An exposition of The Gospel According to Matthew
by David L. Cooper, Th.M., Ph.D., Litt. D.
Installment twenty-one

IN THE STUDY of the life of our Lord, we have come to His entry into Jerusalem found in chapter 21. As we saw in the last installment, He with His disciples and the pilgrims on the way to Jerusalem had been in Trans-Jordon just east of Jericho (Matt. 19:1,2). From 20:17 we saw the party going up the road from Jericho to Jerusalem. In 21:1 we see them approaching the Holy City and coming to Bethphage, near Bethany, on the eastern slope of the Mount of Olives near its summit. From the accounts in Matthew, Mark, and Luke one would draw the conclusion that Jesus and His party entered Jerusalem immediately upon reaching Bethphage and Bethany, without any break in their travel. But a glance at John's record shows that our Lord arrived at Bethany six days before the passover (John 12:1). As we shall see later in these studies, He was crucified on Friday and hence partook of the passover on Thursday night. Since He came to Bethany six days before the passover, He evidently arrived there late Friday evening of the preceding week. If we had John's record alone, we would conclude that Jesus was entertained at supper, where Martha served and Lazarus was one of the guests, on the first Friday night when He arrived there from Jericho (John 12:2-8). A comparison of this record with Matthew 26:6-13 and Mark 14:3-9 shows that these three Evangelists were speaking of the same supper, which was held in the house of Simon the leper in Bethany. Now from Matthew and Mark we see that this supper was given two days before the passover, that is, on Tuesday night. We therefore see that there is a gap of four days intervening between John 12:1 and 12:2. A study of the four records and a comparison of them with each other account for the labors and activity of our Lord on the three days--Sunday, Monday, and Tuesday of Passion Week. From these facts we gather that our Lord, since He arrived at Bethany six days before the passover, reached that town late Friday afternoon, rested on the sabbath, and entered Jerusalem on Sunday morning of the last week.

We often hear people speak of our Lord's triumphant entry into Jerusalem at which time He rode upon an ass and was hailed as Zion's King by the multitudes who preceded Him and those who followed Him. I have been unable to accept this view. Since Jesus had for the preceding six months foretold on different occasions that He was going up to Jerusalem to be mistreated, betrayed, and killed, and after three days to be raised from the dead, and since the leaders of the Jews had all their plans perfected for His arrest and execution, which were literally carried out, I fail to see or recognize in this event a triumphant entry. It is true that the great masses of the people welcomed Him at first, but those jubilant, enthusiastic multitudes were soon turned into a howling mob demanding His death. If we are still to consider this as a triumphant entry, we must conclude that it was of very short duration.

What was the purpose of our Lord's entering the Holy City as He did, riding upon an ass? Did He at this time offer Himself to the inhabitants of Jerusalem and the Jewish people as their King? To this query many excellent commentators answer in the affirmative. I have never been able to see this point. Why then did our Lord enter the city in this manner? Matthew clearly tells us, when Jesus was at Bethphage, He sent two of His disciples for an ass in order that He might enter the city of Jerusalem as revealed by the prophet (Zech. 9:9). Zechariah foretold the manner of His entering in order that there might be no excuse for the inhabitants of Jerusalem in not recognizing Him as their rightful King. Did he say that our Lord at that time would offer Himself to Israel as her King? Positively not! On the other hand he affirmed that Messiah in thus entering Jerusalem would do so "having salvation." Our Lord therefore upon entering Jerusalem did not offer Himself to become the literal King of the Jews, but came offering salvation, which the nation, as foretold, would not and did not accept. This fact is shown in John 1:11, 12.

A study of the history of the great Galilean ministry shows that to all practical intents and purposes the leaders of Israel had rejected Jesus as their Messiah after the first tour of that section of the country. Jesus of course knew all the facts and did not at this time offer Himself to become the King of the Jews in the political sense in which He will be their sovereign when He returns in glory at the end of the Tribulation. A careful study of the teachings of our Lord from the very beginning to the close of His personal ministry shows that He clearly spoke of the spiritual kingdom which we know as the church. Jesus therefore would not, at the very conclusion of His ministry, act in such a way as would contradict all of His teaching.

There were those in Jerusalem who, knowing that Jesus was at Bethany, went out to meet Him as He, with friends and followers, was entering the city. These gave Him a royal ovation and welcome. They spread their garments on the way and branches that were cut from the trees. As they approached the city, they cried: "Hosanna to the son of David: Blessed is he that cometh in the name of the Lord; Hosanna in the highest." This is a quotation from Psalm 118 and, when understood in the light of the original context, is seen to speak of His second coming. But the multitudes applied it to His first coming. Naturally the city was stirred by such an exciting scene as this, and the multitudes continued to say, "This is the prophet, Jesus, from Nazareth of Galilee."

When Jesus had entered the city, He went to the Temple and engaged in a healing ministry, as is seen from Matthew 21:14-17. As He was engaged in these acts of mercy, the leaders of the Jews came and reprimanded Him because He did not rebuke the children who were crying in the Temple and saying, "Hosanna to the Son of David." They reproved Him for not rebuking the children when they thus recognized Him. In answer to them Jesus quoted from the eighth Psalm a passage bearing upon the matter of the worship rendered by children.

In Mark's account of our Lord's entrance into Jerusalem on this occasion, he simply tells us that He entered the Temple, looked around, and returned to Bethany. It is clear, therefore, from the two records that He engaged in this healing ministry on Sunday when He entered the city. He also inspected the situation in the Temple and then returned to Bethany.

The next morning, Monday, the Lord with His disciples returned to the city. As He was going along, He saw a fig tree by the way, that had leaves only--without any fruit. He went to it and, not finding any fruit, pronounced a curse upon it. Did Jesus, as critics assert, lose His temper and take vengeance on the fig tree? No one who knows the Lord Jesus would make such a statement as that. There evidently was a lesson which He had for His disciples. The clue to this incident is to be found in the fact that the fig tree is, in certain passages, used as a type of the Jewish nation. For instance, in Joel 1:7 Israel is represented by a fig tree and also by a vine. In Luke 13:6-9 we have a parable in which Jesus spoke of a fig tree that had been unfruitful and that the owner was going to have dug up and destroyed. But his gardener insisted that he have the privilege of putting fertilizer around it and giving it another chance. This is clearly a parable and is thus designated. A parable is a known fact that is placed beside an unknown truth in order to illustrate the latter. Since Israel is, in Joel 1:7, represented by the fig tree, and since this is a parable, we are logical in concluding that she is represented by the parable of the fig tree.

The situation in Matthew 24:32f is entirely different. The facts of that context shows that Jesus was not using the fig tree as a symbol of the Jewish nation, but was drawing a lesson from nature to illustrate truths concerning His return. It is illogical, therefore, for us to assume that in Matthew 24:32f Jesus was speaking of the Jewish nation.

In view of all the facts which we have noted, we may be certain that Christ had an object lesson in the cursing of the fig tree on this occasion, namely, that he was showing the divine displeasure toward the Jewish nation which had all the indications of outward religious life and power but was not bearing the fruit of correct conduct in her daily life.

Having cursed the fig tree our Lord continued His journey, entered the city, went to the Temple, and immediately proceeded to drive out the money-changers and those who were buying and selling in the Temple. The record of this second cleansing of the Temple is found in verses 12 and 13. At this point of the narrative Matthew is not chronological in his arrangement of the material which he presents. From the standpoint of time, then, verses 12 and 13 follow verse 19.

We must not confuse this second cleansing of the Temple with that which occurred at the beginning of our Lord's ministry and which is recorded in John, chapter 2. I recognize the fact that some critics assail John's record and state that he put the cleansing of the Temple at the beginning of the life of our Lord, whereas the Synoptic writers put it at the end. We have every reason to believe that there were two cleansings of the Temple. When wickedness is purged from an institution or place, Satan will see that it is quickly brought back again. Three years intervened between the two cleansings.

After Jesus cleansed the Temple and engaged in public ministry on Monday, He returned to the home of Martha, Mary, and Lazarus at Bethany Monday night. Then on Tuesday morning, He, with His disciples, returned to the city. As they were going along the way, they came to the place where the fig tree which Jesus had cursed the morning before was. The disciples noted that it had withered away and they marveled that the curse was so very quickly performed. Our Lord therefore said, "If ye have faith, and doubt not, ye shall not only do what is done to the fig tree, but even if ye shall say unto this mountain, Be thou taken up and cast into the sea, it shall be done. And all things, whatsoever ye shall ask in prayer, believing, ye shall receive." Our God is faithful. His ears are open to the cries of His people. We must come to God in faith, doubting nothing, and bring our petitions to Him. He assures us that He will honor the prayer of faith. Those who have faith are fully assured in the Word that God will honor their petitions offered in faith. Our faith of course must be based upon the written Word. If it is genuine and we ask according to His will and are in fellowship with Him, He will never disappoint us but will grant the petition requested.

(We of the Biblical Research Society have proved the faithfulness of the Lord. We began in 1930 this work of faith. We have never asked a person for a dollar, but have told the Lord our needs. In answer to believing faith He has met the needs. It has therefore gone forward steadily. We are facing the future with confidence--not in man, but in God who controls the future, and who will hear the cries of His people. Pray for us, dear friends, that God may keep us in the center of His holy directive will, that He may prosper the work to which He has called us.)

Upon our Lord's return to the Temple on Tuesday morning, the chief priests and the elders came to Him as He was teaching and challenged His authority by saying, "Who gave thee this authority?" In reply He said that He would answer their question provided they would answer one of His, which pertained to the origin of John's baptism--whether it was from heaven or from men. Realizing that they were caught in a trap, the opponents of Jesus professed ignorance on the question and refused to commit themselves. Thereupon He would not answer their question. The reason that they refused was that they were afraid of the people who considered John as a prophet.

Then our Lord answered their challenge by speaking three parables: That of the two sons; that of the vineyard; and that of the marriage feast of the king for his son (Matt. 21:28-22:14). The gist of the first parable is this: A certain man had two sons. To one he gave Instructions to go and work in his vineyard, who at first refused but later repented and went. The second son agreed to go but did not. To our Lord's question relative to which of the two did the father's will, they replied that the first one did it. Jesus therefore said that the publicans and harlots would go into the kingdom of God first, before the leaders of the nation. John, He declared, came in the way of righteousness, but the leaders did not believe him. On the contrary, the publicans and harlots did believe and, when they saw, they repented and did accept the truth--whereas the leaders did not. This parable, as we see, is very closely connected with the question in regard to the origin of John's baptism and shows where the leaders, who rejected the same, stood before God.

The next parable, that of the vineyard, is found in Matthew 21:33-41. A comparison of this passage with Isaiah 5:1-7 and Psalm 80:8ff shows that this parable is based upon those two Old Testament passages. The vineyard of Jehovah of hosts is Israel and her land. The Jewish people were the choice vine which God brought out of Egypt and which He planted in His vineyard. These passages must be studied in the light of the context, for each one brings out a different phase of the truth with reference to the nation of Israel.

In each instance we see that the Lord spared no effort or means in providing the proper environment for His vine that it might produce the most perfect fruit. These facts set forth the further truth that God did everything for the nation of Israel which was possible for him to accomplish in order that she might be what she should be and might produce fruits honoring to God.

But in the parable under consideration the Lord Jesus brought out new truths which were not mentioned by the Old Testament writers. At the season of fruit the householder sent various servants to receive the harvest. The workmen in the vineyard mistreated them and killed some. These husbandmen were none other than the leaders of the Jews, both political and religious.

Finally, the householder sent his son, saying that they would respect and reverence him. Instead of their doing that, they decided to kill him, which thing they did.

The servants who were sent for the fruit were the various prophets who were wickedly treated by the workers. The leaders of the people, as we see from various records, mistreated these men of God who ministered to them in the name of the Lord. (On this point see Matthew 23:37-39.) The son of the householder is none other than the Lord Jesus Christ, who came in the fullness of time to gather the fruit from the vineyard and to present it to God. The leaders, not knowing Him, rejected His message and finally executed Him. In concluding this parable, our Lord asked the Jewish leaders what would the lord of the vineyard do to the workers who thus mistreated his servants and finally killed his son. In reply they said: "He will miserably destroy those miserable men, and will let out the vineyard unto other husbandmen, who shall render him the fruits in their seasons." Their answer was correct. Then Jesus confirmed their opinion by a quotation from Psalm 118:22f. According to this prediction, "The stone which the builders rejected, The same was made the head of the corner . . ." Whenever stone is used symbolically, as in this case, it always signifies the Messiah. An examination of Psalm 118 shows that at the end of this age the stone rejected by the builders at His first coming will be placed in its proper position by the builders at the very end of this age. In other words, the leaders of Israel yet in the future will see the mistake that was made by their predecessors in office and position nineteen hundred years ago. They will reverse the decision that was rendered against Jesus of Nazareth and will accept Him and give Him His proper place in their hearts and lives. In our Lord's quoting this passage regarding His ultimately being given His rightful place as the Head of the Jewish nation, He was foretelling the fact that they would reject Him then, which thing they did, as we see in the four records of the Gospel.

The leaders had replied that the owner of the vineyard would take it from the husbandmen and turn it over to others bringing forth fruit. The Lord said that therefore the kingdom of God would be taken from the people of Israel and given to another nation bringing forth fruit. The people to whom He referred in this language (vs. 43) are those who now accept Him from both Jews and Gentiles. In other words, the church here is spoken of as the nation to whom the kingdom is given and who will bring forth the fruit. But our Lord followed this prediction by giving the terrible warning: "He that falleth on this stone shall be broken to pieces," and further, that "... on whomsoever it shall fall, it will scatter him as dust." This prediction indicates the judgment that would come upon the Jewish people because of their rejection of Him as Messiah. The leaders to whom this was spoken realized that the parable was spoken against them. They therefore became indignant and sought how they might lay hold of Him, but they were afraid of the people because the masses considered Him as a prophet.

The parable regarding the marriage feast Of the king's son, the third in this series of parables, will be discussed in next month's issue.