[And He Walks With Me] Matthew 21
1-11 Matthew’s account of the triumphal entry is full of paradox. Jesus approached the city from the east. According to Ezekiel 10:19; 43:10, God’s glory will approach the temple from the east while the Roman governor, Pilate, entered the city from the west. The disciples commandeered the a couple of animals as earthly authorities sometimes did (6), but donkeys were a far cry from the powerful warhorses those earthly authorities typically rode. The procession was met with great excitement and fanfare, but there were still some people who wondered, Who is this? Jesus’ Triumphal Entry had all the characteristics of a royal procession into town, and indeed, Jesus was the rightful king, but those characteristics are almost completely inverted when compared to the way earthly authorities entered town. Clearly, Jesus was setting himself as an alternative to the way earthly authorities do things.
9 The bulk of this verse is lifted from Psalm 118:25-26. This was a familiar passage traditionally recited during Passover in temple and synagogue gatherings. Therefore, it is difficult to say with certainty that the majority of the people were directing their song at Jesus. However, it is certainly plausible that the people of Jerusalem heard what Jesus was doing in other parts of the country, saw him proceeding along the streets of Jerusalem, and assumed he was arriving in the city to overthrow the Romans.
12-13 If the procession of the Triumphal Entry was a contrast to the way earthly authorities did things, then its end was absolutely shocking. The disciples and crowds were expecting Jesus to arrive at the temple, pronounce himself king, and immediately overthrow the Romans. Instead, when he arrived at the temple, he threw out all those buying and selling and overturned the tables of the money changers and the chairs of those selling doves. These merchants, etc. set up shop in the temple’s Court of Gentiles, the closest anyone who was not a Jew could approach the Lord. Their activities normally disrupted Gentiles’ ability to pray and worship, but this was especially true during the Passover season, when the city swelled with pilgrims and the number and size of the merchants’ booths swelled to meet the demand. What was especially alarming was that these merchants were in the temple courts with the tacit approval of the chief priests and other religious authorities. Thus, instead of overthrowing the Romans, Jesus implicitly overthrew the religious authorities.
Temple regulations regarding what was acceptable for offerings were exceedingly strict. The animals used in the various sacrifices had to meet exacting standards, and the money used had to be in the temple’s own currency. Further, because many of the pilgrims present during Passover traveled great distances on foot, it was common practice to bring secular currency, exchange that for temple currency upon arrival, and then use that to buy whatever animals or supplies were needed. The problem with this was that, as is often the case when one has a captive audience, the merchants hiked their prices. The currency exchange rate was terrible, and the prices of the animals and other supplies were artificially inflated. In a very real sense, then, the temple had become a den of thieves.
14-17 The blind, the lame, and the children were all underrepresented in first-century cultures. The blind and lame were marginalized because they generally could not contribute to the community, and the children were marginalized because did not yet contribute to the community. Jesus, however, did four things for these marginalized people. (1) He welcomed them. The passage does not specifically mention this, but he apparently allowed them to get close. In fact, he may well have approached them. (2) He healed them. In those days, physical healing and spiritual healing were intertwined. Especially in the case of the blind and lame, these conditions were thought to be caused by sin, and perceived sinners were generally ostracized. Therefore, by welcoming them and healing their physical needs, Jesus made significant progress in repairing their spiritual condition as well. (3) He allowed them to minister to him. The children’s cries of Hosanna to the Son of David echo those of the Triumphal Entry in vs 9. They were simply repeating what they heard their parents and the crowds shouting, quite possibly without even knowing the full significance. (4) He defended them. When the chief priests and the scribes saw… the children shouting in the temple… they were indignant. Essentially, they could not see the difference between the merchants and moneychangers of vss 12-13, whose profiteering disrupted Gentiles’ ability to praise and pray, and the spontaneous (if exuberant) praise of the children. When Jesus pointed out the difference, he drove home the point that the children were doing exactly what they were supposed to be doing in the temple, and the chief priests and scribes had abdicated their roles as spiritual leaders and were actually now spiritual inhibitors.
18-19 Mark records this incident somewhat differently. In his account, Jesus and the disciples encounter the fruitless tree on Monday morning and find it withered on Tuesday. Matthew condenses the incident into a single scene. This sort of discrepancy was common among ancient biographies as authors arranged their accounts more by subject than by chronology.[247] It is likely that Mark’s chronology is more accurate than Matthew’s, but that does not make Matthew’s account wrong. In fact, it is extraordinary for an entire tree to wither so completely within 24 hours. Generally, a portion of the tree may wither, but other portions will grow more foliage in an attempt to compensate. As the tree grows weaker, it will sprout suckers, small branches sprouting from the base of the trunk, in a last-ditch attempt to survive. Consequently, while Matthew’s use of at once may seem technically inaccurate, it is a fair statement. It typically takes months or even years for a healthy tree to wither. Even if it took a day for this tree to die, it was supernaturally quick.
It was culturally acceptable for travelers to eat a small amount of fruit. Indeed, farmers were expected to leave gleanings for travellers and the poor (see Deuteronomy 24:19-22).
Jesus’ frustration was warranted, but this should not be seen as a “fit of temper.”[248] Typically, when leaves appeared on a fig tree in spring, it would also have fruit. These early figs were highly prized because they were still sweet. To find a tree with nothing on it except leaves, then, was a sign that something was terribly wrong with the tree. Thus, the tree serves as a poignant warning: a person, church, or nation that does not produce the appropriate fruit risks the wrath of God. And what is the appropriate fruit for a follower of Jesus? The authentic Christ-follower will be increasingly characterized by (a) the fruit of the Spirit (Galatians 5:16-26), (b) good works (Micah 6:8; Matthew 25:35-40; Ephesians 2:8-10; Colossians 1:10; Titus 3:14; James 1:27), (c) uplifting speech (Ephesian 5:18-21; Hebrews 13:15; James 3:9-11), (d) a deliberate effort to make more and better disciples (John 15:8; Matthew 28:19-20); and (e) obedience and holiness (Romans 6:22, 12:1-2; 1 John 2:3-6).[249]
20-22 The disciples’ question was prompted by the shock of seeing the tree so thoroughly withered so quickly. See note on vss 18-19 for why this was so astonishing. Jesus had done nothing apparent to cause its withering, and his exclamation could barely be called a prayer. Yet, even in Mark’s account, they naturally connected the two.
Similar to his teaching in Matthew 17:20-21 (see notes there), Jesus did not intend to teach that God will do whatever disciples want. Rather, the whole teaching is contingent upon if you have faith and if you believe. The apostles would have understood this to mean that you were eagerly submissive to God’s will. Therefore, this passage is about God granting the power to accomplish his will. I.e., if God wanted the disciples to move the Mount of Olives where they presently stood into the Dead Sea, then they could expect it to be done.
23-27 When Jesus returned to the temple Tuesday, the chief priests and the elders of the people were waiting for him. Their question – By what authority are you doing these things? – was prompted by his cleansing of the temple in vss 12-13 and his rebuke when they wanted the children to stop shouting in vss 14-17. Now, their question was intended to trap Jesus. If he claimed to speak and act by the authority of God, they would accuse him of blasphemy and then incite the people to stone him on the spot or at least reject him as a heretic. Conversely, if he admitted to speak and act only by his own authority, they would point out that he was a mere carpenter from Nazareth, with no real authority. Instead, Jesus’ response highlighted the conundrum they had created for themselves. John’s baptism was a clear example of God working through a person. Throngs of normal people recognized this. Yet, the priests and elders rejected John’s message that the Jews also needed to repent. Therefore, if they acknowledged that John’s message was from God, Jesus would embarrass them by asking why they did not believe, but if they openly discounted John’s message as merely of human origin, then the people would turn on them for failing to recognize something they all saw. Inevitably, when we discount God’s work and truth, we put ourselves in a logical and practical bind.
28-32 Having stuck the chief priests and the elders in a bind of their own making, Jesus now turned the tables on them. They had intended to trick him into saying something they could use to discredit him, but now he used a parable to highlight their own hypocrisy. They were the second son who said they would do God’s work but then failed to go. Tax collectors and prostitutes represented all sinners who initially refused to follow God’s commands but later changed [their minds] – that is, repented – and went. Jesus pronounced that those who repent are entering the kingdom of God before those who initially agreed to obey but then failed to do so.
33-46 Jesus’ second parable drove home the gravity of the chief priests’ and elders’ offense. Sharecropping was a common concept in the ancient Middle East. Wealthy landowners would routinely lease a field or vineyard to one or more tenant farmers. The farmers would plant and cultivate the plot, and at harvest time, they would deliver a portion of the harvest as rent. The notion in vss 34-36 that a sharecropper would refuse to pay this rent was absurd. Everyone knew this would have terrible consequences for the farmer. However, as long as they abused and killed only his servants, it remained professional. When the landowner eventually sent his son, however, it marked a dramatic escalation of the situation. Prior to this, beating, killing, and stoning servants was all terrible, but the son represented the landowner himself. This was his family and heir. This was personal. Thus, when the tenant farmers killed the son, they were rupturing their relationship with the landowner and inviting absolute disaster upon themselves. Similarly, the religious leaders had abused and killed countless prophets over the centuries. Now, God sent his son, Jesus, in a final effort to reconcile with them, but they were poised to reject him as well. Indeed, by the end of the week, they would have him crucified. However, Jesus would have the final victory!
[247] Wilkins 2004, Matthew 21:18-22
[248] Wilkins 2004, Matthew 21:18-22
[249] OpenAI 2025