Visit our new blog. It lists all the new things that we are doing and what new material has been added to our site. We even list new missionaries who sign up with us for technical support so you can pray for them. FCM News
The Triumphal Entry
1As they approached Jerusalem and came to Bethphage on the Mount
of Olives, Jesus sent two disciples, 2saying to them, "Go to
the village ahead of you, and at once you will find a donkey tied
there, with her colt by her. Untie them and bring them to me. 3If
anyone says anything to you, tell him that the Lord needs them,
and he will send them right away."
4This took place to fulfill what was spoken through the prophet:
5"Say to the Daughter of Zion,
'See, your king comes to you,
gentle and riding on a donkey,
on a colt, the foal of a donkey.' "
6The disciples went and did as Jesus had instructed them. 7They
brought the donkey and the colt, placed their cloaks on them, and
Jesus sat on them. 8A very large crowd spread their cloaks on the
road, while others cut branches from the trees and spread them on
the road. 9The crowds that went ahead of him and those that followed
shouted,
"Hosanna to the Son of David!"
"Blessed is he who comes in the name of the Lord!"
"Hosanna in the highest!"
10When Jesus entered Jerusalem, the whole city was stirred and asked,
"Who is this?"
11The crowds answered, "This is Jesus, the prophet from Nazareth
in Galilee."
Explanation: Jerusalem's King Enters Its Gates
(21:1-11)
Despite the prevalence of skepticism in our culture, there is little
reason to question the substance of this account. Later storytellers
would probably not have thought to have invented accurate allusions
to Jerusalem Passover customs, such as an acclamation from Psalm
118 (which was recited during festivals); this suggests genuine
historic tradition in the triumphal entry. If Jesus rode an ass
into Jerusalem, he himself probably intended an allusion to Zechariah
(E. Sanders 1993:254). And why not, if Jesus both read the Hebrew
Bible and knew himself to be descended from David?
More important, this narrative both portrays Jesus as a king and
defines the significance of his kingship. Because his kingship was
so different from worldly models of authority (20:25), Jesus subverts
the worldly understanding of kingship to suggest a reign of a different
order.
All Our Possessions Belong to Our
King (21:1-3)
Matthew devotes less space than Mark to Jesus' "impressing"
or commandeering an animal, but in both Gospels Jesus exercises
a prerogative of royalty. Although household servants could think
of the Lord as the donkey's absent earthly owner, the borrowing
more likely testifies to Jesus' status. Whether or not the owner
is a disciple, he has heard of Jesus, and Jesus foreknows his response;
this testifies first of all to the man's respect for Jesus. More
important, the passage testifies to Jesus' foreknowledge (that he
would have prearranged the situation with the man without the knowledge
of his disciples-who would have been his agents-is unlikely; compare
26:18). Thus Matthew is making a statement not so much about possessions
here as about Christ: as the rightful King he has the right to anything
in creation, certainly among his people (compare Gundry 1982:408;
Blomberg 1992:311-12).
Jesus Chose to Define the Kind of
King He Is (21:4-6)
Mark seems unaware of Zechariah 9:9 (see Gundry 1975:197-98), but
Matthew and John, the Gospels bearing the most Palestinian flavor
and most apt to recognize the source of the allusion, explicitly
cite this text. Although later teachers and probably Jesus' contemporaries
regarded this prophecy as messianic (b. Sanhedrin 98a; 99a; Gen.
Rab. 75:6; Edgar 1958:48-49), it was not such a popular text that
his first followers need have grasped the full significance of his
actions immediately. Jesus was announcing that he was indeed a king,
but not a warrior-king (Moule 1965:87; E. Sanders 1993:242). Jesus
was the meek one (11:29; 12:18-21; compare 5:5).Many of Jesus' People
Did Offer Homage (21:7-11)
Even many who did not understand the nature of Jesus' kingship paid
him royal homage. Matthew specifically upgrades the Christology
of Mark's crowd; his coming leads not only to cries that the Davidic
kingdom must be imminent but to hailing Jesus himself as Son of
David, the promised King. Yet even in Matthew, Jerusalem itself
does not know Jesus (v. 10; compare 8:27); the crowds of Passover
pilgrims (presumably from Galilee) must announce him (21:11).Although
the crowds had to honor Jesus by casting something before him (2
Kings 9:12-13) and branches were appropriate to the festal setting
(Ps 118:27; compare Rev 7:9; 2 Macc 10:7), another Gospel's specific
mention of palm branches (Jn 12:13) is significant, for they normally
were more in use at the Feast of Tabernacles-or for triumphal entries.
Whereas Jesus by riding the donkey implies his renunciation of revolutionary
aspirations, the crowd's use of palm branches, an allusion to the
Maccabean triumphs, implies that they still see him in more revolutionary
messianic terms (1 Macc 13:51; 2 Macc 10:7; Rev 7:9; Cullmann 1956b:38;
Stauffer 1960:110).
Jesus now accepts such public homage, which is appropriate (Mt 21:16).
Nevertheless, the crowds understand the meaning of his messianic
identity no more than the disciples had (16:20-22; 27:20); Son of
David reflects a true but inadequate Christology (22:41-45). Even
today many people call themselves Christians but have not pressed
far enough in Jesus' teachings to understand the real character
of his Lordship or his demands on their lives. The praises of the
masses are good, but it is the disciples who truly submit to Christ's
will-those who read his kingship in light of the cross-who will
carry out his purposes in the world.
Jesus at the Temple
12Jesus entered the temple area and drove out all who were buying
and selling there. He overturned the tables of the money changers
and the benches of those selling doves. 13"It is written,"
he said to them, " 'My house will be called a house of prayer,'
but you are making it a 'den of robbers.'"
14The blind and the lame came to him at the temple, and he healed
them. 15But when the chief priests and the teachers of the law saw
the wonderful things he did and the children shouting in the temple
area, "Hosanna to the Son of David," they were indignant.
16"Do you hear what these children are saying?" they asked
him.
"Yes," replied Jesus, "have you never read,
" 'From the lips of children and infants
you have ordained praise'?"
Explanation: Judgment on the Temple Establishment
(21:12-16)
The Gospel has been building toward a confrontation between Jesus
and the leaders in Jerusalem. Now Jesus indirectly confronts the
most powerful Jerusalem leaders, who to this point have felt less
threatened by him than the more populist Pharisees. Such a move
can only foreshadow Jesus' death.
Jesus courageously confronts injustice. First-century Jewish theologians
debated various issues, but it was most likely those actions of
Jesus which could be interpreted politically that led to his execution
(Young 1989:296). Protest actions are common today in the West;
in many cases they excite little attention because they provoke
little danger. When ancient philosophers like the Cynics criticized
the authorities, however, they invited both persecution and general
suspicion of itinerant teachers (Liefeld 1967:162). By challenging
nationalism and rulers' policy, the biblical prophets had invited
retribution even more consistently (despite a frequently observed
tradition of "prophetic immunity" in Judah and Israel).
Many Christians today are able to avoid persecution in part because
some of us live in more tolerant societies and in part because we
do little to challenge the sinful practices of our societies.
The money changers probably did not see themselves as taking advantage
of the pilgrims. Even in Galilee the varieties of local currency
required money changers to convert coinage for use in the temple
(and local economy); changing coins was necessary, not an option
(see Goodman 1983:57; E. Sanders 1992: 63-65). Further, the temple
money changers seem to have made little if any profit (m. Seqalim
1.6-7), though Jerusalem undoubtedly profited from the resultant
trade. We have no evidence that the priestly aristocracy made a
direct profit (pace Reicke 1974:168).Because Jesus opposed the buyers
as well as the sellers, he probably was not criticizing economic
exploitation or high prices (pace Gundry 1982:413). Jesus probably
viewed the temple as morally and spiritually impure, as the Qumran
sect also believed (compare 1QpHab 9.4-5; CD 5.6-7). Yet Jesus was
not simply seeking to renew the temple's holiness (compare m. Berakot
9:5; Mal 3:1-4). He could have symbolized a mere purifying of the
temple by pouring out water; overturning tables signified something
more ominous (E. Sanders 1985:70).
Jesus defends Gentiles' worship. That the selling occurred in the
outer court, beyond which Gentiles could not travel, may have been
significant (compare Jos. Ant. 12.145; 15.417). Later reports claim
that the front court of the temple was normally to be kept clear
as a sacred area (compare m. Berakot 9.5), but the many temporary
shops for selling animals inside would have violated this custom
even if they took up but a small part of the temple area.
Matthew claims that Jesus quoted two texts, Isaiah 56:7 and Jeremiah
7:11. In Isaiah 56 God promises to accept foreigners and eunuchs
(previously banned-Deut 23:1) as members of his people, declaring
that his temple will welcome all peoples; indeed, its purpose had
been universalistic from the start (1 Kings 8:41-43). But by Jesus'
day (in contrast to the Old Testament temple) a partition with warning
signs segregated Gentiles from the Israelite section of the outer
court (Jos. War 5.194; 6.124-26; Ant. 15.417), probably for purity
reasons (women were similarly considered less pure than men; compare
also 11QTemple 3-48). Concern for the sanctity of this outer court,
hence for the worship of the Gentiles, may have been part of Jesus'
objection to the current temple order (pace E. Sanders 1985:67-68).
But that Matthew deletes the words "for all nations" from
Mark's quotation may suggest that he wishes to lay the emphasis
elsewhere-perhaps especially on the next quotation (Jer 7:11).
Jesus warns that religious symbols cannot protect us from God's
wrath. Jeremiah 7 promised judgment on God's people who treated
his temple as a safe haven for robbers. Jeremiah warns his contemporaries
that the presence of the temple will not stay God's wrath against
them; Matthew, probably writing after A.D. 70, wishes to stress
judgment against a temple establishment that rejected Jesus (Mt
23:31-36; 24:15; 27:25). Not so much the brigands in the wilderness
as the temple authorities are the real bandits. Even today it is
arrogance to think that merely having coins that claim "In
God we trust," or a state church, or any other mere symbol
of religious attachment can prove sufficient to stay God's wrath
if we do not live according to his will.
True prophets must face the consequences of their message. Of all
Jesus' acts, his attack on the temple came closest to appearing
as a revolutionary challenge to the political order, but this action
was a prophetic declaration rather than the challenge of a Zealot
leader seeking a following. The act itself was undoubtedly more
symbolic than efficacious; the sellers undoubtedly set up their
tables again soon after the disruption. Jesus probably symbolized
prophetically what Jeremiah's smashing of the pot in the temple
did (Jer 19): impending judgment (for example, Harvey 1982:131-32;
Aune 1983:136; Catchpole 1984:334; E. Sanders 1985:70). Yet Jesus'
action was politically dangerous: merely prophesying the temple's
destruction invited scourging and the threat of death (Jer 26:11;
Jos. War 6.300-309), especially if one had a significant gathering
of followers (E. Sanders 1985:302-3).
Jesus embraced the blind and lame. It is easy for readers today
to miss the significance of the disabled approaching Jesus in the
temple (21:14). Jewish teachers did not require blind or lame people
to make the journey to the temple (m. Hagiga 1:1), and at least
some traditions excluded them from the temple (2 Sam 5:8 LXX). Here
again Jesus apparently challenges the way the temple hierarchy has
conducted temple affairs (for example, Hill 1972:294). Even today
it is easy for us to marginalize those who cannot participate in
our own activities; many of us fail to make necessary sacrifices
to give special attention to those whom others leave out, whether
it be a blind person or someone whose mobility is limited by muscular
dystrophy. When we fail to care for those disabled in this way,
we are unlike Jesus (on serving the disabled, see Newman and Tada
1987).
God can speak through children. Jesus' deeds were not the only cause
for the chief priests' and legal experts' discomfort; Jesus was
accepting public praise as the Son of David, and even if the priestly
aristocracy was gentler than their opponents' portraits of them
suggest, Roman rule left them no choice but to correct him or betray
him to the governor (vv. 15-16). To them he appeared to be simply
another charismatic leader whose ego had gotten out of hand; Josephus
provides many examples of such leaders in first-century Palestine.
Jesus, who again defends the receptiveness of children (v. 16; compare
18:1-5; 19:13-15), responds from Scripture (since he now addresses
those educated in Scripture): from the lips of children God has
ordained praise. And if children praise him, how much more (borrowing
a standard line of argument from Jesus' day) ought the religious
leaders to join in!
17-27
17And he left them and went out of the city
to Bethany, where he spent the night.
The Fig Tree Withers
18Early in the morning, as he was on his way back to the city, he
was hungry. 19Seeing a fig tree by the road, he went up to it but
found nothing on it except leaves. Then he said to it, "May
you never bear fruit again!" Immediately the tree withered.
20When the disciples saw this, they were amazed. "How did the
fig tree wither so quickly?" they asked.
21Jesus replied, "I tell you the truth, if you have faith and
do not doubt, not only can you do what was done to the fig tree,
but also you can say to this mountain, 'Go, throw yourself into
the sea,' and it will be done. 22If you believe, you will receive
whatever you ask for in prayer."
The Authority of Jesus Questioned
23Jesus entered the temple courts, and, while he was teaching, the
chief priests and the elders of the people came to him. "By
what authority are you doing these things?" they asked. "And
who gave you this authority?"
24Jesus replied, "I will also ask you one question. If you
answer me, I will tell you by what authority I am doing these things.
25John's baptism--where did it come from? Was it from heaven, or
from men?"
26They discussed it among themselves and said, "If we say,
'From heaven,' he will ask, 'Then why didn't you believe him?' But
if we say, 'From men'--we are afraid of the people, for they all
hold that John was a prophet."
27So they answered Jesus, "We don't know."
Then he said, "Neither will I tell you by what authority I
am doing these things.
Explanation: Jesus Debates Jerusalem's Leaders
(21:17-22:46)
Because of the flow of context, it is not clear whether the first
passage of this unit (21:17-22) belongs in this section or the preceding
one, if Matthew himself would have made such a distinction. The
rest of the passages in this section, however, reveal a common theme:
Jesus offers his closing public debates with Jerusalem's elite,
debates that increase his populist support and further threaten
their base of power. Because he is headed for the cross, he can
afford to cut through their self-delusions unapologetically. Because
he cares about the people as a whole (20:28), he is especially angry
with those who claim to lead God's people but in fact have usurped
prerogatives that belong to God alone (21:33-45). Christian leaders
must beware lest we fall prey to the same temptation (24:48-51).Faith
to Accomplish the Impossible (21:17-22)
Here Jesus provides an acted parable for his disciples, symbolizing
another prophetic act of judgment. Matthew's audience, probably
native to Syro-Palestine, are likely aware of what Mark states explicitly:
it was not yet the season for figs (Mk 11:13). At Passover season
in late March or early April, fig trees are often in leaf on the
eastern side of the Mount of Olives. At this time of year the trees
contain only green figs (Arabs call them taqsh); they ripen around
June but often fall off before that time, leaving only leaves on
the tree. Because of their unpalatable taste, these early figs rarely
were eaten; but someone too hungry to care about taste would eat
them anyway, as some do today. A leafy tree lacking early figs,
however, would bear no figs at all that year (F. Bruce 1980:73-74;
Witherington 1990:173).
Although Matthew retains Mark's emphasis from the context-judgment
on the temple (compare fruitless trees in 3:10; 12:44-45; compare
also 24:32; Jer 24)-his arrangement of the material lays primary
stress on Jesus' lesson of faith. "Moving mountains" was
a Jewish metaphor for accomplishing what was difficult or virtually
impossible (as in ARN 6A; 12, 29B). Like the prophets of old, Jesus'
disciples could do whatever God called them to do (compare 7:7-11;
10:8; 17:20). Faith, of course, implies obedience to God's wishes,
not simply acting on our own. Given the surrounding context of conflict,
Jesus' model of faith includes facing death bravely in obedience
to God's call-and trusting his power over death itself.
The Source of Jesus' Authority
(21:23-27)
The reader who has witnessed in the text of Matthew miracles such
as the cursing of the fig tree understands that Jesus' authority
is from God (vv. 21-22); the reader who has seen the fate of John
the Baptist, an earlier representative of God, also recognizes what
Jesus will face (compare 21:32, 38-39). The political leaders here
are not, however, privy to the information Matthew's audience shares.
Like many contemporary politicians-and the rest of us-Jesus' adversaries
were more interested in making their opponent, in this case Jesus,
look bad than in uncovering further truth about his claims. Undoubtedly
they view Jesus as a "populist" (see Rhoads and Michie
1982:82), the sort of demagogue aristocrats normally despised (as
in Isoc. Nic. 48 and Or. 2).
The Parable of the Two Sons
28"What do you think? There was a man who had two sons. He
went to the first and said, 'Son, go and work today in the vineyard.'
29" 'I will not,' he answered, but later he changed his mind
and went.
30"Then the father went to the other son and said the same
thing. He answered, 'I will, sir,' but he did not go.
31"Which of the two did what his father wanted?"
"The first," they answered.
32Jesus said to them, "I tell you the truth, the tax collectors
and the prostitutes are entering the kingdom of God ahead of you.
For John came to you to show you the way of righteousness, and you
did not believe him, but the tax collectors and the prostitutes
did. And even after you saw this, you did not repent and believe
him.
The Parable of the Tenants
33"Listen to another parable: There was a landowner who planted
a vineyard. He put a wall around it, dug a winepress in it and built
a watchtower. Then he rented the vineyard to some farmers and went
away on a journey. 34When the harvest time approached, he sent his
servants to the tenants to collect his fruit.
35"The tenants seized his servants; they beat one, killed another,
and stoned a third. 36Then he sent other servants to them, more
than the first time, and the tenants treated them the same way.
37Last of all, he sent his son to them. 'They will respect my son,'
he said.
38"But when the tenants saw the son, they said to each other,
'This is the heir. Come, let's kill him and take his inheritance.'
39So they took him and threw him out of the vineyard and killed
him.
40"Therefore, when the owner of the vineyard comes, what will
he do to those tenants?"
41"He will bring those wretches to a wretched end," they
replied, "and he will rent the vineyard to other tenants, who
will give him his share of the crop at harvest time."
42Jesus said to them, "Have you never read in the Scriptures:
" 'The stone the builders rejected
has become the capstone;
the Lord has done this,
and it is marvelous in our eyes'?
43"Therefore I tell you that the kingdom of God will be taken
away from you and given to a people who will produce its fruit.
44He who falls on this stone will be broken to pieces, but he on
whom it falls will be crushed."
45When the chief priests and the Pharisees heard Jesus' parables,
they knew he was talking about them. 46They looked for a way to
arrest him, but they were afraid of the crowd because the people
held that he was a prophet.
Explanation: Pretend Obedience Versus Delayed Obedience
(21:28-32)
The three parables in 21:28-22:14 together respond to the Jewish
leaders, critiquing them harshly (compare van Tilborg 1972:47-52).
Ancient Mediterranean culture demanded that sons honor and obey
their parents, especially when they still lived on the father's
estate (see Keener 1991:98, 197). The parable's point is obvious
enough in Matthew's context: the repentant (3:2) son does the father's
will (7:21; 12:50); the unrepentant son is unfruitful (3:8), claiming
to do but not doing (23:3). Thus the latter stands for Israel's
religious leaders, in contrast to the humble who heed John and Jesus.
The issue is not that the tax collectors and the prostitutes were
good (compare 9:9; 18:17; cf. 19:17); it is that the religious and
political elite were worse, being treasonous (22:5-10).
Jesus provides a question after
a parable (as in Is 5:3-4; Mt 21:40).
The interpretation of this parable follows naturally after 21:23-27:
Jesus and John represent the same source of moral authority, and
those who rejected John's way of righteousness showed the hypocrisy
of their own claims to be God's servants. The repentance of more
openly sinful people did not provoke them to jealousy for their
own spiritual status (compare Rom 11:14).
The Murderous Tenants (21:33-44)
As one expects from Jesus' rural parables, this one is true to life.
The viticulture is accurate enough (although most of these details
stem from Isaiah allusions): fences (often a wall of loosely fitted
stones) protected vineyards from animals (Ps 80:12-14; N. Lewis
1983:125), and watchmen used the tower (2 Chron 26:10; Is 1:8),
often "a hut of leaf-covered wood or possibly of stone which
served both as a look-out . . . and as a shelter for the vinedressers
at harvest time" (Anderson 1976:272).
The religious leaders were wicked. Because the vineyard probably
refers to Israel (Is 5:2; compare 3:14; Ezek 17:6; Hos 9:10; Jeremias
1972:70, 76-77), the farmers stand for the nation's religious leaders
(Mt 21:45). Thus while Jesus borrows the imagery of Isaiah, he adapts
it so that the primary evildoers represent not Israel but its leaders.
Neither Jesus nor Matthew contends for God's rejection of Israel
as a people, but for his rejection of the religious leaders (23:13-36;
compare Kee 1977:113; pace Ladd 1974b:114). Israel was unprepared
for its Master because Israel's leaders failed in their stewardship
to acknowledge the true Lord; when the cat is gone, the mice will
play, but a day of reckoning is coming (compare Prov 7:19, 22-27).
This threat from Jesus' day also provides a warning for Christian
leaders in Matthew's day and our own (24:45-51). The church and
many of its leaders have repeated Israel's disobedience enough in
history and to a great extent continue to do so today. Many ministers
regard the church as "our" field of ministry rather than
keeping in mind who our Lord is.
Although small holders may have predominated in Palestine, Galilee
had many tenant farmers. Tenant farmers worked the land for its
owners, often absentee landlords, and paid them as much as half
the resulting produce. While peasants did not enjoy their economic
situation, they would not have identified with the foolish tenants
in this story; everyone regarded as treacherous the killing of unarmed
messengers. The rejected messengers symbolize the biblical prophets
(23:29-38; compare 5:12); Jewish tradition not only acknowledged
but amplified their sufferings.
God is incomprehensibly kind to his enemies. The landowner here
is too nice; whether aristocrats, artisans or peasants, no one would
recognize in this figure the benevolence of any patron they knew.
But even had hearers not recognized the image of God and his prophets
here, no one would expect the benevolent landowner to remain benevolent
indefinitely; indeed, the worse landlords sometimes even had their
own hit squads to take out troublesome tenant farmers. Everyone
also knew that the state would always side with the landlord (even
if he was a bad one); in a case of obvious wrong like this one,
the murderers of his servants would be executed or enslaved.
The landowner has no reason to continue his benevolence. At the
very least, he must know that the tenants hate him; in antiquity
the way people treated a messenger was the way they would treat
the sender (compare 10:40-42; t. Ta`anit 3:2). By continuing to
appeal to their sense of honor, the landowner has made himself appear
a fool; to maintain any vestige of honor, he must retaliate against
their repeating shaming of him (B. Scott 1989:250).
Quite in contrast to expectations, however, the landowner acts with
such benevolence that ancient hearers could have regarded his action
merely as utter folly: he believes that the murderous tenants will
at least respect his son as his own representative. Jesus tells
us about the death of the landowner's son, the tenants' ultimate
act of treachery. Casting him outside the vineyard (compare Heb
13:13), they kill him.
Even God's patience eventually comes to an end. As benevolent as
the landowner is, no one will be surprised that he finally retaliates.
No law would have actually granted the vineyard to tenants who had
murdered the owner's son. As if asking for a legal ruling, Jesus
questions the religious leaders what this patient landowner will
finally do to the murderers. The answer is obvious. The evil tenant
farmers, no match for the landlord's power, were utter fools to
doubt that they would die.
It may be no coincidence (compare 21:13; 24:2) that Jesus' contemporaries
understood Isaiah's parable of the vineyard (Is 5:1-7) on which
this parable draws as referring to the temple's destruction. Jesus
concludes by again challenging their knowledge of the Scriptures
(which should have made the object of his parable obvious to begin
with), as in 12:3, 19:4, 21:16 and 22:31.
Here Jesus cites Psalm 118:22 from the Hallel (Ps 113-18, recited
during Passover season), only a few verses away from the praise
recently uttered by the children (Ps 118:25-26 in Mt 21:15; compare
21:9). All his hearers would recognize the source of the quotation,
and probably its context. (By contrast, many of us today sing "This
is the day the Lord has made" [Ps 118:24] out of the context
of the day and event the psalmist was celebrating.) In context,
the cornerstone or capstone to which Jesus refers is probably part
of the architecture of the temple.
Hearers might have recognized that he was comparing
the covenant community to a temple; some others in his day made
that comparison (for example, 1QS 8.5, 8-9; 9.6; CD 2.10, 13; G
rtner 1965:16-46). Most clearly they would recognize that he was
challenging the builders, here the temple authorities.
Jesus adds a clarifying comment that expands the reproof to all
Israel with no vestige of subtlety (v. 43). Thus, he says, these
leaders will no longer administer God's reign among his people as
God's stewards (compare 23:13; 16:19). Henceforth the holy nation
of the new exodus (Ex 19:5-6) will bring forth their fruit-the landowner's
rightful portion of the vintage-for God (3:10; Hos 14:4-8; Lk 13:6-9;
Jn 15:1-8).
Using the Jewish interpretation method called gezerah sawah, which
links verses on the basis of key terms they share, this passage
develops the cornerstone idea (compare 1 Pet 2:6-8). Crushed probably
reflects Daniel 2:44; falls on this stone, the stumbling stone of
Isaiah 8:15 and 28:16. Neither alternative is intended to be pleasant;
the Greek term for but here is the weaker one, in this case probably
meaning virtually "and."
Finally understanding that he is addressing them, the religious
leaders look for a way to seize him (compare Mt 26:5, 50). Because
the Jewish crowds believe that Jesus was a prophet, however (21:11),
the leaders must bide their time; they are cowardly politicians
(21:45-46).
The Cowardly Politicians (21:45-46)
This character of Jesus' opponents fits their later actions. Concerned
about the populace's response, they both choose a more advantageous
time to seize Jesus (26:4-5, 55; compare Lk 22:53) and allow Pilate
and the Romans to carry out a death sentence. Without a degree of
favor from the people whom they had to keep quiet as well as from
the Romans, the household of Caiaphas could not have stayed in power
so long.
