Chapter Twenty-One

1–9. The entry of Jesus Christ into Jerusalem. – 10–17. The cleansing of the temple. – 18–22. The barren fig tree. – 23–27. The question of the chief priests and elders about Christ’s authority and His answer to them. – 28–32. The parable of the two sons. – 33–46. The parable of the wicked tenants.

Matthew 21:1. When they drew near to Jerusalem and had come to Bethphage, at the Mount of Olives, then Jesus sent two disciples, (Compare Mark 11:1; Luke 19:28-29; John 12:12). John’s speech in the passage indicated has a general sense and does not contain the details found in the Synoptists; it refers to several events. John speaks primarily of the coming out of the people from Jerusalem to meet Jesus Christ. But only with the help of John’s Gospel can one more precisely determine the time when all this occurred. He says that Jesus Christ came to Bethany “six days before the Passover.” True, this expression is not sufficiently definite. If the Passover of the year 29 was on the 14th of Nisan on a Friday, then the sixth day before the Passover could fall both on the preceding Saturday and on the day after Saturday. The first is more probable, and with this the circumstances recounted by John agree (John 12:2-8) about the supper arranged for Christ in Bethany, and about Mary’s anointing Him with precious ointment. This was a day of rest and peace for Christ. On the next day (John 12:12) took place the solemn entry of Christ into Jerusalem. The Synoptists omit John’s account here of the supper in Bethany and present the matter as though the Savior immediately upon arrival from Jericho to Bethany performed the entry into Jerusalem. But their account, in essence, does not contradict John’s testimony. Matthew and Mark recount the supper in Bethany in another place (Matt 26:6-13; Mark 14:3-9). Why this is so will be said in explaining this section. For now we need only to establish that the Lord’s entry took place on a weekday. In our reckoning it is called Sunday; how were the following days after Saturday called among the Hebrews? The answer to this question is sufficient to say that names for individual days among the Hebrews were not customary, and when it was necessary, they used numerals: first, second, third, and so on. In the Gospels only references to Saturday and Friday are encountered, the latter was not properly a name for the day but rather a term for preparation (παρασκευή) for Saturday. If the Passover in the year 29 was on the 14th of Nisan on a Friday, then from this we can conclude that the Savior performed His entry into Jerusalem on the first day of the week and on the 10th day of the month of Nisan, when according to the law (Exod 12:3) the Jews were to prepare the Passover lamb. It is far more difficult to determine where Bethphage, mentioned by Matthew and Luke, was located. Mark does not mention it at all, speaking only of Bethany. Luke reports that Christ “drew near to Bethphage and Bethany, to the mount called Olivet” (Luke 19:29). From this latter testimony one cannot conclude that the Savior approached first Bethphage and then Bethany. Luke expresses himself indefinitely here, without observing order, listing the villages that were on the way. The information about Bethphage that has come down to us is generally obscure. Some say that there is now no trace of it left. It is not mentioned in the Old Testament, in the New – only here in Matthew and in the parallel in Luke (in Mark 11:1 only in a few and insignificant codices), also in the Talmud (Buxtorff, Lex. Chald. col. 1691 sq.). The word Bethphage means “house of figs,” according to Origen, it was located “near the Mount of Olives.” Origen says further that Bethphage was a “priestly place” (ἥτις τῶν ἱερέων ἦν χωρίον), and his words are cited by Schürer (Geschichte, II, 297 n.). In 1877 a stone was found with frescoes and Latin inscriptions of the 12th century, where, among other things, the name Bethphage is encountered. The stone is identical with the one mentioned by Theodoric in 1072 and Theodosius around 530 (see Zahn, 1905, p. 608–609, n. 4). It can be considered reliable that Bethphage and Bethany were on the east side of the Mount of Olives and not far from one another. Having left Bethany in the morning on the first day of the week, Jesus Christ sent two disciples there. Who these disciples were is unknown.

Matthew 21:2. And said 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; (Compare Mark 11:2; Luke 19:30). Into which village did Jesus Christ send the disciples? According to Matthew, He came (ἦλθεν) to Bethphage and, consequently, could not send the disciples into this village. According to Mark – to Bethany and, consequently, could send to Bethphage. According to Luke, he came to Bethphage and Bethany, and it remains completely unclear where he sent. The matter is somewhat clarified by John, according to whose testimony the starting point of Christ’s journey to Jerusalem was Bethany (John 12:1 ff.). But in that case, how are we to understand the expressions of Matthew and Luke, according to which Christ sent the disciples from Bethphage. Was the “village in front” a third village, or was this the same Bethphage? According to some, here is meant the visible from the way (κατέναντι ὑμῶν), but not lying on the way, village, which was called Bethphage; the position of it cannot be determined either on the basis of the Gospels or on the basis of Talmudic evidence. According to others, the name Bethphage was given, perhaps, not to the village but to the whole region where it was located. This was a “house of figs,” a place planted with fig trees. Jesus Christ, approaching the place, which was a garden and was called Bethphage, could send the disciples from there into the village itself. Others explain it thus: it was natural, if Christ, knowing what lay before Him, went to Jerusalem along the main road through the Mount of Olives. Soon after leaving Bethany (and Bethphage) He headed toward the road, which goes through a ravine, from which the summit of Zion is visible, but the rest of Jerusalem is not visible. Precisely opposite the place where Zion appears for the first time on the other side of the ravine there are the remains of some ancient village. Is this not where the Savior said to two disciples to go into the village in front? The main road here makes a sharp turn to the right, slopes gently into the depths of the ravine at a small distance from the village standing in ruins. Two disciples could cross the ravine straight, which might have taken one to two minutes, while the Savior with His companions slowly went around the road. This last opinion deserves attention. It is often the case that the road, because of various local conditions, seems to return to the place from which it departs. When the disciples were sent, they were told that they would find “immediately a donkey tied and a colt” (a young ass) with her; let the disciples untie the donkey and bring her with the colt to Christ. In Mark, Luke, and John (John 12:14) there is mention only of the colt, in addition it is reported that no one had sat upon him. Let us note that nothing contradictory to the other evangelists is in Matthew here. It is even said that Matthew’s account here is not only more detailed, but is distinguished by greater accuracy than in the other evangelists. But Matthew would not have mentioned the donkey, which was, properly, not necessary, if he had not further cited the prophecy (verse 4), which in this case was literally fulfilled in Christ. The examination of these events will be given below. By bringing the prophecy, Matthew wanted to show that the events were not accidental, but prophesied. Justin (“Apologia”, I, 32) connects this verse with the prophecy in the Book of Genesis (Gen 49:11). In the colt, upon which no one had sat, they see further a “significant symbolism” having connection with the usual conditions of the dedication to Jehovah (cf. Num 19:2; Deut 21:3).

Matthew 21:3. And if anyone says anything to you, you shall say, The Lord needs them; and he will send them immediately. (Compare Mark 11:3; Luke 19:31). Mark and Luke again speak only of one colt. Luke omits “and immediately he will send them.” If the account in the preceding verse can be considered a miracle of foresight or of seeing at a distance, then in what is recounted in verses 3 and those following, one can hardly suppose any miracle. The readiness of the owners of the animals “immediately” (Matthew and Mark) to let them go is explained by the fact that the owners or owner not only knew Christ personally but were among His admirers. Therefore it was sufficient to pronounce one word “the Lord” or “the Lord requires” for the owners immediately to consent to fulfill the requirement.

Matthew 21:4. Now this took place to fulfill what was spoken by the prophet, saying: Matthew 21:5. Say to the daughter of Zion, Behold, your king comes to you, humble, and mounted on a donkey, and on a colt, the foal of a beast of burden. (Compare John 12:15 – almost in the same connection). Much mockery was made at various times concerning these verses placed in Matthew. Strauss mocked the evangelist’s account, saying that two disciples sent by Christ to Bethphage, by His command, brought from there a donkey with a colt, and the disciples placed their garments upon both animals and seated Jesus upon them. When we think, says Strauss, how Jesus rode on two animals at once (one cannot speak of alternating riding on one and the other animal at a short distance), then our reason is silent, and we cannot reason until we become more precisely acquainted with the passage from the prophet cited by the evangelist. Anyone who is familiar with Hebrew poetry knows that here there is no mention of two animals, but one and the same is spoken of. First it is called an ass, then more precisely it is defined as a colt. The publisher of the first Gospel knew this just as well as you, but since he saw in this passage of the book of Zechariah a prophecy about Christ, he this time wished to take it literally and thought that here two animals were indicated. If in doing so he completely fulfilled the prophecy, he thought he did his duty, and did not set himself the further question of how it was possible for one Messiah to travel on two asses. But the critic is mistaken, because if in the prophecy of Zechariah there is no mention of a donkey, then neither does Matthew alter this prophecy so as to produce the required sense. The Russian translation of the prophetic text (“on a donkey”) of the Vulgate (super asinam) is not exact, but in the Slavonic (“on an ass and on a young ass”) it is exact. In Greek ἐπὶ ὄνου – without the article this word can be understood both in the sense of a male ass and in the sense of a female ass. Thus, in general Matthew is in agreement both with the Hebrew and the Greek text of Zech 9:9. True, in the Seventy, instead of ἐπὶ ὄνου, as in Matthew, ἐπὶ ὑποζυγίου καὶ πώλου νέου is used, and this probably gave occasion to the change of “ass” to “donkey” in the Russian translation and the Vulgate. The word ὑποζυγίου may indicate that Matthew cites the text from the translation of the Seventy; but his citation in details differs both from the Hebrew and the Greek text. From what has been said one can see that if the evangelist wished by a supposedly fictitious event to confirm the Old Testament citation from the prophet Zechariah, he had no need to add a donkey to the colt. If he relates the event differently, this was required of him not by the prophetic text, but by historical reality. Here was what ordinarily happens. As our thought is either confirmed or corrected by reality, so a prophecy can be confirmed and corrected by it too. According to the prophet’s intention, things should have been thus, but in reality they were thus. Reality did not at all contradict the prophecy, but rather the latter received in it a completely original and completely unforeseen confirmation. John’s testimony, that to Christ was brought not ὄνος (an ass) but a little donkey (ὀνάριον – John 12:14), clarifies all the perplexities. It is clear that this was a small young donkey, still not weaned from its mother. She was necessary, evidently, to make him go as well. There is no especially symbolic sense here, apparently. But the very fact that the Savior rode on a young unbroken donkey is very interesting and characteristic. However magnificent was the popular movement that was beginning around Christ, He Himself was so meek that He rode not on a horse (as conquerors do) and not even on a large ass, but on a little donkey, foal of a beast of burden (cf. the passages about the equipment of kings Exod 15:1; Deut 17:16; Ps 19:8; Isa 31:1-3).

Matthew 21:6. The disciples went and did as Jesus directed them; (Compare Mark 11:4-6; Luke 19:32-34; John 12:13). While all this was taking place, a rumor spread among the people that Jesus Christ was setting out for Jerusalem. Comparing the expressions of the evangelists here, we find that in them there is, as it were, a reflection of the confusion of the popular movement that ordinarily occurs in such cases. Some ride toward the Savior, others – after Him and ahead of Him. Matthew reports only about the fulfillment by the disciples of the Savior’s command. Mark and Luke – about the conversation with various persons when untying and taking the colt and donkey. But John has already at this time hurrying toward the Savior with his welcoming choir and makes us listen to the cries of “Hosanna” (John 12:13). Thus here is the most probable order of Gospel events. According to John, the popular movement from Jerusalem began because the people knew and testified that the Savior had raised Lazarus from the dead (John 12:17).

Matthew 21:7. They brought the donkey and the colt, and put their garments on them, and he sat on them. (Compare Mark 11:7; Luke 19:35; John 12:14). The disciples covered both animals with garments because they did not know on which one Jesus Christ would sit. “Upon them,” i.e., upon the garments. The garments were, evidently, placed instead of a saddle. Jerome directly says that this was done so that Jesus Christ “would sit more comfortably” (ut Jesus mollius sedeat).

Matthew 21:8. And most of the crowd spread their garments on the road, and others cut branches from the trees and spread them on the road; (Compare Mark 11:8; Luke 19:36). Luke does not mention branches. All this festivity was an expression of popular joy, on account of which the people wished to make the path as convenient as possible for the slowly entering new and Great King to Jerusalem. Theophylact remarks: “With regard to the direct, historical sense, the spreading of garments expresses great honor.” A similar entry “with doxologies, palm branches, with harps, cymbals, and lyres, with psalms and songs” was made to the Jerusalem fortress by Simon Maccabaeus (1 Macc 13:51; cf. 2 Sam 9:13). But then it was the triumph of the victor (“for the great enemy of Israel was broken”), now it was the triumph of the King, going to great and terrible sufferings, the Servant of Jehovah, entering Jerusalem for the redemption of humanity. He, according to Chrysostom, had often come to Jerusalem before, but never entered it so solemnly. “Of course, this could have been done from the very beginning, but it would have been unnecessary and useless.”

Matthew 21:9. And the crowds that went before him and that followed him were shouting, Hosanna to the Son of David! Blessed is the one who comes in the name of the Lord! Hosanna in the highest heaven! (Compare Mark 11:9-10; Luke 19:37-38; John 12:15-18). Luke supplements the word “the one coming” of the first two evangelists with the word “King” (ὁ βασιλεύς – according to some readings). Compared to Mark and Luke, Matthew’s speech is shortened. The Savior became the center of the popular movement. People preceded Him, accompanied Him, and followed Him. The crowd gathered for the Passover was large. There were years when by rough calculations the people in Jerusalem numbered over two million. The words “Hosanna” and so forth are borrowed from the psalm (Ps 117:25-26), which was probably often sung by pilgrims in Jerusalem. The psalm was part of the so-called “Hallel,” or “Passover hymn.” Theophylact explains the word “Hosanna” thus: “According to some, it means a song or psalm, and according to others, and more correctly, – save us.” The word “Hosanna” consists of two Hebrew words: “osa” and “na.” The first comes from the Hebrew word “shava” or “shua” (to be free), in the piel – to seek deliverance, to cry for help, for salvation; “na” (in German doch) strengthens the verb, expresses encouragement and request; in Russian – “do save.” To explain this word better, one should distinguish its original and later meanings. The original meaning is “give salvation,” “save.” If we keep in view only the original meaning of the word, then the words of the evangelists should be translated thus: “help, O God, give salvation to the Son of David.” Originally the word “Hosanna” was a cry, an appeal to God for help (as in Ps 117:25), but then because of its frequent use it lost its original sense and became a simple greeting, completely equivalent to our “hurrah,” “vive,” “hoch,” and so forth. As our “hurrah” does not contain any definite sense and is just a convenient word for expressing popular greetings, so “Hosanna.” But, becoming popular, this word (“Hosanna”) retained some peculiarities reminding of its original sense. Therefore, while we cannot say “hurrah in the highest,” for the Hebrew expression such a turn of phrase was quite natural. Zahn connects the expression “in the highest” with the word “Hosanna” somewhat differently. In Ps 148:1 it is said: “Praise the Lord from the heavens, praise Him in the highest” (in Hebrew – “bamromim”), and the same Hebrew expression is used in Job (Job 16:19). In the Gospel of the Hebrews, as Jerome testifies, not once (in the letter to Pope Damasus and the commentary on the Gospel of Matthew) there stood in verse 9, osanna borrama (a corrupted Hebrew “bamromim”). Thus the people’s cry was as much a greeting to the Savior as a request to God living in the highest. The sense of the whole expression is: keep or save, O God, the Son of David. Among the Greeks and Romans instead of “Hosanna” or our “hurrah” were used cries: ἰὴ παιάν and io triumphe. The expression ὁ ἐρχόμενος “the one coming,” which in Luke is replaced by ὁ βασιλεύς “King,” was then the name of the Messiah. The people called Christ King or Messiah, connecting with these names earthly concepts of a king as a conqueror and subjugator of peoples. The people could not understand the true meaning of the word Messiah at that time. But the King being greeted differed from ordinary kings-conquerors in that He came in the name of the Lord, like the best and most pious Jewish kings. “In the name of the Lord” – this expression should be connected with ὁ ἐρχόμενος, not with εὐλογημένος. Similar expressions were often heard from the people during the festival of Booths.

Matthew 21:10. When he entered Jerusalem, the whole city was in turmoil, asking, Who is this? (Compare Mark 11:11). In Luke, before this, it is recounted about the Pharisees, speaking to Christ, that He forbid His disciples to greet Him, about Christ’s answer to the Pharisees, and about weeping over Jerusalem (Luke 19:39-44). The other evangelists, including John, omit Luke’s account. But on the other hand Matthew speaks more in detail than Mark and Luke about the events of the cleansing of the temple and the miracles of Christ performed there (verses 12–17). When the Savior entered Jerusalem, the whole city “was in turmoil.” He was not yet known to all the inhabitants of Jerusalem and pilgrims. Therefore many asked: who is this?

Matthew 21:11. And the crowds said, This is the prophet Jesus from Nazareth of Galilee. Theophylact remarks: “The simple and guileless people did not envy Christ, but at the same time did not have the proper understanding of Him.” However, since the word “prophet” here stands with the article (ὁ προφήτης), it is possible to understand also that the people meant the expected Prophet, i.e., He of whom Moses said: “The Lord your God will raise up for you a prophet from among your own people” (Deut 18:15). Not only is it possible, but it should be. The people could have limited understandings of the Messiah. But that in the solemn entry of Christ he saw the coming of the expected Messiah, in this it is impossible to doubt, because the aim of Christ now was precisely the public proclamation of Himself as Messiah, but not in the narrow sense of an earthly king, but in the widest and deepest – the Servant of Jehovah, although the people did not fully understand this.

Matthew 21:12. And Jesus entered the temple of God and drove out all who were selling and buying in the temple, and he overturned the tables of the money changers and the seats of those who sold doves, (Compare Mark 11:15-16; Luke 19:45). It is very difficult to determine precisely here the order of the account of the four evangelists. Approximately this can be done thus. First, the conversation of Christ with the Greek proselytes and the Savior’s speech on this occasion, which only John recounts (John 12:20-36). Then came what the evangelist Matthew recounts next (verses 14–16). Mark limits himself here to only a very brief remark that “Jesus entered Jerusalem and the temple” (Mark 11:11). The end of the verse John 12:36 shows that after the conversation with the Greek proselytes Jesus Christ “hid from them,” i.e., probably from the people. John’s speech (John 12:37-50) can be considered the evangelist’s own reasoning on the occasion of Christ’s miracles, recounted by Matthew (Matt 21:14-16). Matt 21:17 corresponds to Mark 11:11 (end). If so, then the Savior after the miracles performed in the temple departed to Bethany, and in this the events of the first day of the Hebrew week, or in our reckoning Palm Sunday, ended. Matthew’s account in verses 12–13, if compared with Mark’s account, indisputably refers to the next day, i.e., the second day of the Hebrew week, or Monday in our reckoning. This, however, does not mean that Matthew here shortened by one day the time of the successive events as they are distributed by Mark and Luke. In the Synoptists nearly the same events are recounted, but Matthew recounts them somewhat artificially and not in the chronological order in which they actually occurred. When Monday came, in the morning the cursing of the fig tree took place (verses 18–19; Mark 11:12-14), and only after this was the cleansing of the temple accomplished. In our further exposition we will follow the order of Matthew. The cleansing of Christ of the Jerusalem temple is here recounted for the second time. About the first cleansing, John recounted (John 2:13-22). The events recounted by the evangelists are so similar that they gave occasion not only to accusations of the evangelists in so-called exaggerations, but also to ridicule and mockery because they here completely mixed up one and the same event, referring it sometimes to the beginning of Christ’s ministry (John), sometimes to the end (the Synoptists). Such objections were apparently made not only in modern times, but in ancient times, and provoked refutations. Thus, discussing this fact, Chrysostom asserts that there were two cleansings, at different times. This is evident both from the circumstances of the time and from the answer of the Jews to Jesus. In John it is said that this happened at the festival of Passover, and in Matthew – long before the Passover. There the Jews say: “By what sign do you show us that you have the authority to do this?” (John 2:18). And here they are silent, although Christ rebuked them – silent because all already marveled at Him. With the opinion expressed by John Chrysostom, many both ancient and modern exegetes agree (with the exception, of course, of the negative critics, and then only some). The opinion that the evangelists here recount one and the same event is held by few at present. Indeed, neither the Synoptists nor the evangelist John could erroneously mix up such an important event as the cleansing of the temple. The latter is quite suitable both to the beginning and to the end of the Messiah’s ministry. The first cleansing could produce a strong impression both on the leaders and on the people, but then, as is ordinarily and everywhere the case, abuses again developed and became flagrant. The second cleansing is placed in a barely noticeable connection with the hatred of the leaders of the temple, which led to the condemnation and crucifixion of Christ. One can even say that nothing more contributed to such an end than the circumstance that the Savior by his act strongly affected various property interests connected with the temple, because it is known that there is nothing more difficult and dangerous than a struggle with thieves and robbers. And not being a priest, the Savior, of course, did not enter the temple proper now. It is even unknown whether He entered the court of the men. The place of the events was undoubtedly the court of the gentiles. This is indicated by the very expression used here by all the Synoptists, τὸ ἱερόν (the addition θεοῦ is not found in other places, but here it is made for special expressiveness), which, in distinction from ὁ ναός, or the temple building itself, denoted all the temple buildings, including the court of the gentiles. Commerce could occur only in the court of the gentiles, which is expressed through πωλοῦντας καὶ ἀγοράζοντας ἐν τῷ ἱερῷ in Matthew and Mark. Here were sold the sacrificial animals, incense, oil, wine, and other things belonging to the temple worship. Here too stood the “tables of the money changers” – κολλυβιστῶν, a word found in the New Testament at John 2:15 and here only in Matthew and Mark. The money changers (κολλυβισταί), according to Theophylact and Zigabenus, – the same as the exchangers (τραπεζῖται), and κόλλυβος – a cheap coin like an obol or a denarius. They were also called (according to Zigabenus) κατάλλακται (exchangers). As for the seats (καθέδρας), some thought that they were set up in the court of the gentiles for women or were brought by them themselves, since they supposedly engaged especially in selling doves. But in the Gospel text there is no hint about women, and rather we can suppose here men, because the participle “those selling” (τῶν πωλούντων) in Matthew and Mark is masculine. The matter is simply explained by the fact that the “seats” or benches were necessary for the cages with doves, and therefore stood in the temple. Hilary offers an interesting allegorical interpretation here. Under the dove he understands the Holy Spirit, and under the seat – the priest’s cathedra. “Consequently, Christ overturns the cathedras of those who traffic in the gift of the Holy Spirit.” All these merchants were “cast out” (ἐξέβαλεν) from the temple by Christ, but “gently” (tamen mansuetus – Bengel). This was a miracle. No one would dare undertake such an action even with numerous soldiers (magnum miraculum. Multi milites non ausuri fuerant, – Bengel).

Matthew 21:13. And he said to them, It is written, My house shall be called a house of prayer; but you are making it a den of robbers. (Compare Mark 11:17; Luke 19:46). The expressions in the citation adduced, taken from Isa 56:7 and Jer 7:11, are different in all the Synoptists. From Isa 56:7 only the last part of the verse is borrowed here, which in Hebrew has a very slight difference from the LXX, and that only in the arrangement of words. In translation from the Hebrew (literally): “for my house shall be called a house of prayer for all peoples.” In the Seventy: “for my house shall be called a house of prayer for all peoples.” The citations from Isaiah in Matthew and Mark are literally the same as the translation of the Seventy, but in Luke there is a strong difference both from the Seventy and from the Hebrew. In Matthew the citation from Isaiah is not complete, he omits the words “for all peoples,” as does Luke, while Mark adds these words. The omission by Matthew and Luke is very interesting in that they left out these words, perhaps not by chance, but because it seemed to them factually incorrect to think that the temple was a house of prayer “for all peoples” or, what is almost the same, “for the gentiles.” Mark apparently here overstepped the boundaries and “carried the citation too far.” As for the second part of the citation, from Jer 7:11 are taken only two words “den of robbers,” in Hebrew “gash yarav nartsim,” in the Greek text of the Seventy the same as in all the Synoptists, σπήλαιον λῃστῶν. In what manner and sense could the temple be called a “den of robbers”? If in the temple occurred only deceptive commerce, it would have been more convenient to call it a cave of thieves (κλέπται), not robbers. To explain the expression “den of robbers,” one should say that the strong speech of Christ is determined by the strong speech of the prophet, and the latter places his expression in clear connection with the shedding of innocent blood (Jer 7:6), thefts, murders, and adultery (Jer 7:9). But if the Savior applied this prophecy to the then condition of the temple, one should think that not only the prophecy but reality itself gave grounds for this. The chief priests were corrupt and immoral men. They themselves engaged in commerce. “The market by the temple and the bazaars of the sons of Annas were one and the same.” “The indignant people three years before the destruction of Jerusalem destroyed the bazaars of the sons of Annas.” The characteristic of members of the high-priestly family was corrupt greed, which both Josephus Flavius and the rabbis depict in terrible dark colors (see Edersheim. The Life and Times of Jesus the Messiah. Vol. 1, pp. 469 ff.). “Den of robbers” characterizes the temple morals of that time. Luther therefore, not without reason, instead of “den of robbers” placed “Mördergrube” – den of murderers (modern German translators express it as Höhle von Räubern).

Matthew 21:14. And the blind and the lame came to him in the temple, and he healed them. Matthew 21:15. But when the chief priests and the scribes saw the amazing things that he did, and heard the children crying out in the temple and saying, Hosanna to the Son of David, they became angry “Amazing things” (θαυμάσια) – a word used only here in the New Testament, but – frequently among the Greeks and in the translation of the Seventy. This word has a more general sense than auma (miracle). It is not a noun but an adjective; with the article of the neuter gender in the plural it has the value of a noun. One can assume ἔργα, i.e., amazing deeds (θαυμάσια ἔργα).

Matthew 21:16. And said to him, Do you hear what these are saying? Jesus said to them, Yes; have you never read, Out of the mouths of infants and nursing babies you have prepared praise? (Citation from Ps 8:3). Literally from the Hebrew: “out of the mouths of infants and nursing babies you have established (founded, grounded) strength (in the Russian Bible – “praise”) because of your enemies” and so forth. In the Seventy: “out of the mouths of the foolish (νηπίων) and nursing babies I shall establish praise (a song of praise – αἶνον) because of your enemies” and so forth. Matthew’s words are literally in agreement with the translation of the Seventy. Here Old Testament prophecy is brought near to a New Testament event, and the purpose of this bringing near was, on the one hand, to prove the power and might of Christ before His enemies, and on the other – to convict them. If even children, senseless and little understanding, joined in the cries of praise, then how much more should the chief priests and scribes have done so.

Matthew 21:17. He left them, went out of the city to Bethany, and spent the night there. (Compare Mark 11:11). Ancient interpreters understood the verse literally in the sense that the Savior went to Bethany and spent the night there in the house of Lazarus. Jerome remarks: “The Savior was so poor and so little courted by anyone, that in a very large city he found no hospitality, no place to lodge, but found all this in a small village by Lazarus and his sisters, because they lived precisely in Bethany.” Many modern exegetes agree with this opinion. Indeed, it would be unnecessary for the evangelists Matthew and Mark to indicate Bethany if they did not wish to say that the night was spent in the house of Lazarus. Such a supposition is all the more probable since the nights at that time were cold, as often happens in Palestine (cf. Mark 14:54; Luke 22:55). Finally, the word ἐκεῖ is quite definite and can indicate that Jesus Christ spent the night in the house of Lazarus. Whether this night in Bethany was the last, or Christ came there again during Holy Week, nothing can be said about this. Bethany was near Jerusalem. It is not mentioned in the Old Testament, at least not under this name, but in the Talmud it is found. It is located on the road to Jericho from Jerusalem, on the east side of the Mount of Olives. Now it is a miserable village, which is called El-Azariya, i.e., the village of Lazarus. In it they show the tomb of Lazarus and the ruins of what was supposedly his house. In the New Testament Bethany is mentioned here and in Matt 26:6; Mark 11:1, Mark 11:11-12, Mark 14:3; Luke 19:29; John 11:1.

Matthew 21:18. In the morning, as he returned to the city, he felt hungry; (Compare Mark 11:12). Christ’s hunger is explained by the fact that He spent all the night in prayer and fasting (but can one think that He was not served food in Bethany).

Matthew 21:19. 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, Let no fruit ever come from you again. And the fig tree withered at once. (See Mark 11:13-14). Mark recounts this miracle somewhat differently than Matthew, and he adds that the time for figs to ripen had not yet come, meaning the figs could not yet have become ripe and suitable for eating at that season. But both evangelists clearly note that on the fig tree there were not even unripe fruits, only leaves. This shows that the tree’s condition was already abnormal in itself, that it was threatened with destruction, and probably within that same year. Such circumstances are known to all gardeners. Fruit trees that are sick and doomed to destruction ordinarily bear no fruit, although they may be covered with leaves. Ancient interpreters explained the event in an allegorical sense, understanding the fig tree to mean the synagogue, the Jewish people, Jerusalem, and so forth (Origen and others). John Chrysostom, Theophylact, and Euthymius Zigabenus explained the miracle in the sense that it was punitive. From the Gospels, they said, it is not evident that Christ ever punished or brought judgment on people, but over the fig tree He displays His power, desiring to show the disciples that He possesses it; and if it had been necessary, He could easily have punished even His enemies. The disciples, consequently, should fear nothing and be bold (ἵνα θαρρῶσιν — Chrysostom).

Matthew 21:20. Seeing this, the disciples were astonished and said, “How did the fig tree wither so quickly? (See Mark 11:20-21). This event is usually dated to the third day of the Hebrew week (for us, Tuesday) and, apparently, not without sufficient reason. After the evangelist Mark recounted the expulsion of those trading in the temple and that the scribes and high priests sought how to destroy Christ (Mark 11:15-18), he adds: “And when it became late, He went out of the city.” With Mark’s account, in substance, Luke’s account also agrees (Luke 19:45-48). Then Mark observes: “in the early morning” (πρωΐ, that is, very early), “passing by, (the disciples) saw that the fig tree had withered from the root” (Mark 11:20). This and the following verses of Mark coincide with the discussed and following verses of Matthew. On this basis one can with great probability assume that the events recounted here occurred not on the day when the fig tree was cursed, but on the next day, and in this sense one should interpret Matthew’s expression “immediately” (παραχρῆμα). Although this word does indicate suddenness and quickness, nowhere is it evident that the disciples noticed the fig tree beginning to wither, or immediately after Christ’s words, or on the return journey from Jerusalem. They noticed it the next morning early, and the word “immediately” must thus be understood in the sense of the preceding day and night. The withering of the fig tree did not occur instantaneously, but so quickly that already the next day one could observe its death. It was a miracle, as indicated by the word ἐθαύμασαν.

Matthew 21:21. Jesus answered them and said, “Truly, I say to you, if you have faith and do not doubt, you will not only do what was done to the fig tree, but even if you say to this mountain, ‘Be lifted up and thrown into the sea,’ it will be done. (See Mark 11:22-23). Remarkably, in His answer to the disciples, the Savior says nothing at all about the withered fig tree. But that He considers the action performed upon it a miracle is evident from the fact that, according to His words, similar miracles can be the result of faith. Concerning the moving of mountains, see the commentaries on Matt 17:20.

Matthew 21:22. And all things that you ask in prayer with faith, you will receive. (See Mark 11:24). The Savior’s words here have approximately the same meaning as in Matt 7:7.

Matthew 21:23. And when He came into the temple and taught, the high priests and the elders of the people came to Him and said, “By what authority do You do these things? And who gave You this authority? (See Mark 11:27-28; Luke 20:1-2). As we have seen, this event should be dated to Tuesday, when Christ returned to Jerusalem. He was walking in the temple building (περιπατοῦντος αὐτοῦ — Mark) and teaching (Matthew and Luke). At that time, according to Matthew, the high priests and elders approached Him, and according to Mark and Luke, also the scribes. One should think that this was an official delegation from the Sanhedrin. Chrysostom says: “They put a similar question in the gospel of John as well, though not in the same words, but with the same meaning (John 2:18).” Concerning signs, the temple authorities did not ask now, as at the first cleansing of the temple (John 2:18), because at that time Christ was not yet known as a great miracle-worker. But now He had already performed many signs, which also come under the general expression ταῦτα.

Matthew 21:24. Jesus said to them in return, “I will also ask you one thing, and if you tell me about it, I will tell you by what authority I do these things. (See Mark 11:29; Luke 20:3). To the question of the authorities, the Savior does not give a direct answer. He answers with a counter-question, and the answer to this counter-question determined the resolution of the question posed by the high priests and elders. Instead of answering the authorities’ question Himself, He invites them to answer it. “I will ask you about one thing” (λόγον ἕνα) — I will put one question to you, I will say only a few words, no more.

Matthew 21:25. Where was John’s baptism from—from heaven or from men? And they discussed it among themselves: “If we say ‘from heaven,’ He will say to us, ‘Then why did you not believe him?’ (See Mark 11:30-31; Luke 20:4-5). When John preached and baptized, the authorities sent priests and Levites to question who he was (John 1:19 and following). This was essentially equivalent to asking by what authority he did this and who gave him this authority. John’s answer was certainly known to the Jews. It was given not so much by words as by deed. John’s holy life and his whole activity testified that he was sent by God. But this messenger of God testified of Jesus Christ as the Lamb of God, “who takes away the sin of the world” (John 1:29). From this it was evident by what authority Christ “does these things” and who gave Him this authority: it was received not from men, not from high priests, scribes, and elders, but from God Himself. Therefore, the question posed by Christ in this form troubled the temple authorities. The fact that they διελογίζοντο παρ’ αὐτοῖς — “discussed it among themselves” — shows that they did not give an answer to Christ’s question at once. They approached Him at a time when He was teaching, and posed the question about authority publicly. He, for His part, posed a question to them also publicly. After this, they withdrew from Him and began to consult, in the manner that different political parties consult among themselves. None of this would have been necessary if the Savior had not been surrounded by a crowd. During their deliberation, the Savior, as should be supposed, continued to speak to the people. The subject of the authorities’ deliberation was the question: Was John’s baptism from heaven? By baptism here is meant generally his entire activity and commission. They are named here according to the principal mark of his activity and preaching—baptism.

Matthew 21:26. But if we say ‘from men,’ we are afraid of the crowd, for they all hold that John was a prophet. (See Mark 11:32; Luke 20:6). After the words “from men,” there is what is called an “aposiopesis” here — incomplete speech or silence, used for brevity’s sake. The complete speech would have been something like: “if we say that John’s baptism was from men, then ‘the whole crowd will stone us’ (Luke), and we fear the crowd.” This fear was partly groundless, because the crowd would hardly have dared to raise a hand against people who were under the protection of the Romans. But, on the other hand, a different turn of events was possible, given the hot temperament and quick irritability characteristic of the East. Even if not now, at another time the authorities could fear popular unrest, and they did not wish to stir this up, especially in view of a strong enemy. Thus, in the words of the enemies of Christ, there appeared a mixture, so to speak, of subjective fear with objective fear. If the temple authorities had given a straightforward and correct answer, then Christ could have asked them: why then did you not receive baptism from John? (Quare ergo non estis baptizati a Joanne? — Jerome).

Matthew 21:27. And they answered Jesus and said, “We do not know.” And Jesus said to them, “Neither will I tell you by what authority I do these things. (See Mark 11:33; Luke 20:7-8). The scribes’ answer was given publicly before everyone. How could they say “We do not know” when it was known to all the people that John was a prophet? Why did the high priests and elders fear being stoned for other answers, but not for this one? This can be explained, first, by the fact that they wished, in a manner of speaking, to discover from Christ Himself what He would say about this in the presence of the people; and second, by the fact that the temple authorities held a critical attitude toward John’s disciples and activity. The people were convinced that John was a prophet. But, as must be supposed, the temple authorities had long and carefully tried to persuade the people otherwise. By means of various political devices they succeeded in this, but not completely. They only managed to instill doubts in the people about John’s activity and teaching; perhaps they caused many of the people to waver in their opinions about John. “From heaven and from men” — these were two opposite poles in the assessment of John’s teaching and activity, the positive and the negative. With the positive answer, one should have expected public denunciation from Christ; with the negative answer, stoning. Therefore, the authorities very cautiously chose a middle path, unwilling to say plainly either yes or no. Perhaps John was a prophet, but perhaps he was not. This middle path was false; they were lying. If inwardly they were convinced that John was either a prophet or not a prophet, they should have said so plainly. In His answer, Christ does not tell them that He does not know. Οὐκ εἶπεν, οὐδὲ ἐγὼ οὐκ οἶδα ἀλλὰ τί; οὐδὲ λέγω ὑμῖν (“Christ did not say to them: neither do I know; but what then? Neither will I tell you,” — Holy John Chrysostom).

Matthew 21:28. But what do you think? A man had two sons, and he went to the first and said, ‘Son, go and work in my vineyard today.’ The first question when examining this parable is whether it has any relation to the preceding words of Christ, and what kind of relation. Or is it a new speech and a new rebuke? The answer should be that it does have a relation, as is seen especially from verses 31 and 32. But this relation and connection were expressed so subtly that the enemies of Christ could not at once understand what was being driven at, to whom the parable applied, and what connection it had with the preceding speech. In the speech Christ uttered in verses 27–28 and following, it is difficult and even impossible to suppose any break. The parable, found only in Matthew, is entirely in its proper place here, and it cannot artificially be moved somewhere else. Whether the son to whom the father first turned with his request was the elder or younger is unknown.

Matthew 21:29. But he answered, ‘I will not,’ but afterward he changed his mind and went. The son’s words did not accord with his deeds. In words, he answered his father negatively and even rudely. But then he changed his intention, he began to be ashamed that he had not obeyed his father, and without saying a word about it, he went to work in the vineyard.

Matthew 21:30. And he went to the other son and said the same. And he answered, ‘I go, sir,’ and did not go. After the refusal (in words) of the first son, it was necessary for the father to go to the second son and ask him to go work in the vineyard. Here are depicted such simple everyday relations as occur often and are understood by all. The second son expresses in words his readiness to fulfill his father’s will, but in deed he does not fulfill it. Instead of “I go” in the Greek text we have “I, sir” (ἐγὼ κύριε) — an ellipsis, or shortened speech, whose meaning is sufficiently clear.

Matthew 21:31. Which of the two did the will of his father? They said, “The first.” Jesus said to them, “Truly, I say to you, the tax collectors and prostitutes go into the kingdom of God ahead of you. The high priests and elders said to Christ, “The first.” This is according to the best manuscripts and readings. The rightness of the first son was not unconditional, but compared with his brother, he was right. By the first and second sons one should understand not the Jews and Gentiles, but the tax collectors and prostitutes, and the high priests. And to the high priests, elders, and Jewish authorities in general, on the one hand, and to tax collectors and prostitutes, on the other hand, came the summons to work in the vineyard. But here the voice of John seems to blend with an earlier summons from the Father through the prophets. John and Christ Himself were the last persons calling to the vineyard. The authorities, as religious people, responded to this summons, but in fact they did not go; the tax collectors and prostitutes refused, the summons seemed strange to them at first, but then they went.

Matthew 21:32. For John came to you in the way of righteousness, and you did not believe him, but the tax collectors and prostitutes believed him; and you, even when you saw it, did not afterward change your minds and believe him. A reminder of the historical ministry and activity of John, which has connection to verse 24 and as it were rounds out the thoughts set forth after that verse. By “the way of righteousness” here one should understand the manner, method, fashion, custom. “Did not believe him” — did not believe what he said and preached. “The Lord applies the answer of the authorities to their own behavior through opposition. They said that the son who fulfilled the father’s will was the one who at first refused to go but then went to the vineyard. But the Baptist came as a preacher of righteousness, calling people to go into God’s vineyard by the way of repentance, and they did not heed his preaching. In this respect they resembled the first son of the parable, who said: I will not go. But unlike him, they afterward did not repent and obey the Baptist’s call. On the other hand, the tax collectors and prostitutes were also like the first son, but they changed their minds when John preached and obeyed his call. Thus tax collectors and prostitutes go ahead into the kingdom of God.” The meaning of the second part of the verse in question seems to be this: you, even when you saw all this, did not take care afterward, when tax collectors and prostitutes believed, to believe John. Theophylact says: “And now many make a vow to God and the Father to become monks or priests, but after the vow do not keep their fervor, while others did not make a vow about monastic or priestly life, but live a monastic or priestly life, so that they show themselves to be obedient children in that they do the Father’s will, even though they promised nothing.”

Matthew 21:33. “Hear another parable. There was a master of a house who planted a vineyard, and put a fence around it, and dug a wine press in it, and built a tower, and leased it to tenants, and went into another country. (See Mark 12:1; Luke 20:9). Not only the thoughts of this parable, but also the expressions are very similar to what is said by the prophet Isaiah (Isa 5:1-7). In Isa 5:2 it is said: “And He (My Beloved) fenced it, and gathered out the stones thereof, and planted it with the choicest vine, and built a tower in the midst of it, and hewed out also a wine press therein: and He looked that it should bring forth grapes, and it brought forth wild grapes.” All the images used in the parable are taken from actual life to the same extent as they are from prophecy. Such was formerly, where vineyards were cultivated, and such it is now.

Matthew 21:34. When the season for fruit drew near, he sent his servants to the tenants to get his fruit. (See Mark 12:2; Luke 20:10). By the servants sent are understood the prophets. In Mark and Luke, we have the singular: he sent a “servant” or “slave.”

Matthew 21:35. And the tenants seized his servants and beat one, killed another, and stoned another. (See Mark 12:3; Luke 20:10). Theophylact says: “The servants sent are the prophets, whom the tenants treated badly in various ways, that is, the false prophets and false teachers of that time, the unworthy leaders of the people. Some they beat, like the prophet Micaiah, whom King Zedekiah struck on the cheek; others they killed: thus Zechariah was slain between the temple and the altar; still others they stoned, like Zechariah, son of Jehoiada the high priest.” Mark and Luke speak successively of several servants. Matthew speaks all at once of many. Parallels to the behavior of the wicked tenants can be found in other places of Scripture (Nehem 9:26; Matt 23:31-37; Heb 11:36-38; see also 1 Sam 18:13; 2 Sam 6:31; 2 Chr 24:19-22; Jer 20:1-2 and others).

Matthew 21:36. Again, he sent other servants, more than the first; and they treated them the same way. (See Mark 12:4-5; Luke 20:11-12). “More” in number, but not “more honorable.” In Mark and Luke it is shown more distinctly and in more detail what is, so to speak, concentrated in Matthew.

Matthew 21:37. Finally, he sent his son to them, saying, ‘They will respect my son.’ (See Mark 12:6; Luke 20:13). If by the master we understand God, then these words are evidently not fully applicable to Him. There appears to be, as it were, an error in calculation, a failure of hope, an ignorance of the true character of the tenants and their intentions. All this is explained by the fact that here “the Lord represents His Heavenly Father as reasoning in human fashion” (Alford).

Matthew 21:38. But when the tenants saw the son, they said to one another, ‘This is the heir; come, let us kill him and get his inheritance.’ (See Mark 12:7; Luke 20:14). The expression “come, let us kill him” (δεῦτε ἀποκτείνωμεν αὐτόν) is the same as that found in Gen 37:20 (according to the Septuagint translation) concerning the intention of Joseph’s brothers to kill him.

Matthew 21:39. And they took him, and threw him out of the vineyard, and killed him. (See Mark 12:8; Luke 20:15). In Luke, the order of the wicked tenants’ actions is the same as in Matthew, but according to Mark’s account, the tenants first killed the sent son (in the vineyard) and then threw his body out of it. The record of what the Savior said is considered more ancient and original in Matthew. It cannot, however, be agreed with the view that, in applying these facts to the history of the Savior’s sufferings and bearing them in mind, Matthew wished here to indicate that Jesus Christ was crucified outside the city. Luke expresses himself in the same sense. To this one can simply answer that Mark’s peculiar expressions also fit the account of the sufferings.

Matthew 21:40. When therefore the owner of the vineyard comes, what will he do to those tenants? (See Mark 12:9; Luke 20:15). Matthew’s account is fuller than that of the other evangelists. “The Lord asks them not because He does not know what they will answer, but so that they condemn themselves by their own answer” (Jerome).

Matthew 21:41. They said to him, “He will put those wretches to a miserable death, and lease the vineyard to other tenants who will give him the fruits in their seasons. (See Mark 12:9; Luke 20:16). In Mark and Luke, the words that here are considered especially important are omitted: “they said to him.” It is difficult to suppose that the enemies of Christ themselves said this and thereby condemned themselves. The parable was probably spoken before the people, and the gathering was public (cf. verse 26). Perhaps this answer was given instead of the high priests and elders by the people themselves. However, some think that the answer could be given by them as well, because they did not guess what conclusion would be drawn from it. But the strong expression κακοὺς κακῶς encountered here indicates the opposite. Further, who gave the answer can also be judged from Luke’s Gospel, according to whose words not all who listened to Christ agreed with the given answer, and some added: μὴ γένοιτο (“may it not be”; equivalent to our “God forbid”). The very expression κακοὺς κακῶς (in the Russian translation not exactly rendered; in the Slavonic — “evil evilly”) is a classical Greek expression, like λαμπρὸς λαμπρῶς, μεγάλοι μεγάλως, etc., not to be translated literally into modern Russian. The last “their” (αὐτῶν; in the Russian translation — “their”) refers to the fruits. “In their seasons” — in due time, without delay, when the fruits ripen and are gathered. It is thought that here is contained a prophecy about the destruction of Jerusalem.

Matthew 21:42. Jesus said to them, “Have you never read in the Scriptures: ‘The stone that the builders rejected has become the cornerstone; this is the Lord’s doing, and it is marvelous in our eyes’? (See Mark 12:10-11; Luke 20:17). What stone is being spoken of here? The words are taken from a post-exilic psalm (Ps 117:22-23) and, in pronouncing them, the psalmist may have had in mind some actual fact known to him and others that occurred during construction, but what exactly is completely unknown. Some said it was during the construction of some Egyptian pyramid, others — of the second Jerusalem temple. All this rests on no foundation. The connection of the verse in question with the preceding will be more clear if under the stone laid as the cornerstone we understand Christ Himself, sent by God to receive from the tenants the fruits they had gathered. They killed the Son of God, but He, as the stone in Daniel’s vision, not only became the foundation of the new vineyard — the Church — but will also fill the whole earth (Dan 2:35).

Matthew 21:43. Therefore I tell you, the kingdom of God will be taken away from you and given to a people producing the fruits of it. This thought has already been clarified by means of the parable, and the words of Christ in this verse are the conclusion drawn from it. They had such clear reference to the Jewish authorities that the latter could not fail to understand them. No fruit was found in the Jewish people, which had fallen under the influence of the wicked tenants. Therefore, the vineyard will be taken away both from the Jewish authorities and from the Jewish people themselves, and all this will be given over to such a people (without the article and precise definition) that produces the fruits of the kingdom of heaven.

Matthew 21:44. And the one who falls on this stone will be broken to pieces; and when it falls on anyone, it will crush them. (See Luke 20:18). This verse in Matthew is considered inauthentic and borrowed from Luke. According to Merx, this insertion falls to the time after Origen until Jerome, approximately between 250 and 380 AD. However, some consider the verse authentic, finding in it a reference to Isa 8:14-15 and Dan 2:44. But if the verse were authentic, it would probably have been placed after verse 42, where the stone is discussed. Since it is inserted after verse 43, the speech with such an insertion clearly lacks proper connection.

Matthew 21:45. When the chief priests and the Pharisees heard his parables, they perceived that he was speaking about them. (See Mark 12:12 (end); Luke 20:19 (end)). In Mark and Luke, the order of recounting the events is somewhat different from Matthew’s. Here is reference to Christ’s parables about the two sons and about workers in the vineyard.

Matthew 21:46. And although they wanted to arrest him, they feared the crowds, because they held him to be a prophet. (See Mark 12:12; Luke 20:19). The motive for the beginning of hostile actions against Christ was chiefly His latest strong denunciatory speeches directed against the authorities. They would have liked to immediately carry out their intentions, to seize Him. But there was an important obstacle — the people, who considered Jesus Christ to be a prophet.