Matthew 21: There’s a lot going on in this chapter and I’m struggling to unpack it. We first see a story about Jesus entering Jerusalem on a donkey and a colt. This apparently fulfills what was foretold in Zechariah. I sent off an email to Father Greg asking if the NT writers had access to the OT scrolls. I just wonder if since this was written AFTER Jesus’s death, did the authors add things like this to strengthen his story. For example, here’s what the notes say for this part of the text:
“Matthew tells the story of Jesus’ entry into Jerusalem as a strict fulfillment of Zechariah 9:9 (see 1 KGS 1:33). In doing so, however, Matthew seems to have imagined that Zechariah referred to two animals, a donkey and a colt, rather than his referring to one animal in two different ways. As a result, he portrays Jesus riding on both a donkey and a colt at the same time.”
p. 44 NT
My question is why? Why did the author of Matthew feel compelled to do this? It seems like he was trying to increase the incredibleness of Jesus to get more followers. Yet, the author demeans Gentiles throughout the book. How does a literalist spin this one? I can see how skeptics would find out things like this and truly question what Jesus stood for. It seems like this would do more harm than good.
NOTE: I think this has to be a theme throughout my book. Perhaps I can even address how I handle things like this. How I handle the fact that it seems like things were added that some would interpret as strengthening Jesus and others would look at it as lying.
Next parts of this chapter show Jesus entering and cleansing the temple and challenging the leaders of the day. We then see Jesus curse a fig tree on the side of the road because it didn’t have fruit and he was hungry.
Before I move on, one thing I find a little interesting: Matthew makes Jesus sound like an angry person. When cleansing the temple of the sellers he tosses tables. When he’s hungry and the fig tree doesn’t have any fruit, he curses the tree and it dies. WAIT…WHAT??? Seems like a little bit of anger issues here.
The fig tree incident was followed up with this response from Jesus when his followers question why the tree died so quickly:
“Jesus responded, ‘I assure you that if you have faith and don’t doubt, you will not only do what was done to the fig tree. You will even say to this mountain, ‘Be lifted up and thrown into the lake.’ And it will happen. If you have faith, you will receive whatever you pray for.’”
(Matthew 21:21-22; p. 45 NT)
Jesus’s authority is questioned by the chief priests. This leads to a few parables. The first is of the two sons. Their father asks each of them to work in the vineyard. The first says no, but does it anyway. The second says yes, but never does it. Jesus asks the chief priest who did the right thing. They said the first son. Jesus uses this to argue that the ones who didn’t provide the right answer but did the right action will be in heaven before those who said the right thing, but did the wrong thing.
He follows this with a second parable. This is about the tenant farmers of a vineyard. The tenant farmers were charged with working the vineyard. When the owner sent his servants to gather the harvest, the tenant farmers beat and kill some of the servants.
Matthew 22: This chapter begins with the parable about the wedding party. The King has prepared a feast/celebration for his son’s wedding. Jesus explains that this is like the Kingdom of Heaven. None of the guests would come to the wedding which angered the King. Some even killed his servants when they went to get the guests. The King sent other servants out to the streets to bring in all of the people. Once the party started the King noticed someone who wasn’t in the proper wedding attire. He had his servants bind the man’s hands and feet and toss him out. This part of this chapter ends with the following verse: “Many people are invited, but few people are chosen” (22:14; CEB p. 48 NT).
I remember this parable from Luke. I was taken aback by how this parable ended. If I accept this literally (which I try not to do but I did in this situation) then I would think that Jesus was advocating for some pretty mean things. Throwing someone out just because of their clothing is pretty harsh. However, thankfully I’m surrounded by several different resources to help me make sense of what I’m reading. The latest that I’ve borrowed from my church is the New Interpreter’s Bible (NIB; 1995 version). Matthew is addressed in Volume 8.
This new (to me) resource reminded me of the allegorical power of the Bible. I realized that this is not actually a wedding party (yes, I know…duh). There is a deeper meaning here. According to this new resource, “The theological point of 22:11-14 is that those who find themselves unexpectedly included may not presume on grace, but are warned of the dire consequences of accepting the invitation and doing nothing except showing up” (p. 419 of the NIB, volume 8).
I’m still a little taken aback by the harshness here. I’ve noticed that compared to Luke, I’m not a very big fan of Matthew (at least at the moment).
The rest of this chapter focuses on different attempts by the Pharisees and the Sadducees to test Jesus and ultimately arrest him. Of course, they don’t succeed in these challenges. At this point at least.
One thing I want to make sure I point out is how Jesus responds to the following question from the Pharisees: “Teacher, what is the greatest commandment in the Law?” (22:36; p. 49 NT). Jesus says “You must love the Lord your God with all your heart, with all your being, and with all your mind. This is the first and greatest commandment. And the second is like it: You must love your neighbor as you love yourself.” (22:37-39; p. 49 NT)