Next morning—Wednesday—Jesus was back in the temple again. Mark says he was walking in the temple; Luke describes him “teaching the people and preaching the gospel.” How can we reconcile these details.? Was he taking a “breather” between teaching spells? or teaching a small handful as they walked?— when an official deputation from the Sanhedrin came aggressively upon him (s.w. Acts 4:1; 6:12; 17:5; 22:20): “chief priests and scribes with elders.” The two parties—Sadducees and Pharisees—were now once again glad to make a concerted attack on Jesus.

These rulers were still fuming about the highhanded action of yesterday. Surely on the strength of it they could throw Jesus into prison. But the Galileans now in the city were so much on his side that action against him would mean riot unless Jesus were first shown openly to be lawless and deserving of punishment. Overnight they had gone into committee about it (Lk.19 :47), and this was the course they had decided on.

Aggressive question

So, in the presence of the people, they formally and repeatedly demanded an explanation: ‘Where is your authority for behaving like this?’ Did he have either civil or ecclesiastical sanction for his high-handed actions? How could he behave thus in the temple of God without explicit warrant from God. Then, by what right?

These evil men sought to catch Jesus on the horns of a dilemma. If he asserted a royal right for his actions they could immediately hand him over to Pilate. If he disclaimed royal privilege, he would find himself discredited among his nationalistic followers.

Immediately Jesus saw what they were at. The charges which were actually to be made at his trial were already crystallizing out-blasphemy, for assuming divine right; and insurrection, for taking the law into his own hands.

Aggressive answer

His answer was another question—not at all an evasion, although at first it smacks of that: “I will ask you one question, and answer me, and I will tell you by what authority I do these things. The baptism of John, was it from heaven, or of men? answer me.” This question told them immediately that he saw through their tactics; in itself it would suffice to discomfit them. Yet by and by Jesus was confounding them with another (Mt.22 :41-45). His urgent challenge: “Answer me!” presents a Jesus who knew he had no need to be defensive. So, here was no red herring, but a counter-question strictly relevant to their enquiry.

Whenever some new prophet or teacher arose among the people, it was the solemn duty of the religious leaders to investigate his claims and message, and then to make a pronouncement pro or con for the benefit of the nation. Two tests were to be applied. First, if he claims to be a prophet do his prognostications come true (Dt.18 :10-22)? In the Old Testament nearly all the prophets begin with a short-term prophecy the truth of which would be verified by events within a year or two; e.g. Am. l:1,2; Is. 2 :10-22; Jer. 1 :1-14; Ez. 4; Mic. 1:1-4; Mal. l :l-5; 1 Kgs.13 :3. Second, does he teach sound wholesome doctrine (Dt.13 :1-5)?

Actually, the rulers had made careful investigation of John’s qualification as a prophet (Jn. 1:19-28), but had not dared to accredit him as a man of God. His brusque censure of themselves had left them no option. Yet his prophecy of the coming of One greater than himself had been proved true. But how could the rulers agree that it was true without conceding also the divine authority of Jesus? (Lk.3 :4,16,17). And John’s call to repentance and baptism – a baptism, which pointed forward to “the Lamb of God that taketh away the sin of the world”—was the very essence of God’s Truth but repugnant to these proud men. They had “rejected the counsel of John against themselves, being not baptized of him” (Lk.7 :30). So the challenge of Jesus implied the taut rejoinder: ‘You made no public pronouncement concerning John, as you should have done; then, if I provide my own unmistakable credentials, will you do any better this time? Will you declare my divine mission to the nation? Of course you won’t!’

In particular, if the validity of John’s teaching was conceded, then did they not recall the sign of Messiah which John had bidden them look for?: “Upon whom thou shalt see the Spirit descending, and abiding on him, the same is he …” (Jn. 1 :33). It was obvious to the entire nation that all through the ministry of Jesus marvellous works of Holy Spirit power had flowed from him. That very week they had had further witness of this.

Also, what about Malachi’s word fulfilled in John?: “Behold, I send my messenger, and he shall prepare the way before me: and the Lord, whom ye seek (note the strong irony here), shall suddenly come to his temple . . . and he shall purify the sons of Lev!” (3 :1,3). Jesus had done precisely that, the day before. Moreover John’s public witness to “the Lamb of God that taketh away the sin of the world” had established the right of Jesus to drive both offerers and offerings out of the temple court. So nothing but wilful blindness prevented these men from recognizing the unbroken chain of witness—God, Malachi, John, Jesus.

Defeated

Not daring to provide an unprepared answer, these men of high intellect moved off to go into conference about it. They knew themselves forced into a bad position. To admit the divine mission of John was to concede heaven’s authority to all that he had said about Jesus. “Then let us say, From men . . .,” but immediately they shied away from such a declaration, for it could only be made at the expense of their own popularity and even of their own lives: “All the people will stone us to death (for blasphemy; Lev.24 :14), for they are unbudgably convinced (Gk. perfect tense) that John was a prophet.” Not truth but self-interest was their dominating concern. In this they were unanimous (Lk.).

So they played for safety with the lame answer which was a palpable lie: “We do not bow.” (The true answer was: “We know, but dare not say”). Thus they openly declared their lack of qualification to make assessment of the claims of Jesus. Nevertheless only two days later they reckoned themselves competent to judge and condemn him!

Jesus shrugged off their challenge: “Neither do I tell you by what authority I do these things.” But if they stayed to listen to the rest of his teaching that morning, they soon had their answer (Mk. 12:6).

Reproachful parable

The embarrassment of these adversaries was not eased by a short parable which supplied the Lord’s own answer to the question they had evaded.

A man came to each of his two sons and bade them work in his vineyard. The first said bluntly: “I don’t want to,” but then he had second thoughts and went to the task. The other promptly agreed—but did nothing. His sprightly and polite affirmative—literally: “I sir!’—was framed apparently to express both respect for his father and by his own willingness an implied censure of his brother’s surly attitude.

“Whether of them twain did the will of his father?” There was no side-stepping this question. They gave him the obvious answer, and in the ineluctable interpretation found themselves condemned.

The man is God. The two sons are like the two sons in the parable of the prodigal. The first represents the publicans and sinners with their strong disinclination to godliness, who nevertheless heeded the Baptist’s call to repentance. The other typifies the Pharisees and scribes whose outward piety masked stubborn refusal to do the work which God really wanted from them, namely,/b;//i in the message of John and of his successor, Jesus. The emphatic repetition of the word “believe” (Mt.21 :32) is very eloquent. “The publicans and harlots are going into the kingdom of God before you” does not mean that Pharisees also will go into the kingdom but with inferior status. Rather, the idea is: “These sinners are now going before you” in the sense that “they are showing you the way.”

“The baptism of John—from heaven, or of men?” receives its answer here, for since the man in the parable is God, His call to the two sons must have been made through John. Who else?

There is an obvious wider reference of this parable to Jews and Gentiles, for this was a theme never long out of the mind of Jesus at this time. From the very first Israel had proclaimed its own devotion to the God of Abraham: “All that the Lord hath said will we do, and be obedient” (Ex.24 :7). But alas, “this people draw near me with their mouth, and with their lips do honour me, but have removed their heart far from me” (ls.29: 13). Within a few short years all the religiosity of Israel was to be shamed and censured by the faith and sincerity of a growing ecclesia of Gentile belivers.

Notes: Lk.20 :1-8

1.	On one of those days. Possibly a Hebraism for the outstanding day in that week of witness; in that case Thursday, not Wednesday.
	Preach the gospel. What gospel? — after his cleansing of the temple, the end of animal sacrifices for the forgiveness of sins?
2.	These things. Riding in triumph into Jerusalem? failing to silence the crowd acclaiming him as king? cleansing the temple? bringing the blind and the lame into the temple? forbidding sacrifices?
3.	One thing. The Hebraism again, (v.1)? — one decisive question. Or did he mean: I shall not need to ask another!?
8.	Neither tell I you . . . There is here the implication: John told you the truth about himself and about me, and yet you say you don’t know! Then if I tell you plainly, will the outcome be any different, any better?

Jesus turned from his castigation of the rulers to address another parable to the multitude. The chief priests and Pharisees, not missing a word of what he said, now had a clear answer to their question: “By what authority doest thou these things?” But the answer was couched in such a form that they could not use it against him. Once again the sheer intellectual brilliance of Jesus comes through in encounters such as these. Before the day was out, these men -the cleverest of their nation -were to have one demonstration after another of the superb quality of the man they were trying to entrap,

Isaiah’s parable

There is no parable of Jesus more obviously drawn from the Old Testament than this which he now added. Certain of the details in Isaiah’s vineyard parable (5:1-7) are precisely the same. There are also significant and highly interesting divergences. A few of the details are worthy of special comment:

1. The “song of my beloved” (v.1) becomes the tragedy of “my beloved son” (Lk.20 :13).
2. “Gathering out the stones” (v.2) may perhaps suggest the initial getting rid of Canaanite stocks and stones.
3. “And we looked that it should bring forth grapes” (v.2) is echoed by James: “The husbandman waiteth for the precious fruit of the earth” (5:7).
4. “It brought forth wild grapes” (v.2). The Hebrew word means literally: “stinkers.” In the Lord’s parable, the counterpart is the evil behaviour of the men.
5. The appeal: “O inhabitants of Jerusalem . . . judge, I pray you, betwixt me and my vineyard” (v.3) is matched by the rhetorical question: “What therefore will the lord of the vineyard do unto them?” (Lk.20 :15). And its answer: “I will tell you what I will do…” (v.5) anticipates the blunt response which Jesus got from his fascinated hearers.
6. The wasting of the vineyard in judgment (v.i| has as its counterpart the punishment of the wicked husbandmen.
7. The detail about “briars and thorns” (v.6), fit only for burning, is given a solemn interpretation in Heb.6:8.
8. The parable ends with a vigorous play on words: “I looked for judgment (mishpat), but behold oppression (mishpach); for righteousness (tz’daqah), but behold a cry tz’aqahj” (v.7). So also the parable of Jesus: “He will miserably destroy those miserable men” (Mt.21 :41).

Nor is there any parable of Jesus more obviously designed to be interpreted detail by detail than this. The vineyard is the commonweal of Israel, with all its spiritual privileges, set apart by God for Himself. Winepress, hedge and tower correspond probably to the Temple, the Law and the order of Prophets (Eph.2 :14; Ez.33 :17; Hab.2 :1). The husbandmen are the Jewish people, and not just the leaders of the nation (Mt.21 :41).

This figure of the vineyard is common in the Old Testament and was familiar to every Jew But in Isaiah’s Song of the Vineyard (5 :1-7) and other comparable passages (Ps.80 :8; Jer.2:2I; Ez.15 :l-6; 19 :10-14; Hos.10 :1; Dt. 32 :32,33l the vineyard represents the nation rather than its religious prerogatives, as here.

The description of the owner of the vineyard going away into a far country for a long time (Lk.) has invited some interpreters to see this os Christ’s ascension and long absence in heaven. But this makes complete confusion with later details in the story. At the institution of the covenant with Israel, “God came down on mount Sinai” (Ex.19 :20; and note 20 :19). When that theophany was concluded He “ascended up on high” (Ps.68:18). The householder’s going away represents this cessation of open divine manifestation.

Hostile tenants.

A vineyard was reckoned one of the most profitable forms of husbandry (S. of S.8 :11), yet to this owner it proved a dead loss.

The picture of servants being sent at the end of the season to collect tenancy dues is graphically described in all three gospels. Here is one place where the parable is true to life but is necessarily inadequate as part of the allegory—for God sought faithful service from Israel continuously, and not now and then (compare the same feature in Mt.20 :8). Luke, elegant writer of Greek that he is, has a grammatical solecism here, evidently for the sake of emphasis: “that they shall give him of the fruit of the vineyard” (20:10). There is also an unexpected Hebraism in v. 1.

The first servant is beaten and sent back empty-handed. Another is killed, and yet another stoned (Mt.). Other servants more (greater?) than the first (Mt.) receive similar treatment. One is wounded in the head (Mk.) and treated shamefully, another is wounded and cast out (Lk.). Here Luke’s word means “another of a different sort”, yet Mark’s means “another of the same sort”! The prophets all had essentially the same message, yet as individuals their characters and personalities varied remarkably. But which word did Jesus use? (heteros or allos?).

And so the story continues at one harvest after another-all who are sent receive brutal treatment, some are wounded and some are killed (consider Mt.23 :37; Neh.9:26; 2 Chr.24 :20,21; 36:15,16; Heb. 11:37,38; Dt. 13:1-10).

In these graphic details, the parable comes away from real life, for, in fact, with a new vineyard, in the first season or two the husbandmen would have no fruits of any value to hand over (Lev. 19 :23?), so resentment at the owner’s claims would not be without some justification. But this is essentially a picture of a spiritual world, not of horticultural Palestine.

In another even more striking respect also, the parable is utterly untrue to life. After the uncivilised reception accorded to the first emissary, would any real-life landlord have continued to risk servants in this persistent fashion? Resort to law or to force would have been the obvious course of action for any man of the world. But in the parable the owner represents a God whose longsuffering with sinful men should have all Bible readers marvelling ceaselessly.

The beloved Son

The next part of the story is even less true to life. “What shall I do?” says the Lord of the vineyard to himself (Lk.) “Last (for there is nothing I can do more than this; Heb. 1 :1,2) I will send my beloved son: it may be they will reverence him when they see him” (Lk.). Here Luke’s “it maybe” translates a Greek word isos which also means “equally”, that is, in honour to the son as in despite and cruelty to the servants. Since the other gospels omit isos, this alternative reading seems the more likely. But this heavenly expectation of reverence for the Son by proving to be mistaken provides the biggest difficulty in the parable. Even if “it may be” is insisted on, the difficulty still exists. Didn’t God know? Had He not already said in a 700-year old prophecy: “When they shall see him, there is no beauty that they should desire him” (ls.53 :2)?

In Isaiah’s parable of the vineyard, “the song of the well-beloved,” development of the story seems to be drastically different: “And now go to; I will tell you what I will do (cp. Lk.)to my vineyard; I will take away the hedge thereof… and break down the wall thereof. . . and I will lay it waste” (5 :5,6). Yet ultimately, through the recalcitrance of the husbandmen, comparable stringent action is at last unavoidable in this parable also.

From the fact that they had been allowed to get away with such monstrous behaviour, the villainous tenants now reasoned together (s.w. Jn.11:50): “This is the heir: come, let us kill him, and the inheritance shall be ours.” They seem to have reasoned: ‘Our landlord must be dead, or surely he would have taken some action against us. So if we get rid of the heir, the vineyard is ours.’ So, callously, they carried out their plan. The beloved son was cast out of the vineyard (Heb.13 :12?) and violently put to death (Mt., Lk.). In Mark the order of these details is different. Then, presumably, they stabbed or clubbed him in the vineyard, and then dragged him out to die, so that the vineyard would not be defiled by a dead body, nor themselves held responsible. But they had forgotten Dt.21 :l-9! or just didn’t care about that; Acts 7:52; Mt.23 :32.

Retribution

What next? The answer to Christ’s rhetorical question came without hesitation from the crowd: “He will miserably destroy those miserable men, and will hand over his vineyard to other husbandmen, which shall render him their fruits in their seasons” (Mt.). Was there an unconscious allusion here to Ps.1 :3 (LXX)?

Jesus, giving his enemies their last warning, confirmed this instinctive judgment: “He will come and destroy the husbandmen (cp. ls.5 :8-30), and will give the vineyard (and not “let it out”) to others.” It would seem to follow from thisthatthe A.D.70 destruction of Jerusalem is not to be regarded as a “coming” of Christ, but as a direct judgment from God (cp. Lk. 13 :9: “thou”, the owner; Mt.22 :7).

Immediately out of the crowd came an ejaculation of horror: “God forbid!” Every other occurrence of this cry from the heart comes in the epistles of Paul. The speculation that it was he who now recoiled from the logical conclusion of the parable is not so far-fetched as might be thought at first. (“Acts of the Apostles” H.A.W. ch.34). If this suggestion is correct, then Paul heard the ominous prophecy of Matthew 23:34, and still went ahead and helped to fulfil it because he saw clearly that the logic of the parable meant that Jesus really claimed to be God’s son.

The “Stone” prophecy

Jesus looked intently (Lk; cp. also Lk.22 :61; Mk.10:21,27; Jn.l :45; Mt.29:26) at the group of rulers and Pharisees standing there and said: “Did ye never read in the scriptures, The stone which the builders rejected, the same is become the head of the corner: this is the Lord’s doing, and it is marvellous in our eyes?” .< There is here a closer connection with the slaying of the beloved Son than is evident in the English version. Jewish hearers would readily pick up the (Biblically) familiar play on the Hebrew words for “Son” and “stone”. The Scripture quoted had already been an annoyance to these hostile men, for they had heard the same psalm (118 :25,26) applied to Jesus by the crowd acclaiming his triumphal entry into the city. Before the week was out it would be making a fresh mark on their consciences, for it was part of the Passover Hallel which they were about to repeat, or at least hear, during the feast. And later, in the apostolic preaching, Peter was to use the same Scripture accusingly against the same men (Acts 4:11).

It is possible to demonstrate (though the proof is too long for inclusion here) that the stone referred to is an altar stone, and not the top-stone of a building. Thus the words are o prophecy of a God-appointed means of redemption utterly rejected by the leaders of the nation and yet vindicated by God. It is the present parable over again, under a different figure, but brought to a successful conclusion!

Jesus added a noteworthy link with two other powerful Old Testament Scriptures.

“And whosoever shall fall on this stone shall be broken.” This was in allusion to Isaiah’s prophecy of a rejected altar stone: “And he shall be for a sanctuary; but for a stone of stumbling and for a rock of offence . . . to the inhabitants of Jerusalem. And many among them shall stumble and fall, and be broken…” (8 :14,15). The words foretell the rejected Christ, and disaster for the rejectors.

“But”, went on Jesus, “on whomsoever it shall fall, it will grind him to powder (or, perhaps, scatter him as dust).” The reference to the great vision of Daniel 2 is not to be missed-the stone cut out of the mountain of Deity without hands (that is, an altar stone; Ex.20:25), which destroys all human glory, and crushes it to powder so that the wind (spirit) of God sweeps it away for ever (Dan.2 :34,35,44,45).

Thus, in two brief Biblical allusions Jesus educated these learned men, if they were willing to be taught, concerning the two great aspects of his divine work-first, as sacrifice and altar; later as Messianic King.

But he added also a further corollary to his parable: “The kingdom of God shall be tab from you, and given to a nation bringing fortli the fruits thereof” (Mt.). Again his mind was ranging forward (for his own consolation as well as for their warning) to the call and response of the Gentiles.

Understood at last!

Early in his ministry he had deliberately adopted the policy of teaching in parables, “that seeing they may see, and not perceive; and hearing they may hear, and not understand” (Mk.4 :12). But now, almost the last parable of all was so framed that there was no missing its meaning. His adversaries “perceived that he had spoken this parable against them” (Lk.).

However, instead of taking warning from its ominous conclusion, their hatred set them attempting an immediate fulfilment of it: “The same hour they sought to lay hands on him” (Lk.). But divine providence used the presence of the multitude to save him from immediate arrest, for “they took him for a prophet” (Mt.); for a prophet, but after the anti-climax of the triumphal entry, how many of them took him for the Messiah?

Thwarted and vexed, his enemies planned worse mischief. However, before they left Jesus, he reinforced his warnings with yet another parable-about the Wedding Garment.

In all this day’s public witness the most important item was the central detail in the parable of the husbandmen: “This is the heir; come, let us kill him … which his enemies could themselves, was their own point-blank recognition that Jesus was the Son of God, and with it his point-blank recognition of their ruthless resolve to destroy him. “Come, let us kill him” is an exact quotation (Gen.37 :20 :XX) of the plot of Joseph’s brothers to get rid of him. In the next two days the parallel between Joseph and Jesus was to be worked out in great detail and with marvellous accuracy.

Notes: Mt.21:33-46

33.	Another parable. Mk. says ‘parables’, yet he records only th’is one where Mt. has three. Cp. Ps.78 :2, and cp. also the theme of that psalm.
34.	The time of fruit drew near. Why not “was come”? But this phrase is true to the meaning of the parable.
	Sent his servants. Mk. Lk.: a servant. But, of course, to bring away the owner’s share of fruit would need more than one man. So, one servant in charge of the operation, and the other servants to help transport the fruit.
36.	More than the first. Here this must surely mean “greater than;” cp. 12 :41,42.
37.	Sent his son. Consider David in a somewhat similar situation: 1 Sam.25 :21,22. In Mk. theGk. text could read as though this Son were also a Servant.
38.	When (they) saw the son. Just as this echoes ls.53 :2, so also in Mk. “shamefully handled” = 53 :3 LXX s.w. “despised”
41.	They say unto him. For similar spontaneously provoked commentary on other parables, see Lk. 19:25; 2 Sam.12:5,6. In Mk. this comment from the crowd is emphatically repeated by Jesus himself.
	Destroy those wicked men. Cp. the sequel in Is.5 :8ff-six woes against Israel. “The uniform hostility of kings, priests and people to the Prophets is one of the most remarkable features in the history of the Jews” (Plummer). True, but over-stated, for there were occasional honourable exceptions.
42.	The stone which the builders rejected is the same as the stone of stumbling (Is.8 :14) and the stone laid as a foundation (Is.28 :16) and the stone cut out of the mountain without hands (Dan.2. :34,44); v.44 here, 1Pet. l:6-8; see also “The Stone of Stumbling” (H.A.W.).
43.	The kingdom of Cod. This and v.31 are two of the five places where Mt. comes away from his usual phrase: kingdom of heaven.
44.	Whosoever shall fall on this stone. Is. 8 :15 has “many” — rabbim, rabbis!
	Grind him to powder; s.w. Jer.31 :10 LXX—Israel!

“A certain king made a marriage for his son.” The opening words of this parable surely set a scene for joy and jollity. Yet, in truth, few of the lord’s parables are more sombre in tone, more grim in warning.

It appears to have been intended primarily as an answer to those who perceived that “he had spoken his (previous) parable-about the wicked husbandman-against them” (Lk.20 :19). Was the kingdom indeed to be “taken from them, and given to a nation bringing forth the fruits thereof”?

Betrothal

This marriage of the king’s son is really a betrothal feast. To attempt to equate it with the “marriage supper of the Lamb” is to reduce this symbolism to an incoherent shambles. But let it be read as a representation of the preaching of the gospel, when the Son of God was gathering those who are one day to be his glorious Bride, and no inconsistency remains (cp. Lk.12 : 36; Jn.2:l).

It is to be noted, also, that the parable makes no mention of the Bride. Had there been such mention, a consistent interpretation of the allegory would have been difficult to the point of impossibility.

Those called to the feast are the people of Israel. The invitation, first issued through the prophets, was now renewed by other servants (cp. Esth.5 :8; 6 :14)—John the Baptist and the apostles working with Jesus during his ministry. But there was no willingness to attend. So the king, demeaning himself as no other king would do, sent other servants, more urgent than the first to add their exhortations: “The dinner is prepared; oxen and failings are killed; all is completely ready; lose no time in coming” (cp. Pr.9 :2ff). That phrase “oxen and fatlings” gives an indication of the immense scale of the preparations, and the word “killed” is, literally, “sacrificed.” Thus the parable includes a hint of the need for sacrifice before men can share the joy of God’s redemption.

Was refusal rebellion?

In Zephaniah 1:7,8 there is a remarkable anticipation of certain aspects of this parable: “The day of the Lord is at hand; for the Lord hath prepared a sacrifice, he hath bid his guests. And it shall come to pass… that I will punish the princes, and the king’s children, and all such as are clothed with strange apparel.” That Jesus was building on Zephaniah seemsalmost certain, but a close correlation between these Scriptures is by no means easy. In an attempt to resolve the problem that in so many respects the details of this parable come away from verisimilitude, the suggestion has been made that the betrothal of the king’s son was the occasion also of his being designated heir to the throne, thus making rejection of the invitations tantamount to a refusal of loyalty to the new king. This would explain the pressure brought to bear on those invited. It would also explain the ill-treatment of the servants and the drastic action taken against those scorners of the royal invitation. They were, in effect, rebels acting in concert against the authority of the king.

But it is rather remarkable that such an extension of the theme of the parable is not given specific mention. The only alternative is to see Jesus readily sacrificing the “true-to-life” element of his parable in order to make it true to the desperate spiritual situation which his manifestation in Jewry had created.

So, like its predecessor, this parable is also a prophecy. It foretells that the appeal of the apostles, after the sacrifice of their Lord, would be abortive. Is not a royal invitation a command? Nevertheless many of those receiving invitation “made light of it’—were quite unconcerned—and went about their own affairs. Banquets normally began in the last hour or two of daylight (v.9), and went on after dark (v.13). What good would a man accomplish going to his farm at such a time of day? (See Notes). Transparent excuses! Others invited even showed rancorous opposition and violent antipathy: “The rest took his servants, and entreated them spitefully, and slew them” (e.g. Acts 7:58).

Drastic retribution

This in turn would bring down condign punishment on their heads. The angry king “sent forth his armies, and destroyed those murderers, and burnt up their city” (cp. Dan.9:26). This is a clear anticipation of the fearful hardships and afflictions endured by the Jews during the Roman war of A.D.67-70.Those Roman armies were God’s armies, all unconsciously meeting out judgment to a people whose cup of iniquity was filled to the brim.

This is so plain and accurate a prophecy of what happened in A.D.70 that many modern commentators insist that this gospel must therefore have been written after the fall of Jerusalem—the implication being that Jesus was no prophet (in this sense) and that these words were never spoken by him!

The appeal made by Josephus to his own countrymen during the siege of Jerusalem has this remarkable commentary: “It is God, therefore, it is God himself who is bringing on this fire, to purge that city and temple by means of the Romans, and is going to pluck up this city, which is full of your pollutions” (B.J.6.2.I.). Earlier in his ministry Jesus had spoken a similar prophecy (Lk.14 :24), milder than this because spoken earlier, before he had been so emphatically rejected by the rulers.

The parable’s frightening prophecy of Jerusalem’s travail interrupts the normal sequence of the story. Of course, the equipping of the feast with quests did not wait until the wrath of the king had been poured out. Verse 7 b,c,d should be read as in parentheses.

A new policy

Those invited had proved themselves “not worthy’—a dramatic understatement! They were unworthy in the first instance, but now openly and shamelessly so (note the allusion in Acts 13:46). The servants were therefore bidden go out into places of concourse and gather together people of all kinds (Pr.9 :2-4), no matter what their quality, to occupy the empty places at the feast. This they promptly did, bringing in the morally good and bad alike This is worth noting. The only qualification was, and is, a willingness to come. Those who invited were given no mandate to vet the guests for suitability.

It is implicit in the story that at the feast all were suitably equipped by the king’s provision of robes appropriate to the occasion, Otherwise would there not be something morally questionable about denouncing a man who has been brought in from the highways for wearing raiment unsuited to an important royal ceremony?

These guests represent the Gentiles brought into the ecclesia of Christ through the zealous unremitting efforts of the apostles and especially of Paul. And still that work goes on, for not yet has the fulness of the Gentiles come in (Rom.11:25).

The second half of the parable begins with the king coming in to see the guests. This corresponds to the day of judgment as the sequel very clearly shows. It is easy to understand how such details as this led the early church to believe that in their lime the day of judgment was nigh at hand. What betrothal banquet could with any seemliness represent a period of two thousand years? Of course these inspired apostles, writing with such urgent expectations, were right. (For more on this, see “Revelation.” appendix H.A.W.).

No Wedding garment

There at the banquet the king picked out one, soiled and unkempt, an unpleasant contrast with the rest who had decked themeselves out in true wedding style with the fine garments provided (ls.61 :10) for their use. (Is there here a certain resemblance to Samson’s abortive betrothal feast? Jud.14 :13).

The king apostrophized the man before them all: “Comrade!”-a strange mode of address from a king to one of his least important subjects brought in from anywhere, yet LXX usage applies it to those honoured with royal friendship (Dan.5 :1,2; 1 Kgs.4 :5; 2 Sam.15 :37)- “Comrade, how earnest thou hither not having a wedding garment?” Art thou not a spot in my Love Feast? (Jude 12).

Interpretation of this detail is not easy. The man is a member of the ecclesia of Christ and therefore has made a confession of faith and been baptized. But he lacks the covering of God-provided righteousness which the wedding garment plainly symbolizes. This is only possible when a man seeks baptism for a wrong motive. The early church suffered seriously from the machinations of certain “false brethren unawares brought in, who came in privily to spy out our liberty which we have in Christ Jesus, that they might bring us into bondage” (Gal.2 :4; cp.Jn.10 :1). This is only one of a number of New Testament passages which point to a concerted evil attempt to destroy the new sect called Christians by the classic methods of infiltration and subversion from within (see “The Jewish Plot”, H.A.W.). Such men would certainly fill the role just indicated. But so also would others who, more innocuously, come to baptism for unworthy reasons such as family pressures, or seeking a wife (or husband) without having any real personal conviction, or for safety in wartime. Since justification is by faith in Christ and no other way, it is difficult to see how such are truly covered by Christ’s righteousness, even though there is respectable ecclesial membership.

Yet another possibility is that the man thought his own garment quite good enough, and despised the one provided. This is surely the individual who believes in salvation through one’s own goodness. But are such speechless in the Day of Judgment? (25:44; 7:22). The question to all such is itself an exposure: “How earnest thou in hither . . .?” The only possible honest answer is: “On false pretences” of one kind or another. So, in the parable, “he was speechless”, literally: “gagged”. The day of judgment will be the first occasion in the history of the race when human ingenuity finds itself unable to cook up a plausible excuse.

Royal indignation

Then there was curt instruction to ministers standing by: “Bind him hand and foot, and cast him into outer darkness.” The word here is not the same as for the “servants” of v.3-10. These “ministers” are angels. At the judgment there is to be a rejection in shame of those for whom God has no use. Very clear scriptures (e.g. Ps.37:38) assert that the final end of the rejected will be the oblivion of an eternal grave. But these words seem to imply an individual conscious experience of shame and deprivation. It is not unlikely that the real punishment of the wicked will involve living on for some time in the kingdom of God but in such a state of dereliction as to make every hour of it an experience of woe (ls.65 :20; Rev.22 :15).

This would appear to be the meaning of “weeping and gnashing of teeth.” The first of these is unquestionably an expression of sorrow, but the other signifies anger (Acts 7:54; Ps.112 :10)—in this instance anger with one’s self for having been such a fool as to treat lightly the gracious kindness of the king.

In the parable there is only one individual of this kind to come in for heaven’s reprobation. So, lest the false conclusion be drawn by his hearers that hardly any will fall into that evil category, Jesus added the caveat: “For many are called, (some respond), but few are chosen” (Jud.7:3,7; Rev.17:14). Those who are ultimately accepted constitute only a small proportion of those to whom the call of Christ comes.

Notes: Mt. 22:1-14

2.	The kingdom… like unto a certain king. A literal reading of this is untenable. The king is not the kingdom. Here ,{ is a standard introduction equivalent to: This is another parable about the kingdom; cp. 25 :1 (foolish virgins do not represent the kingdom); 13:24 (the man is not the kingdom); 13:47 (the net is not the kingdom); so also 13:31,33. Failure to note this usage has led to some crass errors in interpretation.
	A marriage. Bethrothal was regarded as a legally binding tie. Hence the apparent New Testament confusion between marriage and betrothal. Joseph and Mary were betrothed but, apparently, never formally married (Mt. 1 :20). She was already his wife. And so also the Bride is called “the Lamb’s wife” even when being brought to him(Rev. 19:7).
3.	Would not come. Literally: They did not want to come.
5.	His farm . . . his merchandise. A contemporary invitation illustrates the timing of the feast: “Chaeremon invites you to dine… tomorrow, the 15th, at 3 o’clock”
7.	His armies. The same idiom in ls.10:5-7; 29 :3; 8 :7; 13 :5; Ez. 16 :40,41; 29:18-20; Jer.22 :7; 25:9; Dt.22:19.
9.	The highways. In LXX this unusual word describes “the issues from death” (Ps.68 :20), the waters of death, healed (2 Kgs.2 :21), the tree “planted by the rivers of water” (Ps.l:3), the dry ground blessed with watersprings (107:35). These people, then, were brought from places where they went to draw water, that they might enjoy a much greater blessing. There is more symbolism here.

Wednesday had ended with the rulers being filled with frustration and hatred because of the open attacks made upon them by Jesus. “The same hour” (Lk.) that he spoke his very plain parable of the wicked husbandmen “they sought to lay hands on him” (Lk.)-would have arrested him there and then in the temple court—but “they feared the people”.

So overnight they planned different tactics. Earlier they had joined forces to make their challenge: “By what authority doest thou these things?” (Mk.ll :27). Now, next day, they came at Jesus separately with more problems. Somehow they must undermine his standing with the people and also find good ground for accusation against him.

There is no explicit statement by any of the synoptists that this renewed attack took place next day, Thursday, but Matthew (22 :15) seems to imply here an intermission in their evil activities. The chronology of the last week also seems to require it. And if there is no break, then the gospels represent the Lord Jesus as cramming an incredible amount of activity into one day.

It was on this day, or the preceding one, in passover week that the appointed Bible reading amongst the Jews was Psalm 94. There is much here that is appropriate to the encounters, which took place in the temple court, especially this section:

“Who will rise up for me against the evildoers ? or who will stand up for me against the workers of iniquity? Unless the Lord had been my help, my soul had almost dwelt in silence. When I said, My fool slippeth; thy mercy, O Lord, held me up. In the multitude of my thoughts within me thy comforts delight my soul. Shall the throne of iniquity have fellowship with thee, which frameth mischief by a law? They gather themselves together against the soul of the righteous, and condemn the innocent blood. But the Lord is my defence; and my God is the rock of my refuge, and he shall bring upon them their own iniquity, and shall cut them off in their own wickedness; yea, the Lord our God shall cut them off” (Ps.94 :16-23).

For the next trial of strength it suited the Pharisees to team up with the Herodians, as they had done on a former occasion (Mk.3 :6). They were also careful to send into action men whom Jesus had not personally encountered in controversy before, so that they could readily deceive him into thinking themselves genuine sympathizers. Thus he might well be inclined to express himself in a frank and open fashion, and so commit himself to opinions that they could make malicious use of. With evident disgust the gospel writers tell how these “spies” sought to “Take hold of his words” (Lk.), “to catch him in his words” (Mk.)-this latter expression describing the hunting or snaring of animals (cp. Pr.6 :25,26 LXX).

These adversaries would surely not have persisted in these dialectical methods if they had not found how well they worked with other self-accredited teachers. They stopped only when, as this day went on, they found that they were instead giving Jesus opportunities for further victories.

If Jesus said “Yes” to their question: “Shall we pay tribute to Caesar?”, this could be used against him to destroy his standing with the common people. If he said “No”, then who better than the Herodians to take up the case with the Roman governor, thus leaving the reputation of the Pharisees with the people unsoiled?

They evidently expected him to say “No”, for out of this they hoped to “deliver him to the power and authority of the governor” (Lk.)

Tribute or no tribute?

“Master, we know that thou art true, and teachest the way of God in truth, neither carest thou for any man, for thou regardest not the person of men.” All this oily talk was designed to encourage Jesus into thinking that he was among friends and could therefore speak his mind openly. In actual fact the compliment was, as Jesus would readily perceive, an insult, for it implied that he was a simpleton to be readily taken in by their sycophancy.

“Tribute to Caesar—is it lawful or not? Yes or no? Shall we pay, or refuse to pay?” They were pressing for an unequivocal pronouncement.

The records in Mt. and Mk. use the word for a poll-tax which, every Jew would think, should be paid only to the sanctuary of the Lord (Ex.30 :12-16). Thus the enquiry was strongly loaded in favour of the answer: No. In A.D.6 Judas of Galilee (Acts 5 :37) had denounced tribute to Rome as both blasphemy and treason, and he died for it. Now it was hoped that Jesus would pay the same penalty.

They had begun by praising his discernment. Now he showed how he could use that faculty on them! “Why do you tempt (test) me in this way, you hypocrites?” At Massah-Meribah (Ex.17 :7) Israel had similarly tempted God, challenging Moses: “Is the Lord among us, or not?” Now the test had the same evil motive— and the same answer: water out of rock.

Jesus was not taken in by the smarmy talk of these men. He saw through their wickedness (Mt.), their craftiness (Lk.), their hypocrisy (Mk.).

A simple answer

“Bring me a denarius that I may see it,” he bade them. It has been suggested that there was some rule about not defiling the court of the temple with pagan money, but this will hardly do, for had there not been a fully-organized market and system of money-changing there? More likely, this carefulness to avoid taking pagan money into the holy courts was a special punctilio of Pharisee hypocrisy—a typical inconsistency, since they were willing enough to make use of the Gentile authority in order to get rid of the hatred Nazarene. So the denarius had to be fetched, possibly borrowed for the occasion from a Roman soldier in the near-by fortress of Antonia. Jesus scrutinized it carefully, to urge them to do likewise.

“Whose image and superscription?” The coin he focussed their attention on carried these inscriptions:

TI. CAESAR. DIVI. AUG. F. AUG and PONTIF. MAXIM, that is, Tiberius Caesar Divine Augustus son of Augustus—Pontifex Maximus.

Then Jesus gave his judgement: “Give back to Caesar the things that are Caesar’s—and give back to God the things that are God’s.”

It was all so simple, when he put it this way. And, try as they would, there was nothing in it for them to criticize. These men were accustomed to spending long hours on casuistry, the resolving of special-case problems. They were more used to it than a Roman Catholic priest. So they, better than any, were able to appreciate the needle-sharp perspicacity behind the simplicity of the principle enunciated. How they would have liked to tear his dictum to pieces! But “they could not take hold of his words before the people’—literally, “they hadn’t the strength,” the mental capacity or power. So even though there was hatred there was also grudging admiration (Lk.20 :26; cp. Mt.22 :33,46).

Perhaps those evil men did not altogether lose in this encounter, for “Render tribute to Caesar” commanded the enthusiasm of hardly a single Jew. So probably as a result of this pronouncement Jesus lost a lot of popularity tha* day. This, and the damp squib of his triumphal entry, are probably sufficient to explain the failure of the Galileans to rally to his support in the day of his trial.

A deeper meaning

But did his adversaries give due weight to the other practical consequences of the lord’s answer? “Give back to God the things that are God’s”? Genesis (1:26) told how man had been made in the image of God. And redeemed saints in Christ are described as bearing God’s superscription (Rev.3 :12; 7:3; 14 :1). Then how much more important than tax-paying is the unqualified rendering to God of what is fully His by right?-a man’s own self!

In discussion of the same problem the apostles splendidly preserve the same balance. Peter: “Dearly beloved, as strangers (Gk: “those living in a foreign land”) and pilgrims, abstain from fleshly lusts which war against the soul. . . glorify God in the day of visitation. Submit yourselves to every ordinance of man for the Lord’s sake: whether it be to the king as supreme, or unto governors . . . Fear God, Honour the king” (1Pet.2:11-14,17).

Similarly Paul: “Let every soul be subject unto the higher powers . . . Render therefore to all their dues, tribute to whom tribute is due, custom to whom custom …” (Rom.13 :1,7). But also: “present your bodies a living sacrifice, holy, acceptable unto God, which is your reasonable service” (12 :1).

But the men to whom Jesus spoke his wisdom were not inclined to heed it. Instead, next day, they did not scruple to twist out of all recognition what he had said to them: “We found this fellow . . . forbidding to give tribute to Caesar” (Lk.23 :2).

Notes: Lk. 20:20-26

20.	Watched him; s.w. Ps.130 :3; 37 :12. Mt. says an alliance of Pharisees and Herodians were involved in this. Hatred of Jesus reconciled irreconcileables.
	Spies. Was one of these Saul of Tarsus? See Study 162, and note v.26. 2Cor.4 :2 has s.w. asv.22here.
22.	In Mt. the problem is introduced with: “What thinkest thou?”, the very phrase with which Jesus had challenged them to assess one of his parables; Mt.21 :28.
	He perceived (gave careful thought to) their craftiness. Yet there was a bland simplicity about the a-b-c quality of his reply: “Bring me a penny that I may see it… Whose is this image …?”
25.	Render means “give back to him.” The coin, was Caesar’s; then “return it to him if he demands it.” Since there was no point-blank question about it, Jesus made no comment on the issue raised by Dt. 17:5. If there had been, what would he have said?

The party of the Sadducees, led by the chief priests (Acts 4:1; 5:17), was now as bitter against Jesus as the Pharisees were. Their representatives now came to him with a problem behind which was a double intention—to make Jesus look foolish, and also to deride the doctrine of the resurrection which they aggressively rejected. The memory of what had happened out at Bethany only a few weeks ago was still painfully clear in their memory. So just now they were out to discredit Christ’s teaching on the resurrection, and by that means to throw doubt on his resurrection miracle and also discredit him in the eyes of the people.

Resurrection of a sort

The problem, so obviously made up for the occasion, was presented with a coarseness and scorn which well reflected their character. First, they quoted the Levirate Law from Deuteronomy (25 :5,6) (levir is Latin for brother-in-law) that if a man die childless, his brother shall take his widow and thus “raise up seed” to the dead man. It was an established custom long before the time of Moses, as the Judah-Tamar incident plainly shows. Indeed, that key phrase: “raise up seed” (Gen. 38 :8), was particularly useful to the Sadducees because it uses the same word (in LXX) as is commonly used for resurrection, How well it supported their contention that the only resurrection a man may look for is in the continuance of his family.

From this springboard the problem took its vigour. “There were with us seven brothers” (Mt.), that is, they were Sadducees too, disbelieving in the doctrine of resurrection. The first married and died childless, so, according to Deuteronomy 25, the second brother married his widow, He too died childless, and so also in turn did all seven. Then, last, the woman herself died, still childless. This last point is important, because of course the brother begetting a son would seem to have precedence.

With curling lip, these Sadducees put their problem: ‘You believe there will be a resurrection, even for these who did not believe in such a destiny! Then, in the resurrection you talk about, which of these seven brothers will the woman belong to ?’

Even if Jesus had refused to answer (and the bad tone of their approach thoroughly justified such a reaction) they had made their point—a coarse jibe at what they deemed an utterly irrational belief.

Biblical riposte

Jesus could have argued that the Deuteronomy passage (25 :5) applied only to “brethren dwelling together”, and was it likely that seven brothers and one wife would all live in the same house? But the Sadducees could have wangled round this, so Jesus, easily equal to coping more decisively with a challenge of this character, tried a different kind of response.

In Lk.20:35-38, his five steps of argument are dearly discernible. It is useful also to note that Jesus used “the resurrection of the dead” to describe not the process of resurrection (Lk. 20:35), but the end result of it (as in Phil. 3:11; Heb.11:35; 1 Cor.15:21 and also 15:42).

“You keep on going astray,” he answered in blunt reproof, “because you know neither the Scriptures nor the power of God.” Today mere familiarity with Bible phrases often deceives regular Bible readers into a sublime confidence that what is familiar is understood. So also, very truly, it was with these Sadducees, whose prejudices also hindered their appreciation of the power of God. But “resurrection of the dead rests on the power of God, and belief in the resurrection rests on Scripture” (Bengel).

What folly to believe that the God whose power has made men cannot remake them! So of course resurrection is possible. But marriage belongs to this mortality. Without it there would be no continuation of the race. In the immortality of the kingdom of God, the begetting of children would be incongruous. Instead, life in that age will be suited to its eternity—”equal to the angels”, but with a status higher than that of angels (Heb.l :14; 1 Cor.6 :3). The Lord was careful to say not that they are angels, but are “as angels” (Mk.). By his mention of angels, Jesus settled another item of Sadducee unbelief; for they “say that there is no resurrection, neither angel nor spirit” (Acts 23 :8). He also made it clear that the resurrection life is not for all: “those that are accounted worthy to attain to that age” (Lk.). “When they rise out of the dead’—the phrase in Mark clearly implies that others “rest in the congregation of the dead” (Pr.21:16cp,Mt.22:14).

The answer traditionally supplied by the Pharisees to this standard Sadducee problem was: “The first of the seven brothers.” Christ’s answer was: “None of them;” and he made it very plain that only spiritual immaturity would ask such a question. “Now that the dead are raised even Moses shewed at “The Bush.” The Greek word for “shewed” is interesting. It means: “to lay information” (Jn.ll :57; Acts 23 :30), or even “turn traitor.” So Jesus was implying: “Moses, your great authority, has let you down.”

The Bush

Jesus was alluding to the section in Exodus which tells of God’s revelation to Moses from the burning bush. It was customary to give various portions of the Old Testament concise titles in this way. “Wot ye not what the scripture saith in ‘Elijah’?” writes Paul (Rom.11 :2). And Ezekiel’s chapter describing the Cherubim was commonly alluded to as ‘The Chariot’.

Jesus could have chosen to base his argument on categorical declarations about the resurrection in other parts of the Old Testament (e.g. Dan.12 :2; ls.26 :U,19; Ps.16:10; 17:15). But since the Sadducees accorded higher authority to the Pentateuch, admitting the other books only for pious opinion and not for dogma (so say all the commentators), he met them with a Scripture about which there could be no quibble: “Have ye not read (ye who know not the Scriptures) that which was spoken unto you by God, saying, I am the God of Abraham and the God of Isaac, and the God of Jacob?” (Mt.).

The Lord had a double argument based on these words: “God is not a God of dead people, but of living.” But the Fathers are dead. Therefore they must live again. Therefore resurrection (cp. Heb.ll :16).

Soul immortality?

It has been argued, especially on the basis of the words: “for all live unto him,” that the Lord’s reasoning just as readily establishes the immortality of the soul. Indeed, the commentators are almost unanimous in this conclusion. The error here has been admirably exposed in “The Gospel of the Son of God,” by L.G.S. This passage from Exodus insists that everlasting life depends on a personal relationship to God (note this in Ps.16 :8-ll; 49 :13-15; 73 :23-26), so immortality cannot be common to all the race. It was with reference to the faith of Abraham that Paul wrote: “God quickeneth the dead, and calleth those things which be not as though they were” (Rom.4:17). It is in this sense that the Fathers “all live unto him”(cp.Rom.14:8).

But Jesus was arguing not just from the words of Exodus 3, but also from the context. No less than six times in “The Bush” (Ex.3:6, 15, 16; 4 :5; 6:3-4,8) does the Almighty associate Himself with Abraham, Isaac and Jacob. The last two of these involve emphatic promises of resurrection for these men of faith: “And I have also established my covenant with them, to give them the Land of Canaan, the land of their pilgrimage, wherein they were strangers.” And: “I will bring you into the Land concerning which I did swear to give it to Abraham, to Isaac, and to Jacob.” The words quoted by Jesus involve these words also.

The Sadducees might have argued back on these lines: ‘The words spoken at the bush declared God’s intention to raise the nation of Israel out of their Egyptian “grave”; this figurative resurrection, yes, but a literal bodily resurrection, no!’ The fact that they didn’t shows that Jesus had also directed their attention to these explicit Exodus passages just quoted.

It is interesting to observe that Rabbi Gamaliel, who had strong pro-Christian leanings (see “Acts of the Apostles”, HAW. ch.23) used exactly the same argument against the Sadducees, only basing it on Deuteronomy 1:8; 11:9 (Edersheim). Did he learn it from Jesus? There is a fair probability that he was present on this occasion.

Feedback

The multitude in the temple court heard Jesus with astonishment. Rabbis and chief priests were men of learning, not to be argued with but given humble deference, even when they talked foolishness, as they not infrequently did. Yet here was Jesus, the carpenter from Galilee, rebuking their clumsy conclusions as though they were so many schoolboys.

Even some of the scribes had to concede the force and authority of his words: “Teacher,” they said, “thou hast spoken well” (Lk.). It was their way of saying: “We couldn’t have coped with that problem so decisively.”

But the reaction of those whom Jesus confuted was different. Neither Pharisees nor Sadducees dared join issue with him on any other controverted topic. These men were the masters of the nation in theological polemic, but Jesus had proved himself master of them all.

Notes on Lk. 20:27-38

28.	Wrote unto us. “Us” emphasizes Sadducee acceptance of the Pentateuch above the rest of the Old Testament. Note the Lord’s scornful comment on this when he quotes back at them the witness of Exodus: “that which was spoken unto you” (Mt.22 :31).
	Raise up Gk. ex-anistemi, whence ex-anastasis, the N T. word for resurrection.
31.	The seven also The manifest artificiality of the story comes out here. After the second or the third, would not the rest avoid the woman like the plague?
35.	Accounted worthy. There is a plain implication here that these Sadducees (whose name means The Righteous) were unworthy. Similarly the repetition (v.37) of “the God of . . .” underlines that eternal life depends on a – personal relationship with God.
36.	Neither die anymore. This continuation of the race by the begetting of children will then be on absurdity.
	Equal to the angels. It is scarcely credible that some great names in the world of N .T. exposition actually read the slightly different phrase in Mt.: “but like the angels they are in heaven.” Contrast Gen.25 :8; Josh.24:2.
	The children of God, all belonging to His family and not needing any human family.

There are certain difficulties in harmonizing the synoptic records about this miracle. Luke says: “as Jesus was come nigh to Jericho.” In Matthew and Mark, he was leaving Jericho when he healed Bartimaeus.

Various explanations have been offered. The one which makes “drew nigh” as equivalent to “when he was in the vicinity of Jericho” has the weakness of ignoring the most usual and most obvious meaning of the Greek word (a glance at the concordance demonstrates this).

Another suggestion is that at that time there were two separate cities of Jericho—the old, rather squalid Jewish city, and the fine new town lately built by the Herods. Thus Matthew and Mark describe Jesus as leaving the former, whilst Luke has in mind the approach to the latter. This is possible, though there seem to be doubts whether Old Jericho was inhabited at all at this time.

The solution proposed by Bullinger is to take the three records as describing entirely different incidents: “it will be readily seen that there were three separate miracles on the Lord’s visit to Jericho.” This stretches the long arm of coincidence just a bit too far. That three healings so marvellously similar in detail should happen at almost the same place at nearly the same time is not impossible, but is a trifle improbable. And it becomes all the more unlikely when the same commentator proceeds to apply the same method over and over again, duplicating and triplicating one gospel incident after another.

A better solution

A much more likely solution is on these lines: The blind man appealed to Jesus as he entered the city (Lk.) but had no response. Later when Jesus was leaving Jericho (Mt.), Bartimaeus had already planted himself by the Jerusalem gate, this time accompanied by a fellow sufferer (Mt.); together they pleaded to be healed, and had the reward of their faith. This simple suggestion explains also how Matthew’s mention of two blind men is no contradiction of Mark and Luke.

A careful examination of some of the Greek verbs provides a certain amount of supporting evidence for this view. In Luke 18:36 the multitude is “passing through”—not passing through Jericho, for there had been an overnight stay. It must be: passing through the city gate. In Matthew he is “leaving” (in the New Testament this word usually has the idea of departure)

It has to be assumed, of course, that Luke, having begun the story of the blind man in connection with the Lord’s approach to Jericho, goes on to complete it, even at the expense of getting the rest of the story chronologically dislocated by putting the conclusion of it before the encounter with Zaccheus. This is no serious difficulty. Matthew does exactly the same thing with the cursing of the fig tree (21:18-22, and parallels), and with the anointing of Jesus at Bethany (26 :6-13; cp. Jn.12 :l-8). Very probably, another example is Luke’s placing of the argument amongst the disciples in the upper room(22:24;cp.Jn.l3:4ff).

This Bartimaeus may have been a Gentile. Certainly Timaeus has a strong Greek flavour about it. But another suggestion, not too well supported, is that the name links with an Aramaic word for “blind.” The prefix “bar” is the Gentile equivalent of the Hebrew ben.

His first appeal

Passover time was a good season for all mendicants. They did well out of the piety of the many pilgrims passing through to Jerusalem. The unusual crowd and noise set beggar Bartimaeus wondering whatever was afoot. Mention of the name Jesus (in response to his repeated enquiries: Lk.), immediately told him everything, for by this time every soul in Palestine had heard of the man of Nazareth. Perhaps he knew of the close association of the name Nazareth (Branch-town) with the great Messianic prophecies about “the Branch out of the stem of Jesse” (Is. 11 :1 etc.), for immediately he began a fusillade of entreaties, shouting out at the top of his voice: “Jesus, Lord, Son of David, have mercy on me.” He had heard enough stories about the power and the compassion of Jesus to feel confident that this heir to David’s throne both could and would come to his aid. His words were a great confession of faith, the more so that they came from a Gentile.

Alas, there was no response out of the darkness which enfolded him. The crowd, and Jesus with it, moved on, and he was left in a depressing, faith-testing loneliness.

A year before this a Canaanite woman, equally convinced that Jesus was the Messianic Son of David, had clamoured for his healing aid on behalf of her stricken daughter. Yet for long enough her importunities both to Master one disciples had gone unheeded. Not to be gainsaid, she had persisted in thrusting her desperate need before him, and all at once faith had its reward. It is hardly likely that this blind beggar had heard the story. Yet his reaction to present discouragement was just the same

Soon he heard-who in that busy populous place didn’t?—that Jesus was to stay over the sabbath at the sumptuous home of Zaccheus. needed no extraordinary powers of deduction to conclude thai at some time in the morning after the sabbath Jesus and his party would be passing through the Jerusalem gate en route for the holy city.

A second attempt

Accordingly, soon after dawn that day Bartimaeus posted himself there. It was, in any case, the most lucrative pitch he could hope to have for his begging. On this occasion he was joined by another poor fellow, afflicted as he was. Over the weekend the robust faith of Bartimaeus had infected this blind friend also. Now with ears alert for the crowd of Galilean pilgrims, with Jesus in their midst, they waited.

Matthew’s fondness for reporting two blind men where Mark and Luke have only one is not to be written off as due to a penchant for exaggeration. If he says two blind men, then there were two. This is just one of Matthew’s devices for preparing his Jewish readers for the accession of the Gentiles into the ranks of Christ’s ecclesia (8:28; 9:27; 21 :2; 15:38).

By and by expectations were realised. It needed only quick enquiry of a passer-by, and they knew that Jesus and his men were approaching. Thereupon their clamant importunity began. Two lusty voices kept up a ceaseless cry: “Lord, have mercy on us, thou son of David.” There is too much similarity here to Mt.9 :27 to be written off as coincidence. Then had they heard of the earlier miracle and were now attempting deliberate imitation?

Again, that cry: “Son of David” invites comparison with the account of David’s conquest of Jerusalem (2 Sam.5 :8). There the blind and the lame, who vexed David’s soul by their self-confident taunts, brought a ban on all blind and all lame from entering the temple (“the House”). But now there was a blind Gentile who believed that the Son of David would make Jerusalem his capital. So for him there was only blessing.

Some who were at the head of the throng (Lk.) were annoyed at their loud shouts. Perhaps Jesus was teaching as he went, and so the interruption was resented. Or perhaps they were indignant at what they considered a crude use of a Messianic title in addressing Jesus. If Bartimaeus was known or seen to be a Gentile, their annoyance would be the more evident, In any case, some of them had probably noticed the way in which Jesus had ignored the cries of Bartimaeus when he entered Jericho on the sabbath eve. Then why could not this beggar learn that Jesus had no time for a dog of a Gentile such as he? So, roughly, the two noisy fellows were told to shut up.

But they knew that this was the greatest opportunity which would ever present itself in all their pathetic wretched stricken existence, and they re-doubled their efforts. The crowd was now abreast of them, and still no sign of response to their pleading. A few seconds more, and they could tell from the receding sound of feet that again Jesus had apparently passed by without any notice being taken of them in their misery.

Their cries continued, more urgent than ever, but now there was a note of piteous disappointment in their voices at the prospect of being left for ever in their darkness and poverty.

Importunity succeeds

All this time, and on the earlier occasion also, Jesus had known of the clamant need of these men of faith. And all the time that he had seemingly ignored with stony indifference the cries they sent after him, he had been torn between deep compassion for their wretchedness and a solemn responsibility to give his efforts to “the lost sheep of the house of Israel.”

But now that note of bitter disappointment in their voices was too much for him (Mr.). He stopped and bade those, who a minute before had been scolding them, to bring them to him (Lk.). But they didn’t need to. For someone called out: ‘Cheer up! Bestir yourself; he’s calling for you’ (Mk.).

Bartimaeus needed no further exhortation, He was on his feet in a moment, simultaneously shrugging off his outer garment and flinging it from him (s.w. Heb.10 :35; cp. Mt.3 :44,46; Phil.3 :7), so that he might move more freely. Thus he expressed his conviction that by and by he would be able to see to retrieve it. There was no waiting for someone to take him by the hand. Without a second’s hesitation he began walking towards the voice of Jesus.

“What do you want for yourself?” Jesus asked, “I will do it.” Perhaps he was merely asking for money, as he normally did.

“Rabboni,” he answered (Mk.), choosing carefully a title of high honour, “I want my sight back” (NEB) “Yes, Lord,” added the other, “let our eyes be opened” (Mt.).

They felt his fingers moving gently across their eyes (Mt.), and heard quiet words of pity break from his lips. Then he said firmly: “Yes, have your sight back” (Lk.). And they did. With their first moment of renewed vision each looked straight into the eyes of Jesus, and they heard that wonderful double entendre which he loved to use: “Your faith has saved you” (Mk.5 34; Lk.750;8:48; 17:19; 18:42).

“And now, away you go,” Jesus bade them (Mk.), only to be met by point-blank disobedience. They stayed in the crowd, glorifying God with their ceaseless ejaculations of wonder and thanksgiving, and they followed the Son of David to Jerusalem. No doubt they thought it the road to a throne, but instead they found it the way to a cross.

Witnessing the miracle, and thoroughly assured of its truth, the people in the throng gave voice to enthusiastic praise of God for such a work of lovingkindness. Did they sing Psalm 146?. “Happy is he that hath the God of Jacob for his help, whose hope is in the Lord his God . . ,The Lord openeth the eyes of the blind . . . The Lord preserveth the strangers . . . The Lord shall reign for ever, even thy God, O Zion. Hallelujah.”

Or was Isaiah 35 their theme?: “Be strong, fear not: behold your God, even God with a recompense (= Bartimaeus?); he will come and save you. Then the eyes of the blind shall be opened, and the ears of the deaf unstopped . . . And a highway shall be there . . . The way of holiness… and he shall be with them walking in the way .. . And the ransomed of the Lord shall return, and come to Zion with songs and everlasting joy upon their heads.”

Acted parable

In this healing of Bartimaeus there is a remarkable foreshadowing of the gospel to the Gentiles.

The poor man’s blindness and begging are to be seen as a picture of the Gentile’s need for light, a need only to be met by the help of Jews, the chosen people. Their cry for help, disregarded by Jesus, is the counterpart to the Lord’s ministry to his own people—”I am not sent but to the lost sheep of the house of Israel.” And as they were a people under the curse of the Law, so also was Jericho a city of curse (Josh.6:26_;l Kgs 16:34).

Jesus rested at the home of Zaccheus from Friday afternoon to Sunday, precisely the time that he lay in the tomb a week later. Thus leaving Jericho corresponds to the resurrection of Jesus. After this there was even more intense eagerness on the part of the Gentiles to enjoy the light of the gospel. The rebuke of Bartimaeus by those going before appropriately prefigured the reluctance of the early church to share their spiritual blessings with the Gentile God-fearers. But the compassion of Christ was not to be inhibited—the Gentiles were called to come to him, and this they did with alacrity. The filthy garments of their own unrighteousness were readily cast aside. The greeting “Rabboni” shows a Gentile who has become a Jew-and more than this, one believing in the risen Christ (see Jn.20 :16, the only other occurrence of the word). Nor is it accident that “Have mercy on us” is the Old Testament phrase for the forgiveness of sins. Touched by the finger of power (the Holy Spirit in the early church; see Lk.ll :20), the Gentiles gained a new spiritual sight, and, glorifying God, they gladly followed Christ, knowing themselves to be saved not by their own intrinsic merit but by faith in the Son of David and his Messianic Kingdom.

Notes: Mk. l0:46-52

46.	Jericho was also “the city of palm trees” (Dt. 34:3) — and palm trees are (in almost every mention) a symbol of Gentiles (Study 157).
47.	Son of David. Note the striking occurrences of this Messianic title: Mt. 9:27; 12:23; 15:22; 21:9,15.
	Bartimaeus, the son of Timaeus. An obvious pleonasm. Why? 49. There is a dramatic emphasis on “call . . . call . . . call.”
51.	That I might receive my sight. Not subjunctive, but (in Gk.) a future indicative-a subtle expression of faith in Jesus. The NEB reading is very graphic, but not necessarily correct; e.g. Jn. 9:11,15,18.
52.	It is only Mt. (not Lk.) who mentions here the touch with healing power.
	See also: Mk. 1:41;7:33;8:15;9:29; 17:7;20:34;Lk.7:14;22:51. It is Lk. who adds: ‘glorified God,” a reaction which was always the result of a miracle: Lk. 2:20; 5:25,26; 7:16; 13:13; 17:15; 18:43; 23:4

Jesus fold his disciples two parables which are marvellously alike in many respects, but which are nevertheless quite certainly not the same. They definitely belong to different occasions in the last week of the Lord’s ministry—the one was spoken in Jericho or on the last leg of the journey to Jerusalem, whilst the other belongs unmistakably to the Olivet Prophecy. It is because of the considerable similarity between them that they are now considered together. These parables provide an excellent demonstration of the fact that in the course of his ministry Jesus must often have repeated his teaching, with minor variations.

In Matthew the immediate context is the parable of the fen virgins. There, the emphasis goes on being alert for the Lord’s coming, here on diligent service. One parable features women, the other men.

Great Expectations

The introduction to the Pounds provides a link which is not without its difficulty: “And as they heard these things he added and spake a parable . . .” But immediately before these words is the story of Zaccheus. The connection is not obvious. If, however, the incidents concerning Bartimaeus and Zaccheus, both at Jericho, be omitted, the reference of “these things” is to the plain warning which Jesus gave to the disciples concerning his rejection and suffering at Jerusalem.

But the minds of the twelve, encouraged by the increasing fervour of the Galilean pilgrims, were running on other things: “He was nigh to Jerusalem and they thought that the kingdom of God should immediately appear.” New Testament usage of this verb dokeo (thought) has much more of confidence that the common version usually indicates (e.g. John 5 :39; 16 :2; Acts 15 :28; 26 :9; 1 Cor.8 : 2; 10:12).

There was a growing conviction that Jesus was soon to make public proclamation of himself as king. So in the parable of the pounds he sought to emphasize that first he must leave them for a far country, and that when he did return their promotion and glory in his kingdom would not be automatic.

Historical background

The main features of both parables are very clearly based on familiar and comparatively recent Jewish history. Herod the Great, and Archelaus and Herod Antipas, his sons and successors, all made special journeys to Rome to solicit confirmation of their authority over the Jews; the last-named was to make a second journey for the same purpose. The details fit the story of Archelaus especially, for he did specifically entrust his business affairs to certain of his servants; and the Jews, detesting the idea of having him as their king (for at his first Passover he had already had 3000 of their fellows massacred; Jos; BJ.2.1.3), sent a deputation of fifty citizens to Rome to protest to Caesar about him; but Archelaus was given jurisdiction over Judaea (as ethnarch, not as king), and on his return to Jerusalem he did honour his favourites by assigning them to be governors of certain cities.

But in both parables the man represents Jesus, There the contrast with Archelaus could hardly be greater.

In Matthew the kingdom is not specifically mentioned, but “ruler over many things” (v.21) very plainly implies it. Luke has explicit mention often servants, whereas Matthew says “his own servants,” meaning his personal officers out of the entire household, and of these only three are specifically mentioned. Again, in Luke all alike receive a mina (pound), that is about £1500 sterling; but in Matthew the man hands overall his existing wealth to their stewardship, the servant with one talent having about £100,000 in his care and the others proportionately more.

The pound which all have in common represents “one Lord, one faith, one baptism’-the knowledge of the Truth in Christ which all Christ’s servants enjoy. But the varying talent, “to each according to his several ability,” probably indicates that whilst there are “many members in one body, all members have not the same office;” there are “gifts differing according to the grace given to us.” (Rom. 12:4,6], Here, then, is emphasis on varying degrees of responsibility and opportunity, or on differing degrees of truth received (1 Cor.4 .7), And since natural ability has usually a good deal to do with this, it is understandable that the modern meaning of “talent” should be derived directly from the parable.

Neither parable includes any instruction to the servants as to how they were to operate. The mode of trading or investment was left entirely to their own judgement. It is a point of some importance when the practical lessons of these stories is under consideration.

“After a long time the Lord of those servants cometh and reckoneth with them.” The inference is often made that here the parable requires long centuries of delay before the Lord’s return (the problem presented by this “long time”, which in the parable must obviously be within a man’s lifetime, is dealt with in the appendix to “Revelation”, by H.A.W.).

The phrase “a long time” clearly could not refer to the Lord’s going away into the far country of the tomb for the short time of less than three days. His description of that was “a little while” (John 16 :17). Even so, in their excitement and enthusiasm the apostles did make precisely that mistake, saying to Jesus after his resurrection: “Lord, wilt thou at this time restore again the kingdom to Israel?” (Acts 1 :6).

Called to account

The journey successfully completed, the master of the servants “commanded to be called onto him those servants to whom he had given the money.” Here, very appropriately, there is strong implication that others who had not been given responsibilities were not called. The judgment of Christ will be for those who are answerable to him. The fact that those called are all designated servants should not be interpreted as signifying that only confessed disciples of Christ will be called to the judgment. The rest of the story makes this very clear.

The servants come into the presence of their master, now designated king. He is one “who both will bring to light the hidden things of darkness, and will make manifest the counsels of the hearts: and then shall every man have praise of God” (1 Cor.4 :5). The new king is seeking capable and trusty governors for his provinces.

Those with the pounds are found to vary considerably in the degree of success achieved: “thy pound hath gained ten pounds . . . thy pound hath made five pounds’—they speak as though all the virtue resided in what their master had left with them, and not in their own dutiful efforts (lCor.3:6; Acts 21 :19; 15 :4,12).

The man with five talents “brought” five more, he with two “brought” other two. Matthew’s word (v.20) normally describes the offering of sacrifice.

These all gave their lord great pleasure. “Good and faithful servant (there is a double meaning in this word “faithful”), thou hast been faithful regarding a few things; will make thee ruler over many things. Enter thou into the joy of thy lord” (ls.53 :11; Heb.12 :2). Here “enter” contrasts strongly with the casting out of the unprofitable servant (Mt.25 :30).

Ten pounds, ten cities; five pounds, five cities; a city for a pound! Such is the absurd disproportion between present achievement for Christ and future reward. Even so, it should not be overlooked that essentially, the reward for good service is to be much greater opportunity for further service! (cp. Jer.17 :24,26).

There are also varying degrees of reward. In some important respects these are according to diligence and faithfulness: “One star differeth from another star in glory” (1 Cor.15 :41). “He which soweth sparingly shall reap also sparingly; and he which soweth bountifully shall reap also bountifully” (2 Cor.9 :6). The Book of Revelation speaks of “the time of the dead, that they should be judged, and that thou shouldest give reward unto thy servants the prophets, and to the saints, and they that fear thy name, small and the great” (11 :18). Is there special meaning here in the mention of the “small” before the “great”?

The one-talent man

The servant with only one talent (though, indeed, £100,000 is no small responsibility!) had laboured only to dig a hole in which to bury his lord’s money safely out of sight (contrast Ps.40 :8,10). And one of those with a pound decided that the best thing he could do was to lay it up, carefully wrapped in a napkin— literally, in a sweat rag. Thus he put both money and sweat rag out of action! In neither case was there anything of profit for master or servant in the attitude adopted.

What led him to follow such a timid policy? He had excellent examples to encourage him. Was his declared assessment of his lord’s character an honest one, or an invented excuse?

One suspects that he was motivated by a spirit of cowardice, which of course is the very opposite of faith.

What a warning there is here! For, in modern times, how often has the brake been put on endeavour and progress by expressed fears that problems may be encountered. “Strengthen the things that remain” is a popular text, for it is so often made to mean. “Do little, or nothing.” But the nobleman’s instruction was: “Get busy till I come.” Experience shows over and over again that it is the one-talent man who is most given to timidity and self-excuse. Yet, strangely enough, most disciples of the Lord seem eager to set themselves in this category. They tend to assume that others are so much better placed than they themselves to serve Christ!

“Lord, I feared thee because thou art an austere man (harsh, rough); thou takest up that thou layest not down, and reapest that thou didst not sow . . . there thou hast that is thine.” Here in marvellously few words is accusation, trepidation, self-justification, and just a hint of defiance (contrast 1 Jn.5 :3), whilst “Lord, behold . . .” (Lk.19 :20) even seems to claim credit for keeping the pound safe.

Concerning both the Father and the Son the words stand true: “With the pure thou wilt shew thyself pure; and with the froward thou wilt shew thyself froward” (Ps.18 :26). And so here: ‘You knew, did you, that I am that harsh kind of master? Then why at least didn’t you put my money in the bank to gain a bit of interest?’

“If the mere keeping unused was so grievous a fault, what would it be to squander or destroy?” (Plummer).

“Wicked and slothful servant!” He was both of these. Most certainly slothful, for had he not spent “a long time” in complete idleness (or about his own affairs)? But how came he to deserve the epithet “wicked”, inasmuch as he had not done anything?

His wickedness lay in the estimate he expressed of his master’s character. “I knew thee” was about as far from the truth as it could be! Whenever any man finds himself speaking or thinking of God’s way of holiness as too exacting a life, whenever one who has learned the way of the gospel shrugs it off with the self-excuse: “No, its not for me, I just couldn’t live the life ,” he identifies himself with this one-talent evasion which slanders the character of the Holy One of God. “If only he may roll off a charge from himself, he cares not for affixing one on his Lord.”

It is the self-centred, self-righteous attitude of the elder brother of the prodigal as he accused his father and excused himself: “Lo, these many years do I serve thee . . . yet thou never gavest me a kid, that I might make merry with my friends” (Lk.15 :29). A frame of mind very much to beware of!

Then what is the spiritual counterpart to putting out the money at banker’s interest, this least duty of al! that the Lord’s servant should take on himself? One of the few sayings of Jesus preserved outside the pages of the New Testament is this: “Shew yourselves tried bankers” (cp. 1 Tirn.6 .20} , Here two ideas are involved—keeping safe that which is valuable, and also the slow steady accretion of added value. Probably the counterpart to this lies in the dutiful support of the ecclesia by the individual who deems that he has nothing of special worth to add to the Lord’s service. Personal appreciation and regular attendance can do much to strengthen the hands of those who carry greater responsibility—these things at least can be a worthwhile contribution to the well-being of the Body of Christ (cp, Num.31 :27).

Rejection

If even such a modicum of dutiful service is withheld, the parable holds out an ominous alternative: “Take from him the pound, and give it to him that hath ten pounds.” Here is the mind of one whose Father took from Esau to give to Jacob, from Saul to give to David, from Judasto give to Matthias, and from Israel in order to lavish His blessing on Gentiles.

In the parable this decision provoked on immediate interruption: “Lord, he hath ten pounds” (cp. Mt.21 :41; 2 Sam.12 :5,6). The unnamed interjectors were probably members of the crowd, fascinated by the story, who alia) once found themselves disagreeing with this standard of fairness, so that Jesus had to explain very simply that in the world of spiritual values God’s principles may not necessarily be the same as men’s.

But if the interruption is part of the parable, there is a nice little problem of interpretation, Who makes the objection? Whom do “they” represent (in the symbolism)? And what spiritual idea is the interjection intended to convey?

The Lord’s simple comment is: “Unto every one that hath shall be given.” In the sphere of activity that he speaks of, nothing succeeds like success: “He giveth wisdom unto the wise, and knowledge to them that know understanding” (Dan. 2 :21). But also, alas, nothing fails like failure: “From him that hath not, even that he hath shall be taken away from him” (Lk.8 :18) — the words would verge on foolishness if they did not underscore a solemn truth and a weighty warning. And since there can be remarkably few, if any, whose personal endowment of ability and opportunity does not even qualify them for the one talent class, the Lord’s reminder leaves hardly any exempt from its scope.

But the unworthy servant, who was so much more ready to blame his lord rather than himself, now finds that he loses not only his talent but his own soul: “Cast ye the unprofitable servant into outer darkness . . . weeping and gnashing of teeth.” It was Christ’s much-repeated contrast with the radiant Glory of God and the song of the Lamb on mount Zion reserved for those who “enter into the joy of their Lord.” “Cast out” and “Enter in” are words spoken by the same royal master.

The tale has another sombre chapter: “Those mine enemies (they are no longer “citizens”!), which would not that I should reign over them, bring hither, and slay them before me. The primary reference—who can doubt?—is to the point-blank rejection of Jesus by a Jewish nation, crying: “We have no king but Caesar,” instead of conceding that this Nazarene deserved their humble allegiance. But the principle behind this grim judgment spreads its louring shadow far beyond the hills of Judaea. How many others who have learned of the authority given to Jesus by Almighty God choose in their perversity to say; “We will not have this man to reign over us”! Will their fate be any different? (cp. Ps. 2:2-6).

The story told, Jesus separated himself from the throng. Resuming his loneliness he went on ahead of them, going up to the holy city which had already declared: “We will not have this man to reign over us.” Another week, and it would repeat the words yet again, this time in tones of strident cruelty.

Notes: Mt.25: l4-30

24.	Strawed. A reference to winnowing at the threshing floor.
26.	Wicked and slothful servant. The attitude of the others, by contrast, implies a faith in their lord that if, making a venture, they came to grief, he would be understanding and not censorious.
17.	Thou oughtest. Literally: it was necessary (for your own sake).
	Interest. The Gk. is, literally, “offspring”, a word not without significance in the interpretation with reference to support of the ecclesia.
30,	Unprofitable.Gk. (root meaning): not needed.

Lk. 19:11-28

11.	He added and spake = LXXof Dt. 18 :16 (without the negative); Is.7 :10; 8 :5. 20.
20.	Another. Gk: one of a different sort.
25.	He hath ten pounds. This is the voice of democracy which would fain put every man on the same level. Christ has no use for this philosophy.

Three of the gospels describe an anointing of Jesus at Bethany in the last week of his ministry. But there are certain differences of detail which have led many to conclude that the anointing described by Matthew and Mark was a different occasion from that in John 12:

1. The timing is different—”after two days was the Passover” “six days before the passover.”
2. The place was different —”the house of Simon the leper,” “Bethany where Lazarus was.”
3. The anointing was different-“she poured it on his head” “she anointed the feet of Jesus.”
4. The source of the grumbling was different-“when the disciples saw it, they were indignant,” but in John it is Judas Iscariot who complained.

On the other hand, in the two incidents there is such an accumulation of similarities —and these of an exceptional kind-that it is difficult to believe that they happened all together twice over within a day or two of each other:

1. Both at Bethany.
2. In each case an anointing of Jesus whilst he was at the meal table.
3. Mark and John use the same highly unusual word to describe the ointment.
4. There is the same disapproval, and for the same reason.
5. In reply Jesus makes the same defence: “it is for my burial.”
6. And he adds the identical extenuation: “The poor ye have always with you.”

Can these extraordinary resemblances be explained as sheer coincidence?

Discordance reconciled

When the earlier list of discordant details is examined afresh, it turns out that they are by no means as serious as might appear at first. Thus the conclusion becomes highly probable that John’s record describes the same incident as that in Matthew 26 and Mark 14.

1. Both Matthew and Mark set their record of the anointing as an immediate prelude to the betrayal: “And Judas Iscariot, one of the twelve, went away unto the chief priests, to betray him unto them” (Mark 14 :10). Thus, verses 3-9-the anointing, culminating in the rebuke of Judas —can be regarded as a deliberate chronological dislocation inserted in parenthesis at this place in order to supply the final decisive reason why Judas should decide to betray his Master.
2. The place. Simon the leper was obviously a healed leper, or his home would have been no fit place for Jesus and the twelve to be accorded hospitality. And how could he have been healed except by Jesus? The home at Bethany is called Martha’s (Lk.10 :38). Then is there anything impossible about the simple conclusion that Simon was Martha’s husband? or, alternatively, that Simon was the father of Martha, Mary and Lazarus? The name Lazarus may be Hebrew for “belonging to the leper.”
3. It is possible to show that, both the head and the feet of Jesus were anointed. John’s careful time note: “six days before the passover” identifies the date (by inclusive reckoning) as the tenth day of Nisan, for the Passover feast was eaten on the fifteenth. But on this day, according to Exodus 12 :3, the paschal lamb was set aside for sacrifice. Thus in his record John was hinting at the identification of Jesus as the true Lamb of God. More than this, when prepared for the feast, the lamb was to be roasted whole: “his head with his legs” (Ex.12 :9). So with evident understanding of this typical detail Mary anointed both head and feet of Jesus. “To anoint my body” (Mk.14 :8) implies more than the head only. Thus she marked him out as the one fully consecrated to fulfil God’s great redeeming work. A further detail chimes in with this: “Let her alone,” said Jesus, “against the day of my burying hath she kept this” (Jn. 12:7). The usual idea, of ointment specially saved up or set aside, is quite mistaken. With hardly an exception this word is used in John’s gospel and Apocalypse with reference to the keeping of commandments-in this case, the Passover commandment, now turned from type to yet more poignant symbolism.
4. Who did the complaining? What more natural that this?- that Judas was the first to speak his mind about this, and promptly found support from some of the others. Probably Judas spoke up because he was a member of the family! —”the son of Simon” (Jn.6 :71). Of course Judas was right in his criticism, but Mary, pulled in two directions (as happens with many a disciple) had to make a choice. Of course her decision was the right one.

It follows, then, that the three records should be studied together as accounts of the same incident.

The six days

If the time note just discussed has been correctly interpreted, it is possible to calculate backwards from the crucifixion in this way:

15th Nisan was Friday night (when the passover was eaten by the Jews) and Saturday

14th Nisan: Thursday night and Friday (the day of crucifixion).

13th Nisan: Wednesday night and Thursday.

12th Nisan: Tuesday night and Wednesday

11th Nisan: Monday night and Tuesday.

10th Nisan: Sunday night and Monday (“six days before the Passover”).

So it would seem that Jesus rested during the sabbath (Saturday) at the home of Zaccheusin Jericho, and then spent the Sunday on the twenty mile walk to Bethany, “where Lazarus was, whom he raised from the dead.”

The repeated emphasis on the fact of Lazarus’ resurrection (Jn.11 :45,47; 12 :1,9,10,17) is rather striking. It continues to underline the reality and purpose of the miracle-“for the glory of God, that the Son of God might be glorified thereby.”

The anointing

It was now Sunday evening, supper-time at that Bethany home. The tenth day of Nisan had just begun. Martha, intensely domestic and practical as ever, had made all preparation, and she actually served Jesus, even though it was a wealthy household and there was certainly no need for her to do this. It was her act of homage and thanks to the Master.

Of course, Lazarus was there-and Simon, too, doubtless—reclining at the meal table. The close connection between the resurrection and food is not to be missed. It finds too frequent emphasis in Scripture to be unimportant. (Mk.5:43;Mt. 26:29; Lk. 24:41-43; Jn. 12:1,2; Acts l:4RVm; 10:41. And also Lk. 22:16; Rev. 2:7; 3:20; 19:9; Ex. 24:11; Jn. 6:33,40-1,50,51,54,58).

As the meal was in progress, Mary came up behind Jesus carrying an alabaster container holding nearly a pound weight of a rare and precious ointment. This nard was prepared from a plant which is said to grow only in the Himalayas. So its use signified an anointing as distinguished in the sight of God as that of the high priest (see Ex.30 :23; Ps.133 :2).

Mary, who goes unnamed by Matthew and Mark until the crucifixion (Study 74), broke the neck of the jar open, and poured a quantity of its fragrant contents on the head of Jesus. This was a wonderful gesture of devotion, for the value of that ointment was something like £4000-more than double what was paid to Judas. (A week later Mary was to have ointment of yet greater fragrance to break; Jn. 20 :16,17).

Not content to express her homage by so singular an action, she now knelt at his feet and poured the rest of the spikenard over them-those travel-worn feet which had tramped hundreds of miles on the rough roads of Galilee and Judaea. Next she proceeded to wipe them with her hair, so that by the same action she was herself anointed.

“And the house was filled with the fragrance of the ointment.” Like a similar act of generous devotion by which the ecclesia at Philippi expressed its love for Paul, this was “an odour of a sweet smell, a sacrifice acceptable, well-pleasing to God” (Phil.4 :18).

Why did Mary express her love for Christ in such an unusual fashion? On an earlier occasion she had achieved the same result by simply sitting and listening to his teaching (Lk.10 :39). Then why this extravagant gesture?

In Study 73 evidence was offered for equating Mary of Bethany with the sinful woman who anointed Jesus in the house of Simon the Pharisee(Lk.7). If the conclusion reached there is correct, Mary was now, in a deliberate recapitulation of that earlier experience, expressing her thanks, otherwise inexpressible, for her redemption from a sordid past into a life of gracious discipleship.

The resemblances between the two incidents are considerable:

• the host Simon;
• an alabaster box;
• anointing of the feet;
• at the meal table;
• the wiping of feet with her hair;
• unvocal indignation;
• the Lord’s awareness of this, and his rebuke;
• “Forgive her!”

Some have puzzled over the fact of Mary, a devoted disciple of Jesus, having such an expensive cosmetic. The character of the old life, mentioned in Luke 7, is more than adequate explanation. The breaking of the valuable alabaster was thus specially eloquent!

Over and above all this, she now had added reason for silent worship-her brother Lazarus, whom she had seen borne to his rock-hewn tomb some weeks before, was there with Jesus at the table.

Nor was this all. In anointing the head of Jesus she proclaimed in matchless fashion her conviction that he was the Messiah, the Anointed One of God. But when in addition, she anointed his feet, on this tenth day of Nisan (Ex.12:9), she declared also her faith in him as the Lamb of God through whom would come a release from a greater bondage than that of Egypt or Rome. No wonder that the gospels describe her offering as pistic nard-faith ointment (Gk: pistis).

The gospel writers, and the early church instructed by them, saw all kinds of eloquent symbolism here. “While the king sitteth at his table, my spikenard sendeth forth the smell thereof” (S. of S. 1 :12). That lovely smell filled the house just as the glory of the God of Israel had filled the temple when first His people offered worship to him there (IKgs.8 :10,11).

Perhaps there was also symbolism of a more melancholy character. For the only other place where the Bible speaks of alabaster is in the prophecy when God foretold “such evil upon Jerusalem and Judah … wiping Jerusalem as a man wipes a dish (alabaster), wiping it, and turning it upside down” (2 Kgs.21 .-12,13). Is that why the gospels are careful to mention, contrary to all expectation, that Mary broke the container, making it fit only to be discarded?

Murmuring

The disciples witnessed Mary’s extraordinary act of homage in amazement. Why should she do such a thing? Was their Master a fop or court dandy to take vain delight in cosmetics like an empty-headed woman? —the Son of man who often had not where to lay his head and who for months past had driven himself almost past endurance in his last earnest intense appeal in every city and village! They failed to recognize that the affection and understanding behind Mary’s action could not have been expressed without action itself!

Judas especially resented the fantastic waste involved. All through the Lord’s mission he had been responsible for their common fund. The gifts of well-wishers and thankful beneficiaries came into his care. During the past year (Jn.6 :70,71) he had become more and more disaffected. So as an insurance policy he had steadily misappropriated the funds. Some of these were already invested in real estate (Acts 1 :18). Yet Jesus continued to tolerate such a man in his ecclesia!

The high-minded protest which he now made to Mary as she was moving away clothed a disreputable motive: “Why was not this ointment sold for three hundred pence (he knew the value of it!), and given to the poor?” After all, care of the poor was a well-recognized expression of Passover piety (Jn.13 :29). And was it not only a day or two before this that they had heard Jesus himself address such an exhortation to the rich young ruler (Lk.18 :22)? Judas may even have added a pointed rhetorical question such as: “Why ever was this ointment bought in the first place?”

Some of the other disciples backed Judas up in this. Even so they were careful to make their criticism direct to Mary and out of earshot of Jesus (Mk.). They had forgotten the marvellous power which their Lord had—that uncanny awareness of what was going on in the minds of those around him.

Reproof and vindication

As Mary’s tears began to flow, Jesus took the disciples to task, and no doubt directed his rebuke specially at Judas: “Let her alone;” or, more probably, this should read, ironically: “Forgive her!” “Why trouble ye her? (Jesus went on). She hath wrought a beautiful work in me. Against the day of my burying hath she observed this rite. (Yet, applied to a living Jesus, it was also “an holy anointing oil” fit for a high priest; Ex.30 :25). For always ye have the poor with you (Bethany means the town of the poor?), and whenever you wish you may do a kindness to them, but me ye do not have always.”

“For my burial.” These were sombre words, yet Jesus spoke of “this gospel, this good news.” What were his disciples to make of it? And it would appear that this was the only anointing for burial that Jesus got. Spices were put, in quantity, between the rolls of his burial linen (Jn.19 :39), but evidently there was no opportunity for anointing. And when the women would make this good on the morning of the third day (Mk.16 :1) Jesus was already risen.

Judas and his fellows needed the rebuke. True, the Law of Moses gave them pointed reminder that “the poor shall never cease out of the land” (Dt.15 :11). Thus it impressed the need for unfailing big-hearted charity. But at this moment Jesus, the Son of Almighty God, was the most needy of all. What a week lay before him! So it was not waste. Not only did Jesus benefit (and he so sublimely!) but also Mary, in the expression of her faith and in the commendation that followed; the disciples also, then and in every age, from the rare example before them and in the needful lesson which Jesus quietly but firmly urged upon them; and even the poor have gained blessing as the words of Jesus have come echoing through many stricken generations.

Jesus spoke his thanks to Mary as no other man could have spoken them: “Verily I say unto you, Wheresoever this gospel shall be preached throughout the whole world, this also that she hath done shall be spoken of for a memorial of her.” To be spoken by any man but Jesus these words would be the most reckless of all reckless prophecies. Yet they have been literally and stupendously true.

John’s gospel does not have this gracious saying, but instead John records: “And the house was filled with the odour of the ointment,” And so it has been, from that day to this. There is no corner of the House of God where that fragrance has not given surpassing pleasure.

How Mary deserved this warm acknowledgment! For, wrapped up in that one action was her personal conviction that Jesus could not only redeem from a life of worthlessness, he was God’s appointed High Priest and promised King; yet he must, and would, suffer as a Lamb of sacrifice to save his people from their sins and deliver then permanently from its bondage. At this time was there any other person with half the insight of Mary of Bethany?

It is worth while here to note the sustained contrast between Judas and Mary. His money box (Gk.) is set over against her box of ointment. He received thirty pieces of silver; she gave more than three hundred pence. He was covetous and a thief; she was liberal. He expressed “care” for the poor; she told her love for the Lord. He came to a most miserable end; her fame has never been dimmed.

Public interest

To the story of the anointing of Jesus John’s gospel adds a highly informative appendix. A great crowd of “the Jews,” hearing that Jesus had reached Bethany, came out from Jerusalem to see him. Since in this gospel “the Jews” invariably means “the Jewish scribes and rulers”, there is here an intimation of a strong movement in sympathy with Jesus among the influential classes in Jerusalem (v.42). It must have been on the Monday morning when they came out to Bethany.

They were drawn there also by a compelling curiosity regarding Lazarus. Not that they expected a man raised from the dead to look drastically different from normal, but they wished, of course, to question him about his experience and to check the accuracy of the reports they had heard.

The outcome was that many of them “were going away (from loyalty to the chief priests) and were believing on Jesus.” This only served to intensify the hostility of the ruling caucus. It put point to their earlier resolution to be rid of Jesus. So now, “they consulted that they might put Lazarus also to death.” Presumably the only thing which saved Lazarus (humanly speaking; was the fact that the Bethany family was so well known and of such high character that no charge of any kind could possibly be brought against any of them.

Notes: Jn. 12:1 -8

1.	Came to Bethany It is easy to trace ‘he Lord’s travel: Ephraim in Peraea (Jn. 11:54), Jericho (Mt 20:29), Bethany (Jn. 12:1)
2.	Martha served. There is an undesigned coincidence here; see Lk, 10:38ff
3.	His feet. It is an unanswered problem why there is here no mention of the anointing of the Lord’s head.
6.	The bag Literally, box; s.w. 2 Sam.6 :11. where Uzzah died, but Obededom was blessed. So also here — .Judas and Mary.
	Bare.This is the normal meaning of the word. But 20 15: “takeaway” supports the idea of theft here, see RV.
8.	Me ye have not always Contrast Mt.28 :20, after his resurrection

Mt. 26:6-13

8.	Mk. says “she break the box.” How did she do this? It wouldn’t be easy.
	This waste. Jn.17 :12 applies the same word to Judas himself!
13.	For a memorial of her. “My burial . . . her memorial.” Christ was to have his own special memorial; Lk.22 :19, Ex.12:14.

No documents have been more assiduously studied than those which describe the last week of the Lord’s mortal life. Yet, regarding the timing of events differences of interpretation are considerable. So it is needful to remember that dogmatism as to the pattern of events is hardly justifiable.

There are two important issues which will have to be given special separate attention later on. One of these is the question: Was the Last Supper a normal Jewish Passover? On this the balance of evidence will be found to favour the view that it was not. The interpretation that will be argued for is that it was an ordinary supper transformed, by special symbolism which Jesus imparted to it, into a new Passover celebrating a better deliverance than Israel’s release from Egyptian bondage. See Study 181.

The other tricky question is: Did Jesus lie in the tomb from Friday to Sunday or for a full 72 hours: “three days and three nights”? Regarding this (and again it is necessary to anticipate the full-length study which will come later), the conclusion reached is that the long-accepted tradition—Good Friday to Easter Sunday—is correct. The alternative view misinterprets Jewish idiom, has to turn a blind eye to one or two of the plainest simplest statements in the gospels, and piles up for itself a whole series of chronological difficulties. See Study 182.

This present study simply aims at summarising the time-table of events during that momentous week preceding the passover.

It was on a Friday that Jesus had his encounter with the rich young ruler; and it must have been late that afternoon when Bartimaeus made his unsuccessful appeal to Jesus as he was entering Jericho. Almost immediately after that: “Zaccheus, today I must abide at thy house” — “must” because in an hour or two the sabbath would begin.

So Jesus spent the Friday and Saturday nights at the house of the chief publican.

On the Sunday morning he set out for Jerusalem. Bartimaeus and his friend were healed of their blindness as Jesus left the city. Bethany was reached by the end of the day. It was at the supper table that night that Mary anointed Jesus and heard the Lord’s great commendation. This was now the 10th Nisan, “six days before the passover” (which was eaten on the following Friday evening, the 15th).

Monday morning was taken up with receiving the great crowd of influential Jews who came out to Bethany to see Jesus and Lazarus.

The Lord’s trimphal entry into Jerusalem followed in the closing hours of the day (Mk.11 :11). For details why “Palm Sunday” should really be “Palm Monday”, reference is invited to Study 155.

After spending the night at Bethany, on Tuesday morning Jesus again went into Jerusalem. This was the occasion of the cursing of the fig tree and the second cleansing of the temple. Time was also spent in the temple court instructing the multitude (Lk.19 :48). Then he returned again to Bethany for the night (Mt.21 :17).

Next day—Wednesday—there was much preaching and disputation in the temple. His authority for cleansing the temple was challenged by the chief priests, and he replied with three incisive parables: the two sons, the vineyard, and the wedding garment. Unable to make any effective reply, “they left him, and went their way” (Mk.12:12).

That night was spent, apparently, in the garden of Gethsemane (Lk.21 :37). There is a certain amount of doubt as to just where the division should be made between Wednesday’s and Thursday’s activities.

Much of Thursday was similarly spent in the temple. The rulers’ conspiracy to defeat Jesus in argument led to the great disputation in which he routed them completely. “And no man after that durst ask him any question” (Mk.12 :34).

Jesus rounded off this encounter with his great denunciation of “Scribes and Pharisees, hypocrites.”

The appeal of the Greeks, through Philip and Andrew, that they might see Jesus, marked the end of the Lord’s public ministry.

It was in the closing hours of that hectic day (Thursday) that Jesus made his great Olivet prophecy to a handful of his disciples, Immediately after that, after sun-down in the first hours of the 14th Nisan, Peter and John were sent ahead to prepare the upper room.

An hour or two later, Jesus and the rest returned into the city to the upper room. There the Last Supper took place, followed by a return to Gethsemane for the last time.

The Lord was arrested probably about midnight. During the rest of the night he was privately interrogated by Annas and by Caiaphas, then tried before the Sanhedrin, and at first dawn formally condemned.

The next two hours or so (Friday morning) were taken up with his appearance before Herod and his trial by Pilate. Crucifixion tool place at about nine o’clock, and the agony of the Son of God ended at the very time-mid-afternoon—when the priests in the temple court began the slaying of the paschal lambs.

Interment in Joseph’s tomb was completed before sundown when the Passover sabbath, which this year coincided with a normal sabbath, began. That Friday evening the multitude of Jews in Jerusalem ate their Passover whilst Jesus lay in the tomb.

All next day, Saturday, a sabbath calm lay on the holy city. Then as the sun set business was resumed. The guard of soldiers was posted at the tomb. The women who had seen Jesus crucified now made their purchases and preparations for further care of his body.

Early next morning, Sunday, Mary Magdalene and the others went to the tomb, as they had planned, only to find it empty. Jesus was already risen. And all the excitement of Resurrection Day began.

It was Monday mid-day, or even later, when Jesus left Bethany with a group of his disciples to go into Jerusalem. The arrival of a considerable number of citizens of Jerusalem prevented his making an early start. Word had gone round about Jesus’ return to Bethany. So there came also a multitude of Passover pilgrims bearing palm branches and expressing with loud cries their conviction that the Messianic age was about to begin.

Excitement was all the greater because Lazarus was there. Evidently Jesus had perceived that angry Jewish leaders, eager to destroy the evidence that a man had risen from the dead, were set on destroying Lazarus. So when it became necessary to find sanctuary east of Jordan, Lazarus went also, for safety’s sake (Jn,12:10).

Now that Lazarus was back, there was intense eagerness to see a man who had died and had been brought back to life four days Inter. And besides Lazarus there were plenty of witnesses to talk to about that amazing sign.

So “the whole multitude of disciples began to . . . praise God with a loud voice for all the mighty works which they had seen” (Lk.19 :37). What other “mighty works” besides beholding Lazarus alive and Bartimaeus seeing?

As Jesus and his followers approached Bethphage, he commissioned two of the twelve to go forward into the village. Almost certainly one of the two was Peter, for Mark (Peter’s amanuensis) gives a specially detailed description such as could hardly have come from any but an eye-witness. He was probably accompanied by John, for these two were to be given a similar errand together later in the week (Lk.22:8).

Borrowing two animals

Their task now was both unusual and menial—to fetch an ass and its colt, and bring them to Jesus. Was the Lord using this practical method of impressing on two of his leading disciples the lesson of humility and service about which he had spoken so weightily a short while before?

Their instructions were very precise, and everything transpired exactly as Jesus said. As soon as they came to the village they found the two beasts tethered out in the open street by the door of a house. Those who had responsibility for the animals and saw the disciples untying them naturally questioned their authority to do this. The reply, according to instructions, was: “The Lord hath need of him.”

It is known that Herod had a palace on the Mount of Olives (see Notes), and that he was “in residence” for that Passover, so since the wife of Chuza, Herod’s steward, was a faithful disciple (Lk.8 :3), there is fair probability that it was with her help that arrangement had been made beforehand for Jesus to have the use of the ass and its colt.

Should the reading of this unusual incident be taken a step further by enquiring whether it was necessary for Jesus to borrow the animals in this way? Would not that wealthy family at Bethany have an ass to put at his service, or at least be able to borrow one for his use somewhere in their village? Then why should such an unusual means as this be adopted?

The explanation may be that, with connivance, it was king Herod’s own royal beast that was brought to Jesus. If so, there is close parallel with the coronation of Solomon, for it was on King David’s own mule that he rode to Gihon (1 Kgs.1 :33), thus declaring to all who witnessed that he was the true heir to the throne. Here now the same truth was to be made evident: not king Herod, but king Jesus.

This would also explain why the two disciples were to give the assurance: “The Lord hath need of them; and he will send them back again immediately”(Mk.), words which also carried an indirect intimation that the “triumphal” procession into the city was to be only a dress rehearsal, and not the real thing.

The password spoken by the disciples removed all objections, and they were allowed to bring the animals away.

When the throng realised that Jesus intended to ride thus into Jerusalem, their delight and enthusiasm knew no bounds. This was surely his way of proclaiming himself King of the Jews, in accordance with the familiar Messianic Scripture in Zechariah 9. So, eagerly falling in with the idea, they became the first to pledge their loyalty to King Jesus by throwing their garments on the back of the ass and the colt, that Jesus might sit on them. This was in imitation of the old custom, exemplified when usurper Jehu seized the reins of government (2 Kgs.9:13). Were they wanting Jesus to show himself a Jehu?

From Matthew’s text it would seem that Jesus rode the grown ass and then chose to change to its colt; or else (and this is more likely) the ass— which must have been well used to being ridden — unaccountably proved restive when he mounted it, so he transferred to the unbroken untrained colt, which normally would have been exceedingly troublesome; and this, although without saddle or bridle, now quietly carried Jesus amid all the excitement and hubbub in the multitude. There is much significant symbolism in these details (see Studies 158,171). Comments one writer: “The dumb ass rebukes the madness of the apostle (Judas).”

Jesus rode quietly on, intent on making a last unmistakable appeal to Jerusalem, not in all the panoply of royal pomp but by the quiet claim of a “still small voice”, the method which, centuries before, heavenly wisdom had commended to Elijah (1 Kgs.19 :11,12; contrast Jer.l7:25).

Lament over the city

As they turned the shoulder of the Mount of Olives, a large part of the holy city came suddenly into view. There, at a spot which today is quite definitely identifiable, the Lord paused and with eyes filled with emotion surveyed the place which had no use for him. Then suddenly he burst into tears, openly lamenting the sad fate which he knew Jerusalem had stored up for herself. But his hostile critics in the crowd curled their lips at the sight of such emotion (Ps.69:9-12).

What was the reaction of the disciples at the awesome sight of their strong Leader reduced to woman’s tears at a time when they would fain see him with a resolute glint of conquest in his eye and hear him urge them forward with a bold shout of encouragement? But instead:

“If thou hadst known, even thou—the Greek kai ge seems to imply: ‘if indeed that were possible-in this thy day the things which make for peace’ (Jer.8 :11; Ps.122 :5-9). He meant, of course, as he always meant, peace with God. But in all the land was there to be found a city more unresponsive, more truculent, than this City of Peace? “But now”, he went on, “they are hid from thine eyes” (as in Ex.9:12,16). Already it was obvious enough that, whatever else Jesus might attempt in the way of appeal to this city of God’s choice, nothing would change their indifference or hostility into humble faith and obedience. Retribution was now inevitable.

“The days shall come upon thee, that thine enemies shall cast a trench about thee, and compass thee round, and keep thee in on every side, and shall lay thee even with the ground, and thy children within thee (Lk.23 :28,29); and they shall not leave in thee one stone upon another.”

It was the terrible tale of A.D.70 told beforehand, all made inevitable by stonyhearted wilfulness. Jerusalem refused to acknowledge the one who came with tokens of authority far surpassing any of the prophets. It had thrust him aside. This week it would crucify him. And by these deeds it wrote its own doom in large capitals. Twelve times (in the Greek text) Jesus used “thee, thou, thy” with dreadful emphasis as he wept over this city of golden splendour, which a generation later was to become a scene of savage tumult and carnage. All this horrific progression to ruin, Titus, commander of the besieging Roman army, foresaw, and he set himself to save the city. Yet in spite of himself and against his own inclination he and his men did all that was now foretold, to the last syllable: “not one stone upon another.”

This, “because thou knewest not (refused to know!) the time of thy visitation” (Dt.32 :29; Lk.13 :34; Rom l0:19a,21). That crucial word carried a double meaning-the visitation of God in blessing and salvation (e.g. Ex.3:16)or, in judgment (e.g. Jer.8 :12; Is. 10 :3). Jerusalem recognized neither. “The Lord will not do good, neither will He do evil.”

Jerusalem means “Jehovah will cause peace (reconciliation) to be seen.” But this Jerusalem had shown no inclination to see such a peace, So now it was hidden from the nation’s eyes.

The rabbis had a saying: “If Israel be worthy, Messiah comes with the clouds of heaven (Dan.7 :13); if unworthy, riding upon an ass” (Zech.9:9).

The tumult and the shouting

Shrouded in sorrow, Jesus rode on down the hill to the Kidron and past the garden of Gethsemane. Every minute the crowd grew bigger. A really exciting situation was now building up. Many of the people cut branches from the trees, especially from the luxurious leafy date palms. These they waved with acclamation and cast in the road before Jesus to adorn his triumph. In their excitement many of them pulled off their garments and spread them in tribute before him.

But in truth their ovation was for a different Jesus from the one who now slowly and sadly passed on before them. The Jesus who intoxicated their imagination was one made in their own image—a man of power and resolution who right soon would restore to then afresh all the ancient glories of the kingdom of David. The Galileans, ever restless under the hated iron hand of Rome, were now ready at any moment to erupt into violent action-an almost uncontrollable mixture of religious zed and political inflammability.

They were the main, but not the only, element in the crowd. The gospels carefully distinguish the various reactions to Jesus as he now approached the city.

Close to him there were, of course, his own committed disciples (Mk.11 :9), now probably in grave danger of being swept away by the seething effervescence around them, for they were strongly infected with the same nationalistic spirit.

“Hosanna to the Son of David,” they all shouted. They may have meant: “Salvation by the Son of David. Hosanna! Save now!” They knew not what they asked. Their prayer was indeed answered, and before the week was out—but how differently from what they meant.

Their cry and their waving of palm branches were alike more appropriate to the Feast of Tabernacles (Lev.23 :40). But many of them, in a surge of genuine religious fervour, saw in the coming of Jesus a fulfilment of all which that feast foreshadowed: “They praised God with a loud voice” (Lk.).

It is not an easy matter to assign a precise idea to some of the acclamations reported in the gospels. What does “Hosanna in the highest” (Mt.) mean? And why the cry: “Peace in heaven” (Lk.)?

If the first of these is read (as the Greek text certainly allows): “(Grant) salvation now by means of those who are in the highest (heaven)”, the words are an eager prayer that by the exercise of angelic power God would bring in the Messianic kingdom.

“Peace in heaven” chimes in with this idea, when it is realised that God, the author of both good and “evil” circumstance in human experience (ls.45 :7; Am.3 :6), chooses to operate through the ministrations of not only angels of good but also angels of evil (Ps.78:49; Ex.12 :23; Acts 12 :7,23). Thus “peace in heaven” means the abolition of evil in the kingdom of Messiah, all the angels of God brought into one harmonious ministration of good for the blessing of Christ’s redeemed people.

“Blessed be the coming kingdom, the kingdom of our father David” (Mk.).

“It is probable that not a few who cried ‘Hosanna’ took part in crying ‘Crucify’ a few days later. This would be all the more likely to happen, because those who had shouted in the Messiah’s honour believed that they were escorting him to a throne which would restore the ancient glories of Israel. When they saw that nothing of the kind was going to take place they would visit their disappointment upon the object of their previous enthusiasm” (Plummer).

Other sections of the crowd

With the disciples, also, but not daring to join in the shouting, was a group of the more sympathetic Pharisees (“the Jews”). They had come out to Bethany that morning, and were now returning to the city with Jesus (Jn.12 :9,17). Some of these had been present when Jesus brought Lazarus from the tomb (Jn.11 :45).That morning they had spoken with Lazarus again, and knew there could be no arguing about that mighty miracle.

But there were also Pharisees of a very different kidney (Lk.)—men who valued their religious authority and prestige in the nation more than anything, and who would stick at nothing to hold on to it. As Jesus came in triumph into the city, these, exasperated beyond measure, with biting scorn bade Jesus quell the excitement which seethed all round him. What a superb unintentional tribute it was to him that they should deem him capable of such control over an undisciplined crowd!

Jesus swept their complaining aside: “I tell you that, if these should hold their peace, the stones would immediately cry out.” The Hebrew (and Aramaic) words for “sons (disciples)” and “stones” are almost the same. If disciples cannot praise God for their Messiah, then the temple itself will add its witness by crashing to the ground in a thunderous roar—”not one stone left upon another!”

Among themselves the Pharisees differed widely in their attitude to this bedlam of enthusiasm for Jesus. “Perceive ye how ye prevail nothing!” (Jn.). In more modern speech: ‘Look what’s happening! You can’t make any headway against this.’ The exasperated complaint to their president was: “Behold, the world is gone after him.” They used the word kosmos with reference to the Jewish world, but reporting it the apostle John is careful to set it down immediately alongside the pregnant incident of Greeks coming to Jesus (12 :20), thus suggesting a more far-reaching significance. Again, as Caiaphas earlier, all unconsciously the enemies of the Lord were true prophets (cp.11:51).

What an irony there was about this situation! These men of power were the very people who, not long before, had issued their imperious instruction that “if any man knew where he were, he should shew it, that they might take him”(Jn. 11:57).

Now, no need to enquire where Jesus was. But take him they dare not. Let them give the slightest sign of attempt to do so that day, and Jerusalem would be reduced to a shambles of riot and fury.

Another segment of the crowd affected by this sensational event was the populace of Jerusalem itself. As Jesus entered the city, the disturbance was like an earthquake (Mk.21 :10Gk.). “Who is this?” they asked in alarm. Iti st o be remembered that the capital had hardly recovered from the upheaval and chaos lately created by Barabbas’ attempt at violent revolution (Lk.23 :18,19).

Anticlimax

Who is this? They knew well enough, for the name of Jesus of Nazareth was on the lips of everybody. So their question meant: What is he here for? What does ne intend to do? Then was it the demeanour of Jesus himself, or the fact that he rode on an ass, and not a charger, which held back the enthusiasts from answering: “The Messiah himself, the King of Israel, bringing in the kingdom of our father David. Blessed be the king that cometh in the name of the Lord”? Instead, proud to own him as one of themselves, they acclaimed him now as “the prophet from Nazareth in Galilee.” Again, what dramatic irony, for it was a matter of minutes only before this that Jesus had made his first explicit detailed prophecy of the utter destruction to which Jerusalem was doomed.

It soon became evident that Jesus had no revolutionary intentions. He rode to the temple enclosure and dismounted. Then he made a tour of inspection (Mk.) of every part of the sacred area to which a layman had right of access. With anger in his eyes he noted that the Bazaars of the Sons of Annas were plying their unscrupulous trade again. Three years before, he had swept them all away. His scrutiny gave notice that another spring-cleaning could be expected—but not now, for the sun was already on the horizon (Mk.), so he called the twelve together, and returned quietly to Bethany.

In the city the excitement subsided like a punctured tyre. That day, with the leaders perplexed, panic-stricken, and divided amongst themselves, and with the multitude of Passover pilgrims eager to back him up, Jesus could have done as he pleased. Yet all he did was to go into the temple, look round, and go away again. No harangue of the crowd, no threats against the rulers, no violence against the hated legionaries, but only tears, sadness, quiet rebuke and unspoken anger.

Was ever so promising an opportunity so foolishly thrown away? What was the matter with the man? Could this indeed be the Messiah?

And the reaction set in.

Notes: Mk. l1:1-11

1.	Bethphage and Bethany. Why mentioned in this order, for he almost certainly came to Bethany first. The village itself had not been entered the day before because the home of Lazarus was on its eastern edge, The Talmud mentions that Bethphage and Bethany had a big reputation for hospitality to pilgrims coming to the feasts.
2.	The village must be Bethphage, and not Bethany, for Mt. mentions only the former.
4.	A place where two ways met. In LXX (e.g. Jer. 17 :27) this word amphedon normally means “a palace” (Herod’s?).
6.	Even as Jesus had said. “Commanded” (Mt.) should read “organized”.
8.	Branches from the trees. Jn: palm trees. Palms and Hosanna were both associated with the Feast of Tabernacles, not Passover. Thus the gospel writers intimate that this ride into Jerusalem was only a type and foreshadowing, although the crowd thought differently.
11.	Looked round about. The time of “visitation” (Lk.)

Lk. 19:29-44

37.	With a loud voice. Jn’s word for this (in some MSS.) comes in only one place: Ezra 3 :13LXX
41.	Wept over it. The tears of the Son of God: Jn.ll :35; Heb.5 :7; and such Messianic Psalms as 6.-6; 39:12;42:3; 56:8; 69:10; 116:8.
42.	Peace, as in ls.53 :5; 59 :8; Jer.8 :11; Ps.122 :5-9; cp. Lk.14 :32s.w. Contrast the hostility in Mt.22 :15ff.
43.	The day will come. This somewhat unusual Gk. verb seems always to be used regarding God in action (see concordance).
44.	Visitation Cp. also Lk.l :68,78; Mk. 11:11,13; Mic.7:6.