The end of Jesus’ ministry is fast approaching. The time has come for Jesus’ triumphal entry into Jerusalem. Thus, He does something He has consistently refused to do up to this point: publicly present Himself as the Messiah in fulfillment of prophecy. He also for the first time accepts the recognition of Himself as the Messiah by the crowds (Matt 21:1–11). The significance of this event is obvious and further underscored by its presence in all four Gospel accounts (Mark 11:1–10; Luke 18:28–40; John 12:12–19). In His messianic role He claims authority over the temple, cleansing it of marketeering, and is confronted by the religious leaders—first by the chief priests and scribes and, later, by the chief priests and elders (Matt 21:12–27). The chapter concludes with Jesus telling two parables, both of which constitute a serious warning for the Jewish leaders.

Interpretation of Matthew 21

1. Verses 1–11, the Triumphal Entry

• As Jesus draws “near” to Jerusalem, the further fulfillment of the time prophecies of Daniel 9:26–27 do also. Up to this point, Matthew has only used the word (Gk. engizō) for the drawing near of the kingdom of heaven (Matt 3:2; 4:17; 10:7), but will now use it also of God’s judgment upon Israel (Matt 21:34) and Jesus’ impending death (Matt 26:45).

• Jesus instructs His disciples to obtain a “donkey” for His use to ride into Jerusalem in fulfillment of Zechariah 9:9. Unlike Mark and Luke, Matthew (following closely the Hebrew text) mentions both a female donkey and her colt (Matt 21:5), suggesting the latter is still young and in need of its mother.

• Matthew’s quotation of the prophecy (absent from the parallel passages of Mark and Luke) emphasizes the meekness of the Messiah (cf. Matt 11:29) in contrast to the popular expectations of a militaristic messiah who would lead Israel to victory over Roman oppression (see, e.g., Psalms of Solomon 17:21–25; 4Q285 4 1–8; 2 Baruch 40).

• The description of two animals in connection with the triumphal entry seems to reflect an eyewitness account because the colt was one “on which no one has ever sat” (Mark 11:2, ESV)¹ and not ready to be separated from its mother, especially in view of the large crowd with its loud acclamations (Matt 21:8–9).

• To grasp the significance of this event, it is helpful to visualize it from the standpoint of those who observed it from the gates of the temple. A “very great multitude” stretching along the narrow road from the Mount of Olives to Jerusalem and advancing on the temple would be unprecedented, and could have seemed quite threatening to the religious authorities.

• The hosannas come from Psalm 118:25–26 and among the psalms of praise traditionally associated with the Jewish festivals, especially the Passover. This particular psalm is “a royal song of thanksgiving for military victory”² that apparently describes a royal procession into the temple.³ The messianic expectancy of the crowds has reached its peak.

• The procession’s initial confrontation with the disturbed inhabitants of Jerusalem (Matt 21:10; cf. 2:3) and the religious leaders is only implied in Matthew’s abbreviated account of the entry itself (cf. Luke 19:39; John 12:19; and the more detailed description in DA 580–581). As is evident from Mark 11:11, by the time Jesus slips away from the crowds (and the confrontation) and enters the temple it is already late, so He departs to Bethany for the night.

2. Verses 12–17, Jesus Cleanses the Temple

• Matthew passes immediately on to the next major event: Jesus’ cleansing of the temple, in which He drove out the buyers as well as the sellers (so also Mark 11:15).⁴ The Greek word used by all three Synoptics (ekballō) refers to a forced removal (see, e.g., Matt 7:4–5; 8:12; 9:25; 21:39), including the expelling of demons (Matt 7:22; 8:16, 31, etc.).

• Moneychangers were needed in addition to the vendors of doves and animals for sacrifice because common coins with images of the Roman emperor could not be used in the temple and had to be exchanged for Tyrian shekels, which had a higher silver content but also had the image of the god of Tyre, Baal-Melqart.

• This business of buying and selling might have been a rather recent example of the creeping Hellenization that disturbed many devout Jews. Its incursion into the temple complex itself could have been justified based on Herod’s substantial enlargement of the Temple Mount and its probable location near the southern entrance of the plaza, well away from the temple proper. Even if the priests and rulers did not consider this area holy, to Jesus—as well as the pilgrims to the temple who had purified themselves for entry and mounted the steps to the plaza—it was holy ground.

• The place hallowed by God’s presence (cf. Matt 23:21) was designed to be “a house of prayer,” not business, and Jesus insisted it be treated as such (cf. Matt 23:16–22). More ominously, He also quoted the prophecy of Jeremiah 7:11, which portends Babylon’s destruction of the first temple. Thus He warns that failure to live up to God’s plan for Israel and the temple, exemplified by the corrupt dealings of these marketeers, would result in a similar desolation (Matt 24:2, 15; cf. Dan 9:26).

• Only Matthew notes that the blind and the lame came to Jesus in the temple. This situation presented a challenge: those who were suffering from such maladies were assumed to be ritually unclean, because they were thought incapable of observing the laws of purity adequately. Jesus finessed this challenge by healing them, fulfilling prophecies related to the Lord’s return to Mount Zion (Isa 29:18; 35:5–6).

• Praises to Jesus as the Son of David rile the chief priests and scribes because it ascribes to Him messianic authority, apparently ignoring all “the wonderful things” (Gk. thaumasia) He was doing (Matt 21:15). The Greek word used for the miracles appears only here in the New Testament but is found several times in the Septuagint for the wonders God performed in connection with the exodus (Exod 3:20 LXX; Deut 34:12; Ps 77 [78]:11–12). Therefore, these healings seem also to signify the more profound deliverance brought by Jesus, which the exodus typified.

• Responding to the leaders’ indignation, Jesus quotes Psalm 8:2, which Jewish traditions linked with the song of deliverance at the exodus (Exod 15) and the praising of God by children at the Red Sea.⁵

3. Verses 18–27, Jesus Curses the Fig Tree and His Authority Is Questioned

• Jesus’ cursing of the fig tree after a fruitless search for figs seems quite uncharacteristic of Him, especially in light of it being too early to expect ripe figs (Mark 11:13). But early figs, renowned for their sweetness, might be found at this time of the year.⁶ As with many of Jesus’ miracles, this act underscored a deeper lesson. Since “a tree is known by its fruit” (Matt 12:33), Israel’s leaders can anticipate certain judgment should their resistance to Jesus and their persistent failure to produce the fruits of righteousness continue (cf. Matt 3:10; 7:19).

• For the disciples, the miracle contains a lesson on faith. Jesus wants them to realize the amazing possibilities open to the one who has faith and does not doubt. Genuine faith excludes wavering and doubt (Jas 1:6–8), because the latter erodes and, eventually, destroys faith through the slow but steady process of a thousand pinpricks. Jesus amplifies the point with the assurance that “all things, whatever you ask in prayer, if you believe you will receive” (Matt 21:22, author’s translation).

• Closely related to this story about faith and fruit bearing is the Jewish leaders’ questioning of Jesus on the issue of authority immediately after His return to the temple. He’s met with a double-barreled question. Opposition is escalating because Jesus’ work is now centered in the temple, a highly volatile venue. The chief priests and elders hope their question leads Jesus either to affirm or deny His having a superior authority. By affirming His authority, a legal case would be established against Him that the Romans could sustain, while a denial would undercut His influence with the people and maintain their authority.

• But the issue of authority is complicated because it is inseparable from the lives of people and their livelihood and permeates all cultures and social groups—from the family to the wider community, institutions, and the public square. Jesus recognizes the entire matter revolves around one key issue—one’s relation to the message and baptism of John.

• Jesus avoids asking about John himself, which could have political ramifications, thus excluding political issues that could thwart His message. Referring to his baptism highlights the message of repentance brought by John (and Jesus) which the religious authorities have consistently resisted (cf. Matt 3:7; 12:33–34, 39).

• If they reply “from heaven” it would be an admission that John is a true prophet and his message is to be believed and received. Their refusal to answer the question is a silent witness to their unbelief of the heaven-sent message of Jesus and John. Their further unwillingness to say it is “of men”—that is, of mere human origin—is explained by their fear of men. Like Herod (Matt 14:5), they are afraid of losing their position of authority. Thus they prove themselves to be precisely what Jesus calls them throughout Matthew’s Gospel: hypocrites/actors.

4. Verses 28–32, The Parable of the Two Sons

• Knowing they are plotting His destruction, Jesus sets before them two parables, both designed to reveal their hypocrisy, the parable of the Two Sons (Matt 21:28–32) and of the Wicked Vinedressers (Matt 21:33–46). The first is found only in Matthew and the second is significantly longer than in Mark and Luke. Both parables relate to work in a vineyard, which symbolizes Israel (cf. Isa 5:7).

• In the interpretation of parables, it is helpful to remind ourselves of the two levels of meaning discussed in a previous article: the meaning of the story itself and the spiritual meaning the story would have for the audience who first heard the parable.⁷ Also, as with the two longer parables of Matthew 13, these two parables have allegorical elements that must be recognized in order to adequately understand and interpret them.⁸

• The two sons, who are addressed by the father with an affectionate form in Greek (teknon, “child”), have completely opposite reactions to the father’s request to work in the vineyard. The first replies like a spoiled brat, “I don’t want to” (Matt 21:29, author’s translation), but later regrets his response and goes to work. Unlike the first son, the second son immediately agrees to go and work but, in fact, does not. He also shows his father great respect, addressing him as “sir.” This Greek word (kurie) can also be translated “lord,” which suggests the father in the parable symbolizes God.

• In answer to the question as to which son did the father’s will, the chief priests and elders can only answer, “the first.” Jesus then applies this to “tax collectors and harlots”—social outcasts who showed no religious interest as citizens of Israel but believed John the Baptist’s message (cf. Luke 3:12–13). In other words, they did not remain rebellious tax collectors and harlots but through John’s baptism of repentance regained status within Israel. Ironically, Israel’s religious leaders, were acting like the second son, showing God enormous respect and claiming to do His will but persisting in their unbelief of John’s message, and, by implication, the message of Jesus to whose ministry John pointed (Matt 3:11–12).

5. Verses 33–46, the Parable of the Wicked Vinedressers

• Vineyards were an important industry throughout the Roman world, including in Israel, and some of Jesus’ hearers may have worked in them or even owned one. A vineyard was a long-term investment, requiring several years before it would begin bearing fruit and producing income. Nevertheless, workers would need to be paid during this time and, when grapes could finally be harvested, an agreed percentage would be given to the owner with the vinedressers’ wages paid from the remainder. The servants were sent to receive some of the fruit as payment for leasing the vineyard (cf. Matt 21:33).

• Surprisingly, the vinedressers of the parable act as if they own the vineyard, rather than merely leasing it, and do everything possible to selfishly keep the vineyard, its fruit, and its profit to themselves. They mistreat the servants who are sent to receive the fruit as payment for the lease.

• Finally, the owner decides to send his son, anticipating the vinedressers will respect him, because, unlike the servants, the son would have authority over the vineyard. But, rather than coming to their senses, admitting their guilt, and submitting to the son’s authority, the vinedressers see an opportunity to claim the vineyard for themselves and, in order to take possession, they kill the landowner’s son.

• This parable has many similarities with the parable of the Workers in the Vineyard (Matt 20:1–16): the vineyard represents Israel and the landowner represents God.⁹ In view of the historical and literary contexts of this parable, the religious leaders, who are to care for the vineyard-Israel, are represented by the vinedressers.¹⁰

• People listening to the parable would readily identify the other elements as follows: the servants sent by the landowner (God) represent the prophets, who were often persecuted by Israel’s leaders; the son represents Jesus; the far country to which the landowner went is a reference to heaven where God dwells. These identifications suggest the timeframe of the parable spans most of the nation’s history up to the time of Jesus, during which time many prophets were beaten (Jer 20:1–2; 37:15; 1 Kgs 22:24), killed (1 Kgs 18:4, 13; Jer 26:20–23), and even stoned (2 Chr 24:21–22).¹¹ Finally, God’s Son, whom the leaders want to destroy (Matt 21:46) is sent.

• Jesus leaves it to the audience to pronounce judgment—that is, the chief priests and elders (Matt 21:23)—asking them what the owner will do to these vinedressers. Their reply in verse 41 indicates three results: (1) judgment—the owner will miserably destroy those wicked men; (2) transfer— he will lease his vineyard to other vine-dressers; and (3) rationale—the new tenants will render to the owner the fruits in their seasons.

• In verse 42, Jesus quotes Psalm 118, which the Jews recognized as messianic (cf. its application to Jesus by the crowds and the children in Matt 21:9, 15). By making this connection, Jesus implies a wordplay in Hebrew that correlates the rejected “son” (bēn) of the parable with the rejected stone (eben) of the psalm. The builders of Solomon’s temple had rejected a very large stone and set it aside because they could not find a place for it, but it turned out to be the most important stone of all: the cornerstone of the temple’s foundation.¹² The rejected stone points to Jesus with His imminent rejection and crucifixion. Its final placement as “the head of the corner” points to His vindication at the resurrection and His role as the cornerstone of the new “temple,” the church (Eph 2:19–22; 1 Pet 2:4–10).

• In verse 43, the meaning of the vineyard is broadened—no longer symbolic merely of national Israel, but of the kingdom of God, which is centered around the new community (Gk. ekklēsia) that Jesus is establishing (Matt 18:17). Taking the vineyard away and giving it to others refers not to regime change in Israel, but to the transfer of responsibility for the kingdom of God to a different “nation” or people, who would produce its “fruits”—the good works of righteousness and mercy (Matt 12:33; cf. 23:23). This new people would be defined by their relation to Jesus through accepting His gospel of the kingdom.

• The contrasting conditions either of falling on the stone and being broken or having it fall on oneself and being ground to powder allude to two passages of Scripture: (1) Isaiah 8:13–15, which describes God Himself either as a sanctuary (i.e., a refuge made of stone) for those who fear Him or as “a stone of stumbling and a rock of offense” for those who do not; and (2) the stone of Daniel 2 that breaks Nebuchadnezzar’s image in pieces and grinds it to powder (Dan 2:34–35). By this latter allusion Jesus also hints at national Israel’s future demise.

• These two different actions of the stone point to a two-stage process in the progress of the kingdom of God. The first stage, people choosing to fall on the stone and being broken, is in process now and describes how the preaching of the gospel brings people to faith in Jesus and membership in the kingdom of God. The second stage, the stone falling on them and crushing them to powder, will occur at the second advent and describes how those who have rejected Jesus will be destroyed along with the kingdoms of this world (Matt 24:27–28).

Application of the Chapter

Some valuable lessons from Matthew 21 include:

1. Just as Jesus waited for the right time to fulfill the purpose of His life, setting the closing events in motion by His triumphal entry, so we should wait for the right time and way of accomplishing God’s purposes in our life. “To everything there is a season, A time for every purpose under heaven” (Eccl 3:1).

2. Also like Jesus, we should avoid controversy and conflict whenever possible without compromising principle, but speak up and not remain silent when biblical truth is threatened.

3. The action of Jesus to purify the temple illustrates the importance of having a quiet time and place for prayer and communion with God, separate from the business of the day. It also illustrates His ability to purify our hearts from worldly principles and replace them with the heavenly principles embodied in His teaching and example.

4. Jesus’ promise that our petitions offered in faith will be granted must be understood in relation to other biblical principles regarding prayer: that we ask in Jesus’ name and according to His will (John 13:13–14; 1 John 5:14–15), and “keep His commandments and do those things that are pleasing in His sight” (1 John 3:22).

5. Like the first son of the parable, regardless of what our former ways may have been, God’s grace enables us to open our hearts to repentance and the transformation of heart and life through faith and acceptance of the gospel.

6. Jesus wept at their rejection of the only message that could save them and their city (Luke 19:41; cf. Matt 23:37). Here He presents two parables to the Jewish leaders as final warnings, because He cares about them and desperately wants to save Israel from ruin. They are also warnings to us not to ignore, resist, or reject the appeals God makes to us personally through the Scriptures and through His Spirit.