PRELUDE TO THE PASSION WEEK
1. Raising Lazarus from the dead (John 11.38-44)
2. The entry into Jerusalem (Matthew 21.1-10; Luke 19.28-44)
3. The cleansing of the temple (Matthew 21.12-13)
A SERIES OF ENCOUNTERS WITH THE RULING JEWS IN JERUSALEM.
1. The Chief Priests and Elders question His authority (Matthew 21.23-27)
2. Three parables that further anger the Chief Priests (Matthew 21.28-22.14)
a. parable of the two sons
b. parable of the tenants
c. parable of the wedding banquet
3. Pharisees and the Herodians (a political party which favored the continuation of the dynasty of Herod the Great) together attempt to trap Him on the issue of taxes (Matthew 22.15-22)
4. A Sadducees’ trap for Jesus as to marriage in heaven (Matt 22.23-32).
5. The Pharisees challenge Jesus’ understanding and use of the Mosaic law: What is the greatest commandment? (Matthew 22.34-40).
JESUS RESPONDS WITH A QUESTION AND AN ASSESSMENT
1. What is the true nature of the Messiah (Matthew 22.41-46)?
2. Denunciation of the scribes and Pharisees (Matthew 23).
Throughout Jesus’ ministry he had been careful to warn His disciples not to reveal things about Himself that might incite crowds caught up in the political hysteria of the day (e.g., Matthew 16.20; Mark 5.43). However, as the appointed time for his death approached, he deliberately began to set the stage for His own trial and execution. This is readily evident in the events at Bethany and Jerusalem during the week immediately preceding his crucifixion. The Pharisees and religious leaders, who had previously rejected Jesus’ public ministry and had unsuccessfully sought for an occasion to end his life (John 10.32; Luke 28.30), were no doubt eager to “greet” Jesus in Jerusalem. There was no longer any need to send emissaries to ferret out Jesus’ whereabouts. Jesus had come to them, although such an act was evidentially dangerous on His part. When Jesus heard of Lazarus’ death and decided to visit Bethany (about two miles from Jerusalem), the disciples said: “But Rabbi,” they said, “a short while ago the Jews tried to stone you, and yet you are going back there?” (John 11.8, 16). By going to Jerusalem Jesus seemed to play into the hands of the religious leaders who were seeking His life. However, as must now be clear, it was Jesus who was orchestrating the events of His own vicarious death (John 5.26; 10.17-18). The feigned concern for Jesus previously evidenced by the Pharisees at one point (Luke 13.31) would now be exposed as unbridled antagonism toward Jesus. Although the religious leaders seemed to be laying a trap for Jesus, in reality it was Jesus who was setting the snare for duplicitous Jewish leaders. The ruling Jews had little to gain from forcing Jesus’ hand during the Passover celebration. They would have been quite content to let the week pass and settle their accounts with Jesus after the festivities had subsided and the crowds had returned home. John the Baptist had identified Jesus as the Lamb of God who takes away the sin of the world (John 1.29; cf. 1 Pet 1.18-19). Jesus clearly understood that His mission was to give His live as a ransom for the elect (Matthew 20.28) - an act that must take place at the appointed time of the paschal sacrifice.
The timing of Jesus’ sacrificial atonement was determined by God (Galatians 4.4), and Jesus, knowing his appointed time to be become a sin offering (John 2.4; 4.21; 7.6,30; 8.20; 12.23, 27, 31; 17.1), set the stage for the drama of His passion with three events. First, he raised Lazarus from the dead. One would think that such a miracle would win over his critics, but, to the contrary, it only accelerated their plans to put Jesus to death. They were driven by a fear that the whole world would soon follow after this man (John 11.45-57). As if that were not enough, Jesus’ entry into Jerusalem agitated the leaders even more. Although the greeting from Psalm 118 was a customary greeting for pilgrims entering Jerusalem during special festivals like the Feast of Tabernacles and the Passover, the rejoicing at Jesus’ entry into Jerusalem seemed to exceed all proper decorum, bordering on being sacrilegious (Luke 19.39). Robert Stein writes:
The fact that this is a pilgrim psalm and was shouted to pilgrims in general explains how Jesus could receive this kind of a welcome into Jerusalem and not arouse Roman reaction or suspicion. No doubt the welcome given to Jesus was more enthusiastic than that given other pilgrims (Lk 19:39-40). After all, he was a well-known teacher and was viewed by many as a prophet (Mt 21:11). For some of his followers who made up the crowd, Jesus was not a mere pilgrim coming to Jerusalem, but “the” Pilgrim, their Teacher, their Master and Lord. There may even have been some who entertained ideas that he might indeed be “the coming one.” (Stein, Jesus the Messiah, p. 181)
The final provocation was the driving of the money changers from the temple. Such an act might have been viewed as a judgment upon the irreligious activity of the Jewish leaders (Luke 19.45). Such boldness would have enjoyed popular consent among many people, even among some of the Pharisees who objected to the money changing policies of the Sanhedrin (composed primarily of Sadducean priests). However, the Temple cleansing clearly carried a deeper meaning. The post-resurrection Gospel writers, as illustrated by Mark, who sandwiched the Temple incident within the fig tree (an Old Testament symbol of Israel) pericope, recognized that Jesus was acting out the coming judgment on unresponsive Israel. In addition to these three things, there were a series of confrontations with the various elements of the polarized Jewish leadership. These confrontations were not necessary as provocations to further alienate Jesus from His enemies - they were already sufficiently antagonized. However, they were necessary to clarify the reasons for his death.
JESUS’ PURPOSE in this series of confrontations seems to include:
1. Exposing of the failure of the Jewish leaders;
2. Revealing of His authority and person;
3. Forcing of the hand of the Jewish leaders;
4. Uniting of Jewish factions in their opposition to Jesus;
5. Bringing of a final warning of impending judgment.
AUTHORITY OF JESUS QUESTIONED: Numerous times during His ministry he had been challenged to defend His authority for the things he did or said. Rather than answer his critics, Jesus warns them (Matthew 12.39). Ultimately, His authority lay in who he was, and in the truth which he spoke. Jesus said, For as the Father has life in himself, so he has granted the Son to have life in himself. And he has given him authority to judge because he is the Son of Man. (John 5.26; cp. Mark 1.22-27; 2.10; John 2.18; Matthew 28.18 also Romans 13.1; Ephesians 1.21; Colossians 2.10; Jude 24). Those who are most disingenuous are usually most vocal about their personal righteousness and integrity. Jesus responded to their question about his authority with a question of his own. John’s baptism – where did it come from? Was it from heaven, or from men? The question exposed the duplicity of their intent – had the leaders been free of hypocrisy in dealing with John, they would not taken an issue with Jesus. Their agenda was more political, than religious.
THE PARABLES (21.28–22.14): Jesus clarified his answer to the Chief Priests and Elders in a series of three parables: The Two Sons, The Absentee Landlord and The Wedding Banquet. In the parable of the two sons, it was immediately clear who was the obedient son. Likewise, in religion, it is not merely a matter of words that constitute true faith, but obedience (James 1.27). In the parable of the tenants, Jesus exposed the leaders hypocrisy by demonstrating that their religious activity was but an empty work devoid of saving faith. Finally, in the parable of the wedding banquet, we see that God’s gracious invitation extended to those who were perceived as the dregs of society. All the chosen are given wedding garments fit for the festive occasion. These indictments further inflamed the Jewish establishment to renew their efforts to strike Jesus with a mortal blow.
THE TAXES (22.15-22): The title master was nothing more than ingratiating flattery (Psalm 55.21). The question, Is it lawful…?, may appear to be an innocent question, but, it was intended to trap Jesus between religion and politics. Jesus must be either disloyal to Rome and subsequently subject to Roman retribution (this is, in fact, what Jesus was ultimately tried and executed for), or he must be declared blasphemous for giving deference to Caesar rather than the one true God. Seemingly, either way Jesus was caught in a cleaver trap. As was often the case, however, the question revealed as much about the character of the questioner as it did about the character of Jesus. Satan poisons the soul with sweet words, but an honest, which is to say, a modest and true opinion of oneself is a safeguard against his flattery. Great temptations in life arise from one’s attachment to its allurements. If you worry about material goods, you will be indentured to them. This poisonous plot was another example of what we read in Mark 3.4-6. Jesus asked the Pharisees, which is it lawful on the Sabbath, to do good or to do evil, to save life or to kill? After Jesus had restored the withered hand, the Pharisees plotted with the Herodians how they might kill Jesus.
THE MARRIAGE TRAP (22.23-32): It is a perfidious question that the Sadducees set to Jesus regarding marriage in heaven, as they did not themselves believe in a resurrection from the dead. By posing the question, they demonstrated their failure to understand Scripture: Jesus says, You are in error because you do not know either the Scriptures or the power of God (22.9). Moreover, they exposed the extent of their deceit by contriving imaginary arguments with a religious house of cards. Jesus of course, rejected the false premise of their argument and responded with the plain evidence of Scripture.
THE LAW (22.34-40): A Pharisee, who was an expert in the law, asked the question, What is the greatest commandment in the law? His question was a final attempt to test Jesus’ knowledge of the law. Of course, no one could rebut His brilliant summation.
When the ruling Jews finished with their sophistry, Jesus responded with a question of his own: What is the nature of the Christ, whose son is He? (Matthew 22.41-46 cf. Psalm 110.1). Jesus’ question exposed their limited understanding of the Scriptural teaching about the Messiah. They did not understand Scripture so they could not recognize the messianic signs that validated Jesus’ messianic claim (John 14.11). Jesus condemned the Pharisees for: 1. Shutting the door of the gospel; 2. Greed and self-interest at the expense of others; 3. Corrupting converts; 4. Trivializing the truth and exalting the trivial; 5. Inverting values; 6. Promoting rituals; and 7. Externalizing religion.
Despite all the justifiable criticism of the Pharisees and ruling Jews, we must not overlook the equally culpable mercurial crowd, who for all their adoration at the beginning of the week, became a murderous mob by week’s end (Matthew 21.9). These people were disillusioned by the outcome of Jesus’ work and rejected Jesus as pretender. They accepted the judgment of the leaders rather than the word of the Christ. No idol is so quickly forsaken, as the idol of popular rising (Alexander McClaren).
