Dr. Robert R. Seyda

GOSPEL OF MATTHEW

CHAPTER TWENTY-ONE

Part IV

Verse 12c: He flipped over the tables that belonged to those who were exchanging different kinds of money for Temple shekels. And He turned over the tables of those who were selling doves.

Rabbi Moses Maimonides gives us a detailed explanation of what these chests looked like and what they were used for:

“In the Temple, there were always thirteen chests, each chest shaped like a ram’s horn. The first chest was for the new shekels of the present year; the second for the old shekels of the previous year; the third was for all those who were obligated to bring an offering of two turtle doves or two common doves, one as a burnt offering and one as a sin offering. The funds for these offerings were deposited in this chest. The fourth was for those who were obligated to bring doves as a burnt offering only. They would deposit the funds for these offerings in this chest. The fifth was for those who volunteered to buy wood for the altar; the sixth, for those who donated money to purchase frankincense; the seventh, for those who donated gold for the covering of the ark. The eighth was for the money left over after purchasing a sin-offering – i.e., a person set aside funds to use to purchase a sin-offering, and money remained after purchasing it. Those funds were deposited in this chest. The ninth was for the money that remains after purchasing a guilt-offering; the tenth, for the money that remains after purchasing the pairs of doves necessary for the offerings of zavim,¹ zavot,² and women after childbirth; the eleventh, for the money that remains after purchasing the offerings of a Nazirite;³ the twelfth, for the money that remains after purchasing the guilt offering of a leper; the thirteenth, for a person who pledged money for an animal to be brought as a burnt offering.”⁴

So we can see, that the sale of doves was an elaborate exercise for both the buyer and seller. But what made it so despicable was the fact that doves were the sacrifices of the poor. It was all they could afford. And even they were being exploited. It was the prophet Malachi who foresaw this event, “The Lord All-Powerful says, ‘I am sending my messenger to prepare the way for me. Then suddenly, the Lord you are looking for will come to His temple. Yes, the messenger you are waiting for, the one who will tell about my agreement, is really coming! No one can prepare for that time or stand against Him when He comes. He will be like a burning fire. He will be like the strong soap people use to make things clean.”⁵

The buying and sacrificing of these offerings were complicated. The following instructions were given by the Rabbis: “Whoever needed ritual ingredients would go to Rabbi Yohanan who was in charge of the stamps and would give him the appropriate amount of money and would receive a stamp from him in return. He would then go to Rabbi Ahiyah who was in charge over the ritual ingredients, give him the stamp and receive the ritual ingredients from him thus saving anyone requiring to bring an offering the trouble of finding and bringing the necessary ingredients produced in purity. In the evening they would meet, and Ahiyah would take out the stamps and would receive the corresponding amount of money for them from Yohanan. If there was a surplus of money in the hands of Yohanan the surplus goes to the Temple treasury, but if there was a deficit, Yohanan would pay from his personal funds; because the Temple has the upper hand. If one lost his stamp he would wait until the evening when Ahiya and Yohanan would meet if they found extra money corresponding to the value of his stamp they would give him ritual ingredients, otherwise, he did not get any.”⁶ We should all be glad that we do not need to go through this procedure today in order to approach God when we are in need of forgiveness.

Not only that, but there were provisions just in case a mistake was made: “The following rules apply when a sin-offering of fowl is brought because of a doubt and then it is discovered that the woman is definitely obligated to bring the sacrifice. If she realized this before killing the bird from the back of the neck by severing the spine was performed on the dove, it should be offered with certainty and eaten. If she did not discover this until after killing the bird was performed, the sprinkling and presentation of its blood on the altar should be completed. Then it should be burnt, so that it will not be said that a sin-offering of fowl brought because of a doubt is eaten. For at the outset, this offering was brought because of a doubt.”⁷ This is what Jesus encountered when He walked into the Temple courts. There was no doubt confusion and chaos reigned as Jesus flipped one table, chest, and bench after another. When the Master finished, no doubt somewhat out of breath, He looked around and quoted loudly from Scripture.⁸

Our Lord’s anger was not against the payment of the money to purchase the sacrificial animal, this was instituted for a reason: This way a poor person who did not own any animals could still obtain a sacrifice, and allow those who traveled a long distance to purchase their sacrifice without the trouble of bringing the animal or ingredients with them. Money exchanges were not only set up in the Temple but in the provinces as well.⁹ However, there was subversion of this practice. The Temple shekel was inflated on purpose so that the Temple authorities could then use the different currencies collected because the Temple shekel was worthless on the open market.¹⁰

We are told that they used the Tyrian shekel because it had a higher silver content. Perhaps this is why they inflated the value.¹¹ In fact, the exchanges had gotten so outrageous that one Rabbi vowed to drive the price down at all cost. We read: “At one time, in Jerusalem, a par of doves cost a golden denar. Rabban Simeon ben Gamaliel said: ‘So help me, Temple! I will not suffer the night to pass by before they cost but a silver denar.”¹²

Verse 13: Jesus said to them, “The Scriptures say, ‘My Temple will be called a house of prayer.’¹³ But you have turned it into a ‘gathering place for thieves’¹⁴.”

I’m sure the buyers and sellers were stunned. But at the same time, they knew He was right. I wonder how close we have gotten to this when viewers and listeners are told by ministers that if they send in a donation there will be special prayers offered for them, or when parishioners are told that as a result of a confessed sin they must put a certain amount of money in the alms box in order to secure prayers for their forgiveness? Christ did not establish the church to become a money-making enterprise, but that it serve in this dark and sin-filled world as a lighthouse of worship; a life-saving station; a soul-winning center; freely offering healing and comfort to all who come. But of paramount importance is that they become known as a house of prayer, not entertainment. Matthew doesn’t say what happened next, whether the merchants set things back up or not. But no doubt one thing did happen. The Temple authorities were immediately notified, and they knew they had real trouble on their hands.

In the future, this same refrain of the Temple being a house of prayer would be repeated, but under different circumstances. When King Demetrius son of Seleucus began to reign on the coasts of Italy, he sent one of his henchmen named Bacchides to invade Judah. We read: “Then the king sent Nicanor, one of his honored princes, who hated and detested Israel.” Nicanor went up to Mount Zion where he mocked those who made him welcome. He was there to conquer, so he gave them an ultimatum, and if it wasn’t answered he would return and burn the Temple down. That’s when the priests went and stood before the altar and the Temple, and as they were weeping they cried out to God: “You chose this house to be called by your name, and to be for your people a house of prayer and supplication.”¹⁵

Chrysostom sums this up in one of his sermons: “John’s Gospel also reported this, but at the beginning of his narrative. But now in Matthew, we are coming to the end of the narrative. Thus it is probable that this was done twice and on different occasions. That there was a first cleansing of the temple and then a second is apparent from much evidence. In John’s Gospel, He came at the time of the Passover. Here it was before Passover. In John, the Jews said, ‘What miraculous sign can you show us to prove your authority to do all this?’ In Matthew, they hold their peace, though reproved, because he was marveled at among all the population.”¹⁶

Bible scholars agree that this is one position where the Gospel according to John differs inexplicably from the others. It says that Jesus went from Galilee to Jerusalem three times during his ministry (John 2:13; 5:1; 12:12). By John’s account, the ministry of Jesus lasted for at least three years. For some time it has been a general consensus of NT studies that the Synoptic Gospels are in typically more historically reliable, while John’s is a more ‘symbolic’ or spiritual gospel which arranges things to suit its theological agenda. But which of the accounts is likely to be true to the actual chronology of Jesus’ life? Any observant Jewish male would have visited the city each year for the three main pilgrim festivals (Passover, Hannukah, and Succoth), so unless Jesus’ public ministry lasted less than a year, this is prima facie evidence that John is likely to be correct here. But there is another important clue in Matthew¹⁷ and Luke.¹⁸ Both include a saying of Jesus where He longs to gather Jerusalem as a hen gathers her chicks.

So Chrysostom continues: “If this happened on two different occasions, this becomes a heavier charge against the Jewish leadership. He did it not only once but a second time, and still, they continued their buying and selling and called Him an opponent of God. They should have learned from the first cleansing to honor His Father and His own power. They could see His works agreeing with His words, and they could behold His miracles. They could hear the prophet pointing to Him. They could see the children attesting Him in a manner beyond their age. But all this did not persuade them. Instead, ‘they were indignant.’ So He brings in Isaiah as their accuser when He says, ‘My house will be called a house of prayer.’”¹⁹

Remember, none of the Gospels were diaries where a day to day account was written down. They were composed years after Jesus ascended and depended on the memory of the writer. Does this make them less reliable? No! The Holy Spirit inspired the authors to write down what God the Father wanted to be recorded for future believers. So not mentioning one of the trips Jesus made to Jerusalem does not change the Gospel’s story. Besides this, Jesus was under no obligation of the Law to attend, so missing a festival or two is not a detrimental factor in recognizing Him as the true Messiah.

NEW TESTAMENT CONTEXTUAL COMMENTARY

by Dr. Robert R. Seyda

GOSPEL OF MATTHEW

CHAPTER TWENTY-ONE

Part III

Verse 9: Some of the people were walking ahead of Jesus. Others were walking behind Him. They all shouted, “Praise to the Son of David! Welcome! God bless the one who comes in the name of the Lord! Praise to God in heaven!”

Now Matthew tells us what the people were cheering about. Literally, they were shouting “Hosha’na,” to the Son of David. This part of the refrain is found in the Psalms.¹ It is an Aramaic word used in calling out to God for help. According to Jewish resources, this was the shout the people of Jerusalem were accustomed to raising while marching in procession and waving branches of palm, myrtle, and willow in the joyous Sukkot festival,² especially on the seventh day, when the willow-branches of the “lulab” procession were piled up and beaten against the altar, which is discussed in their teachings.³ The willow-branch, or “festive wreath” thus received the name “hosha’na;”⁴ and the seventh Sukkot day was called the “Day of Hosha’na” or “Hosha’na Rabbah.”

It was a popular festival similar to the ancient Canaanite ritual connected to prayer for the year’s rain.⁵ The multitudes accompanied the priests each night of the Sukkot feast to the spring of Shiloh, where the water for the libation on the altar was drawn midst great solemnity and rejoicing,⁶ while the last day formed the climax of the festivities. “Anna Adonai Hosha’na” (Please, LORD! Save us!),⁷ – the refrain of the psalms recited by the assembly, was, probably owing to constant repetition, soon abbreviated by the people into, “Hosha’na.”

Thus, “Hosha’na” became a popular cry used in solemn processions connected with carrying palm branches. We read in the Jew’s sacred text: “On the twenty-third day of the second month, in the one hundred and seventy-first year, the Jews entered with praise and palm branches, and with harps and cymbals and stringed instruments, and with hymns and songs, because a great enemy had been crushed and removed from Israel,”⁸ also: “Therefore, carrying ivy-wreathed wands and beautiful branches and also fronds of palm, they offered hymns of thanksgiving to Him who had given success to the purifying of His own holy place.”⁹ This clearly shows that the waving of these branches and crying out Hosha’na was not always tied to a particular holiday. It was often a spontaneous response to any occasion for rejoicing.

When these words were applied to Jesus’ arrival in Jerusalem, it upset the Jewish religious leaders. Even though Jewish Rabbis were divided over whether the words: “Please, Adonai! Save us! Please, Adonai! Rescue us! Blessed is he who comes in the name of Adonai. We bless you from the house of Adonai,”¹⁰ were intended for King David or the Messiah. A closer look at the words in Psalm 118:22 certainly opens it for messianic interpretation. Furthermore, some Rabbis also found the words in verse 118:27 to be specifically applied to the Messiah. In fact, the Jews wrote that verse 118:27 referred to the days of “Gog and Magog,” and verse 118:28 to the “age to come.”¹¹

However, Rabbi Akiba explains in the Talmud: “It was the Holy Spirit who gave this song, and that the Israelites sang it as they crossed the Red Sea.” And also, Rabbis Jehudah and Samuel said that “The prophets have commanded Israel that on the day of their salvation they are to sing this to their Savior.”¹² And since Jesus was the Messiah, then truly these verses were speaking of Him.

Verse 10: Then Jesus entered Jerusalem. All the people in the city were taken by surprise. They asked, ‘Who is this man?

Finally, Jesus and His entourage arrive at the gates of the holy city. There were a lot of people within its walls that did not know about what had happened outside, so as our Lord and the chanting crowd pour through the gates they turned to each other and asked, (In today’s vernacular), “What in the world is going on! Who is this guy?” The gates of every city were where the action was. Here, elders sat around discussing the application of the law. This is usually where the market place was located. So someone coming through the gate that the local’s didn’t recognize right away caught their attention. We find this happened once in Bethlehem. We read, “Naomi and Ruth traveled until they came to the town of Bethlehem. When the two women entered Bethlehem, all the people were very excited. They said, ‘Is this the Naomi we heard about?.’”¹³

In his sermon on this text, Chrysostom makes the following comment: “Even when the crowds grasped that something great was happening, their inward thoughts remained uninformed, lowly, unworthy and lacking in understanding. But Jesus did these things in their presence not to display pomp but, as I have said, to fulfill prophecy, teach self-denial and to comfort His disciples, who were grieving for His death. He was showing them that He would suffer all these things willingly. Mark well the accuracy of the prophets, how they foretold all these things, some taken from David’s psalms and some from Zechariah. They had proclaimed them beforehand.”¹⁴

Verse 11: The crowds accompanying Jesus answered, “This is Jesus. He is the prophet from the town of Nazareth in Galilee.”

It doesn’t take long before those in the assemblage informed the residence of Jerusalem exactly who this prophet was. Based on the chronology of our Lord’s ministry in Galilee, it may have been a year since He was in Jerusalem. Also, when He came before there wasn’t much fanfare. So this was perhaps the biggest surprise that this time, He brought such a large crowd with Him. But our Lord doesn’t waste much time, He was on a mission.

It is significant to notice that according to Matthew, the people following Jesus did not proclaim Him to be the Messiah, but a prophet from Nazareth. This may be because the people inside the city were not as knowledgeable about this Jesus as they were. Also, they must get the people to accept Jesus as a prophet before anyone might suggest that He was the Messiah. But it also allows for the fact that the ones explaining about Jesus were not His close disciples, but some who had joined the crowd after they left Bethphage bound for Jerusalem.

Verse 12a: Jesus headed straight for the Temple area.

Some Bible scholars believe it had been six months since He left Galilee to make His way toward Jerusalem.¹⁵ He didn’t go to the market place, or the tower of David, or the palace of the High Priest. Nor did He go to visit any friends or relatives He might have had there. No, He returned to the same place He last visited when He was twelve years old, the house of His heavenly Father, who gave this place His own description: “I will fill this Temple with glory…All its silver really belongs to me! And all the gold is mine!’ This last Temple will be more beautiful than the first one, and I will bring peace to this place, this is what the LORD All-Powerful said.”¹⁶ Some scholars believe that Jesus may have entered into the city through the eastern gate since it was called the “King’s Gate.”¹⁷ That is because it’s the only external gate that gives immediate access to the Temple Mount. Once Jesus reached the Temple Court of the Gentiles, Matthew then tells us what happened:

Verse 12b: He began throwing out all those who were selling and buying things there.

Jesus wastes no time in doing what He came to Jerusalem to do. He was tired of seeing how the worship of Almighty God had been commercialized. It was known at that time that the Temple authorities had inflated the value of the Temple Shekel so that when people brought money from whatever place or land where they lived, they ended up buying sacrifices at inflated prices. What was even more disconcerting, was the fact that the priests could not keep up with the daily demand for sacrifices. Can you imagine a thousand people a day wanting to have their sacrifices offered to cover their sins? Based on the rituals needed, that would take hundreds of hours. So there was no way to get them all in on one day. So many of the animals purchased for sacrifice on one day were put back in their pens and sold over again the next day.

Matthew notes that Jesus also turned over the benches of those selling doves. The sacrifice of doves is outlined in Leviticus.¹⁸ Also, in Jewish writings, we find this description: “There were thirteen collection chests in the Temple and on them were inscribed; New Shekel, Old Shekel, Bird-offerings, Young Pigeons for Burnt-offerings, Wood, Frankincense, Gold for vessels, and on six were inscribed for various Freewill Offerings. New shekels were used for the deposit of the yearly shekel which at the appointed times were removed and placed into the treasury chamber, Old Shekels were for those who did not pay last year and pays it this year which was removed and placed into the remainder of the treasury chamber. Bird-offerings were used for those who vowed to bring turtledoves into which they would place the corresponding funds, Young pigeons for Burnt-offerings, were used for those who vowed to bring young pigeons and all these [i.e., two chests] were only used for donated burnt-offerings.”¹⁹ Truly, what Jesus walked into was a frantic, greedy, smelly, commercial center, not a quiet and sacred house of prayer.

NEW TESTAMENT CONTEXTUAL COMMENTARY

by Dr. Robert R. Seyda

GOSPEL OF MATTHEW

CHAPTER TWENTY-ONE

Part II

Verse 3: “If anyone asks you why you are taking the donkeys, tell them, ‘The Master needs them. He will send them back soon.’”

While these instructions are certainly helpful in providing the disciples a reason for suddenly showing up in town and leading away a female donkey and her colt, it also clearly suggests that there was some prior planning that had gone on in arranging this event. Today we would say that Jesus gave His disciples a “code word” that identified them as agents of the Master. Anyone standing nearby hearing such a brief and authoritative response would naturally conclude that whoever this Master was, He was highly respected and influential.

Verses 4-5: This showed the full meaning of what the prophet said: “Tell the people of Zion, ‘Behold, your king is coming to you. He is humble and riding on a donkey. He is riding on a young donkey, born from a work animal.’”

As we see, there was more to this than our Lord simply needing the colt of a donkey to ride on, it was also the fulfillment of a prophecy concerning the Messiah.¹ The scribe who was translating Matthew’s notes from Aramaic into Greek may have included this commentary to enlighten the reader as to the significance of this act.² I like to compare what happened here to a parable Rabbi Kahana tells us about a noblewoman whose husband, sons and sons-in-law went to a far country by the sea for business. One day she was suddenly told: “Our sons have come back!” She replied: “Let my daughters-in-law be glad.” “And now look, your sons-in-law!” She replied: “Let my daughters rejoice.” But when she was told, “Behold your husband!” she replied, “Joy! Utter joy!” Likewise, when the Prophets will say to Jerusalem “Behold, your king is coming to you,” she will reply:³ “O joy! Utter joy! I will greatly rejoice in the Lord.”⁴

This is a clear indication that no one should have been surprised at all by the rejoicing that took place when Jesus the Messiah rode toward Jerusalem. For one thing, riding toward Jerusalem on the back of a donkey was not that unusual. We read where in Deborah’s song she sang during the time of the Judges, she called out: “Pay attention you people riding on white donkeys sitting on blankets, and those walking along the road.”⁵ So transporting people this way was a long-time custom.

Also, Jesus specifying that they bring both the mother and her colt is significant when seen with Jewish manners and customs in mind. In Jewish literature, we find that domesticated donkeys, called ‘Hamor‘ (a female was called “aton” and the colt was called “ayir”) were put to various uses. Among them was for riding, in which the young colt and female donkey were mainly employed.⁶ The highly respected Rabbi David Kimchi has a special section on how he saw this prophecy in Zechariah applying to Jesus of Nazareth. It is much too long to replicate here, but in it he states: “The writings of the Jews furnish an unbroken chain of testimony to prove that it was always referring to the Messiah, and that, therefore, the writers of the New Testament did not lay hold of a text, the letter of which seemed to suit their purpose, but applied a passage of Scripture which the Jewish nation always regarded as a test to verify the claims of every pretender to the Messiahship.”⁷

So Matthew’s application of this prophecy is accepted among many Jewish scholars to this day. The revered Rabbi Ibn Ezra stated: “Commentators were divided on this. Some say, that this king is our Messiah. Others say Messiah son of Joseph.”⁸ He goes on to say, however, that if this were really a king it would be somewhat odd because riding on a donkey would be something only a poor man could afford.

This certainly can be seen in the disagreement between Rabbi Alexandri and Rabbi Joshua on whether the Messiah would come on the clouds of heaven or arrive riding on a donkey. Upon hearing this argument King Shapur said to them: “You maintain that the Messiah will ride upon a donkey: I would rather send Him one of my white horses.”⁹ Little did these Rabbi’s know that both of these would be fulfilled by Jesus of Nazareth. He came to Jerusalem the first time riding on a donkey, but He will return the second time in the clouds of heaven as seen in John’s Revelation, riding on a white horse.¹⁰ And, another well-known Rabbi states: “It is impossible to interpret this except as referring to the King Messiah, as it is stated: ‘and His rule shall be from sea to sea.’ We do not find that Israel had such a ruler during the days of the Second Temple.”¹¹

Yet, while many waited for a king to ride in, albeit on a donkey just to fulfill Scripture, another Rabbi reminds everyone of what Isaiah said about Him being a poor man:¹² “The King Messiah, is referred to as a poor man riding on a donkey.¹³”¹⁴ Not all Jews saw riding on a donkey as demeaning. One notable Rabbi stated that the donkey ridden by Abraham,¹⁵ was the same donkey ridden by Moses when he went back to Egypt,¹⁶ and will be the same donkey ridden in the future by the Son of David ¹⁷ when he arrives.¹⁸ It makes you wonder why the Jews were so upset at all the rejoicing when Jesus showed up. Wasn’t this enough for them to realize that Messiah had finally come?

Was it because they felt like Jesus was trying to be an imitator of the Messiah. The possibilities are, that this was the basic cause of their anger. However, we should not think that such a mindset has vanished. There are many people today caught in the bondage of sin and addiction who are looking for a Savior, but this Jesus of Nazareth from 2000 years ago does not fit their image of the one they desire to see.

Verse 6: The followers went and did what Jesus told them to do.

We see that His disciples did not hesitate to follow their Master’s instructions. This was a trait they may have inherited from Noah, “Noah did everything God commanded him to do.”¹⁹ One outstanding Jewish commentator noted on Noah’s response: “In addition, Noah did not try to comprehend what was in God’s mind, to find something unspoken that might be expected of him. He observed the letter of the law without deviating, but without trying to understand the spirit of the law.”²⁰ However, I disagree. I believe that Noah followed God’s instructions because he believed they were perfect and would result in bringing about God’s plan and purpose for building the ark in the first place. Another Jewish translator prefers a different rendering: “And this Noah did; as all that God commanded him, that’s what he did.”²¹

Verse 7: They brought the mother donkey and the young donkey to Him. They covered the donkeys with their coats, and Jesus sat on them.

In those days there were no saddles as we know them today, so placing blankets on the back of the donkey was traditional. In centuries to come these blankets would continued to be used as saddle blankets in order to absorb sweat, cushion the saddle, and protect the animal’s back. But these admirers of Jesus were not content with using any ordinary blanket, they wanted to cushion their Messiah’s ride with their personal clothing. But another thing to consider is this: some people preferred to ride on donkeys because riding a horse could be taken as boasting, since horses were most often used in war. But, when we see this same Jesus in John’s Revelation, He has traded in His donkey for a stallion, one fit for a conqueror.

Jesus is never recorded as riding on donkeys during His ministry, He is always seen walking. But on this occasion, He did so in order for those who knew of this prophecy in Zechariah would be able to make the comparison so as to recognize Him as their expected Messiah. Some did and rejoiced, and some concluded that Jesus was only pretending to be the Messiah. But they would soon find out that He was for real.

Verse 8: On the way to Jerusalem, many, many people spread their coats on the road for Jesus. Others cut branches from the trees and spread them on the road.

This was not a new gesture. It was customary for subordinates to use their clothing for a king to step on or sit on. We read that when Jehu was anointed King over Israel: “Each officer quickly took his robe off and put it on the steps in front of Jehu. Then they blew the trumpet and made the announcement, ‘Jehu is king!’”²² In the Aramaic Targum of the Book of Esther it says: “…the streets were strewed with myrtles, and the courts with purple, when Mordecai went out of the king’s gate.”²³ So the use of branches, fronds, and many colored cloths were already a part of celebrations for welcoming someone held in high esteem and revered.

This would occur later in Jewish History during the time of the Maccabees, where it says they were: “…carrying ivy-wreathed wands and beautiful branches and also fronds of palm, they offered hymns of thanksgiving to Him who had given success to the purifying of His own holy place.”²⁴ But there was more going on here than showing reverence for a holy man. We find a similar scene when Marcus Porcius Cato the Younger, a Roman senator and historian, finished his military service. We read: “He was sent on his way, not with blessings, as is common, nor yet with praises, but with tears and endless embraces, the soldiers casting their robes down for him to walk on, and kissing his hands, things which the Romans of that day rarely did, and only to a few of their commanders.”²⁵

Did this crowd following Jesus know that they were sending Him on His way to the end of His earthly service? If they did, they didn’t show it. To them, they were accompanying Him on His way to the greatest battle in history, and believed with all their hearts He would win. If sending Jesus to His destiny on the back of a donkey’s colt was done with such jubilation and festivity, I can only imagine what the celebration will be like when He returns in the clouds of glory on a stallion with “King of all kings and Lord of all lords” written on His robe.²⁶