 Jesus enters Jerusalem |
 Jesus Enters Jerusalem Joseph Francis Alward
Evidence that Matthew based his story of Jesus triumphantly entering Jerusalem on a misunderstood story in the book of Zechariah is described. |
|
E-Mail Alward Home Page
Some Bible-believers think that the apparent fulfillment in Jesus of Scriptural events proves that Jesus is the son of God, but this uncritical acceptance of the claims of the gospel writers is what they were counting on when they used Scripture as a kind of blueprint in constructing the savior. For centuries the Hebrews had been awaiting their savior, and there arose during this time many candidates for the position. The gospel writers knew that no one would accept as savior someone who did not seem to fulfill those "prophecies," so they scoured the Bible in an attempt to find as many of them as they could, then they wrote stories which had their candidate, "Jesus," fulfilling the prophecies. However, one of them, Matthew, was particularly inept in his construction of the fulfillment stories. One example of Matthew's bumbling is found in his story of Jesus' triumphal entry into Jerusalem. Matthew bases this fictional story on a misunderstood story in Scripture. In that story, the prophet speaks of a king riding a donkey--a colt (a young male donkey), the foal of a donkey:
Obviously, Zechariah didn’t mean that the king was riding a donkey and a colt; he was merely telling us that the donkey was a colt foal (young son) of a donkey. Unfortunately for Matthew, he thinks the prophet meant that there were two animals: a donkey, and a colt, instead of just a donkey which was a young colt. Thus, Matthew invents a story in which Jesus sends his disciples to fetch an ass and a colt, so that Jesus might ride on them into Jerusalem. The other gospel writers weren't so foolish. Here is the evidence.
And …then sent Jesus two disciples, Saying unto them, Go into the village over against you, and straightway ye shall find an ass tied, and a colt with her: loose them, and bring them unto me… All this was done, that it might be fulfilled which was spoken by the prophet, saying, Tell ye the daughter of Sion, Behold, thy King cometh unto thee, meek, and sitting upon an ass, and a colt the foal of an ass. (Matthew 21:1-5)
Mark, Luke, and John, understood Zechariah; according to them, Jesus sent his disciples after only one animal. Mark and Luke call the animal a "colt," and John calls it an "ass," and all three versions are compatible with the "prophecy" in Zechariah, wherein the animal is described as a donkey which is a colt. Mark: Jesus Sent for a Colt And …he sendeth forth two of his disciples, And saith unto them, Go your way into the village over against you: and as soon as ye be entered into it, ye shall find a colt tied, whereon never man sat; loose him, and bring him…And they brought the colt to Jesus, and cast their garments on him; and he sat upon him. (Mark 11:1-7) Luke: Jesus Sent for a Colt Go ye into the village over against you; in the which at your entering ye shall find a colt tied, whereon yet never man sat: loose him, and bring him hither. …35 And they brought him to Jesus: and they cast their garments upon the colt, and they set Jesus thereon. (Luke 19:30-35) John: Jesus Sent for an Ass And Jesus, when he had found a young ass, sat thereon; as it is written, Fear not, daughter of Sion: behold, thy King cometh, sitting on an ass's colt. (John 12: 14-15) The conclusion is inescapable: Matthew thought Zechariah was referring to two animals, but it is obvious that Zechariah was referring to just one animal. Thus, Matthew was mistaken, and his error
Notes:
A Hebrew parallelism is a repetition for emphasis or clarification, and they are in abundance in the Old Testament. This short article describes what appears to be a failure by one gospel writer to recognize a parallelism, and the disaster that followed.I will first list several parallelisms, then describe how Matthew failed to recognize one in Zechariah’s passage about a king entering Jerusalem on a donkey.
Examples of Parallelisms in the Old Testament
|
Verse |
Parallelism |
And, behold, I, even I, do bring a flood of waters upon the earth |
Repetition |
And there came two angels to Sodom…But before they lay down, the men of the city, even the men of Sodom (Genesis 19:1-4) |
Clarification: “the men of Sodom” |
Said he not unto me, She is my sister? and she, even she herself said (Genesis 20:5) |
Repetition |
….the son of this bondwoman shall not be heir with my son, even with Isaac. (Genesis 21:10) |
Clarification: “my son, Isaac.” |
And they said, We saw certainly that the LORD was with thee: and we said, Let there be now an oath betwixt us, even betwixt us and thee, and let us make a covenant with thee (Genesis 26:28) |
Repetition |
And he took some of his brethren, even five men, and presented them unto Pharaoh. (Genesis 47:2) |
Clarification: “five of his brethren” |
And thou shalt say unto Pharaoh, Thus saith the LORD, Israel is my son, even my firstborn (Exodus 4:22) |
Clarification: “my firstborn, Israel” |
And I bought the field of Hanameel my uncle's son, that was in Anathoth, and weighed him the money, even seventeen shekels of silver. (Jeremiah 32:9) |
Clarification: “weighed him seventeen shekels of silver.” |
The Donkey-Colt Parallelism
Parallelism occurs in the scriptural story of a king entering Jerusalem in triumph:
Rejoice greatly, O daughter of Zion! Shout in triumph, O daughter of Jerusalem! Behold, your king is coming to you; He is just and endowed with salvation, Humble, and mounted on a donkey, Even on a colt, the foal of a donkey. (Zechariah 9:9 NASB)
Obviously, Zechariah didn’t mean that the king was riding a donkey, and a colt; he was merely telling us that the animal was a colt foal (young son) of a donkey. As evidence that first century writers knew that Zechariah was referring to just one animal, we have John using the Zechariah story as a type of prefigurement of what happened to Jesus: John has Jesus enter Jerusalem with only one animal, the donkey.
John 12: 14-15 And Jesus, when he had found a young ass, sat thereon; as it is written, Fear not, daughter of Sion: behold, thy King cometh, sitting on an ass's colt.
Whether Mark and Luke knew about the Zechariah verse and thought that story prefigured Jesus’ triumphant entry is not clear. What is clear, however, is that they have Jesus send his disciples to fetch just one animal, and they have Jesus enter Jerusalem with only one animal:
Mark 11:1-7 And …he sendeth forth two of his disciples, And saith unto them, Go your way into the village over against you: and as soon as ye be entered into it, ye shall find a colt tied, whereon never man sat; loose him, and bring him…And they brought the colt to Jesus, and cast their garments on him; and he sat upon him.
Luke 19:30-35 …Go ye into the village over against you; in the which at your entering ye shall find a colt tied, whereon yet never man sat: loose him, and bring him hither. …35 And they brought him to Jesus: and they cast their garments upon the colt, and they set Jesus thereon.
Unfortunately for Matthew, he must have misunderstood Zechariah, because he had Jesus send his disciples after two animals from the village, and then he has Jesus ride with both of them into Jerusalem:
Matthew 21:1-5 And …then sent Jesus two disciples, 2 Saying unto them, Go into the village over against you, and straightway ye shall find an ass tied, and a colt with her: loose them, and bring them unto me… All this was done, that it might be fulfilled which was spoken by the prophet, saying, Tell ye the daughter of Sion, Behold, thy King cometh unto thee, meek, and sitting upon an ass, and a colt the foal of an ass.
Some apologists have argued that there really were two animals with Jesus, and Matthew was correct in reporting both of them. Mark, Luke, and John, they assert, only mentioned one animal because they either were unaware of all of the details of the triumphant entry, or because they may not have thought it was important to mention both animals.
That is apologetic nonsense. Only Matthew among the four gospel writers mentioned the “two” animals in Zechariah’s story. Is it then just a coincidence that only Matthew among them had Jesus fetch two animals from the village, and only Matthew had Jesus enter Jerusalem with two animals?
We know that there was only one animal in Zechariah, but the evidence shows clearly that Matthew thought Zechariah was referring to two animals, and that seems to be the only reason he has Jesus ride with two animals into Jerusalem. This is not the only example of Matthew’s apparent lack competence as a gospel writer. Other Matthean mistakes are described in the articles, Virgin-Birth Prophecy, Bethlehem Prophecy,and Potter's Field Prophecy.
Supplementary Information Added April 18, 2003:
In every Bible translation the word "them" is inserted by the translators. I've argued that they all did this is because the ancient text apparently left out the clarifying pronoun "them." The reason they knew it had to be "them," rather than "him" is that the Matthew author told the disciples to go the village where they would find TWO animals, and later the author tells us that Jesus went into Jerusalem with TWO animals. From this, the writers obviously inferred that Jesus must have said "bring THEM," rather than "bring HIM." They HAD to insert a pronoun, otherwise they would have Jesus saying, "you will find a donkey and a colt, bring....to me." Bring to me....what? The translators assumed the obvious: if Jesus didn't actually say "them," it was surely implied.
There is no actual contradiction in the ancient text's quotes, for they left out the pronoun. However, a pronoun is surely implied, and in Matthew's text the implied pronoun is "them," for Matthew speaks of the village having TWO animals, and of Jesus riding with TWO animals into Jerusalem. Surely, Matthew's Jesus asked that BOTH animals be brought to him, don't you agree?
Thus, we have the Matthew author telling us that Jesus told his disciples they would find TWO animals in the village, and that they should bring THEM to him, and then Jesus rode with those TWO animals into Jerusalem.
However, the Mark author tells us that Jesus told his disciples that they would find ONE animal in the village, and that they should bring HIM to him, and then implies that Jesus went into Jerusalem with that ONE animal.
An Apologist's Failed Attempt at A Harmonization
One apologist suggested that what happened is that Jesus first told his two disciples that there was one animal in the village, and that they should go get HIM. Jason believes that perhaps after thinking about it for a moment, or perhaps after being corrected, Jesus gave a second set of more detailed instructions. In the second set of instructions, Jesus tells the disciples that there were TWO animals in the village, and that the disciples should go get THEM.
This is most implausible. According to this scenario, Mark tells his readers only about the uncorrected set of instructions. Jesus obviously found those instructions flawed--according to the apologist--so why would Mark choose to report the flawed instructions, rather than the corrected ones? It doesn't make sense. What does make sense is that there existed at least two different traditions about Jesus' triumphal entry, and in the one Mark reported, there was only one animal.
This scenario makes Jesus seem uninformed about what was in the village, and it also shows that Jesus forgot that he would need two animals when he went into Jerusalem. This lack of knowledge and foresight in one who allegedly knew that Judas would betray him, and that Peter would deny him three times, and that he would be in the tomb for three days, is virtually impossible to believe. Thus, I think the double-instruction theory is just far too unbelievable to accept.
Another Apology That Doesn't Make Sense
Apologists sometimes argue that Mark focused on one aspect of the triumphal journey, and Matthew focused on another one. It is not a contradiction to focus on one aspect of an event to the exclusion of another, but my claim of contradiction has to do with the apparent fact that Mark described a Jesus who told his disciples about just ONE animal in the village, while Matthew described a Jesus who told his disciples about TWO animals.
Now, I agree that it would be all right for one author to focus on one animal, and the other to focus on two animals, if they so chose. However, it is distinctly NOT all right, in my opinion, for one author to change what Jesus actually said. Jesus could only have said ONE thing. Did Jesus SAY to his disciples, "ye shall find a colt tied," (Mark 11:1-7), or did Jesus say, "ye shall find an ass tied, and a colt with her"? (Mathew 21:1-5)
We cannot use the "focus" argument here, in my opinion. We cannot say that Mark's Jesus was focusing on just the colt, while Matthew's Jesus was focusing on both the ass and colt, can we? I believe we cannot make that claim, and that therefore one of the two authors gave a false report about what Jesus actually said.
Comment
How come Jesus didn't have his disciples offer to pay for the stolen donkey, or at least offer services for value received? John Wayne's outlaw Robert Hightower in The Three Godfathers certainly would have known what to do in such a circumstance. After reading the story of Jesus ordering the theft of the donkey in Jerusalem, snarled, "A man steal your donkey in this country, they string yah up!"