Z. The triumphal entry (19:28–44)
Z. The triumphal entry (19:28–44)
Strictly Luke does not tell of Jesus’ entry to Jerusalem, triumphant or otherwise. But he does describe the approach, and the term ‘entry’ may be used without being misleading. Luke adds to what we read in the other Gospels by telling of Jesus’ lament over the city.
1. The approach in triumph (19:28–40)
There is an audacity about this whole procedure. The authorities were hostile and had already given an instruction that anyone who knew where Jesus was should inform them so that he could be arrested (John 11:57). But, far from hiding in fear, Jesus came to Jerusalem publicly and triumphantly. For the present his popularity among the people prevented action being taken against him (48). But we should overlook neither the bitter hostility of the high-priestly party nor the courage manifested by Jesus and his friends.
28. Apparently Jesus took his departure from Jericho immediately after telling the parable just narrated. He strode on ahead of the disciples (just possibly the Greek means ‘he went forward’, as Leaney holds; but cf. Mark 10:32). Luke tells us again that he was going to Jerusalem in keeping with the emphasis he has placed on the city as the object of the journey.
29. Bethany was a village about 2 miles from Jerusalem on the eastern slopes of the Mount of Olives. The location of Bethphage is not known for certain, but clearly it was nearby. In the Talmud it is apparently a suburb of Jerusalem, being regarded as the outer limit of the city. The Greek rendered Olivet may mean ‘of olives’ or ‘OliveOrchard’ (Moffatt; the difference is only one of accent). Olivet is from the Latin olivetum, ‘olive orchard’.
30–31. Jesus instructs two of his disciples to go into a village and get a donkey for him. He does not name the village and speaks of it only as the village opposite. This may have been Bethphage, but we cannot be sure. There, Jesus said, you will find a colt tied. The word could denote the colt of a horse or of an ass and Luke never says which it is. Matthew and John, however, both make it clear that it was an ass, and in the LXX the word is regularly used without qualification to translate a Hebrew term meaning an ass. Luke is simply following LXX usage. He tells us that nobody had ever ridden it. The thought may be that the animal was thus unspoiled by previous use and was suitable for sacred purposes (cf. Num. 19:2; 1 Sam. 6:7). Jesus adds the password to be used if anyone hinders them: The Lord has need of it. A problem is posed by the fact that it seems to be Jesus who needs the animal, but the expression ‘the Lord’ seems to have been used of him very rarely if at all during his ministry. It is thus doubtful whether an unexplained reference to ‘the Lord’ would have been sufficient to indicate Jesus. Some think we should understand ‘the Lord’ to be God, i.e. the animal is needed in God’s service. This is possible, but it is hard to see how the bystanders would have extracted this meaning from the words. Linguistically the expression could mean ‘Its owner needs it’. This would be a possible meaning if there was one owner and he was with Jesus. But verse 33 shows that there were more owners than one and that they were with the ass, not Jesus. On the whole it seems best to understand the expression as a pre-arranged password. When the animal’s owners heard these words they would know the ass was for Jesus and would let it go.
32–34. The disciples obeyed instructions and the colt’s owners responded to the information that the Lord needed the animal. The plural, its owners, may point to poverty. Even so small an animal was shared.
35–36. They put their garments on the animal, plainly as a kind of saddle. Luke does not say that Jesus mounted the colt, but that the disciples set him on it; they took the initiative. As he went (this is the tenth use of poreuomai of Jesus’ journey since 9:51; Luke emphasizes the journey motif) they, or others, followed this up by spreading their garments on the road, thus making a triumphal carpet on which Jesus rode (cf. 2 Kgs 9:13). Luke says nothing about the spreading of branches as well, though all the other Evangelists mention this (John says they were palm branches).
37. The whole multitude of the disciples joined in the enthusiasm at the descent of the Mount of Olives. It was a happy scene as the disciples began to rejoice. They praised God for all the mighty works that they had seen, i.e. those miraculous deeds that Jesus had done throughout his ministry which showed so plainly that he had come from God. Luke nowhere explains the enthusiasm, but Matthew and John both quote the prophecy that Zion’s king would come on an ass’s colt (Zech. 9:9). There can be no doubt but that the multitude saw Jesus’ entry to the city in the light of this prophecy and greeted him as king. Now a king on an ass was distinctive. The ass was the mount of a man of peace, a merchant or a priest. A king might ride on an ass on occasion, but he would be more likely to appear on a mighty warhorse. Zechariah’s prophecy saw Messiah as the Prince of peace. The Galilean disciples, now streaming up to Jerusalem for the Passover, knew that Jesus had done many mighty works. They had for a long time watched and waited for him to proclaim himself as the Messiah of their hopes. Now they saw him as doing so. He was riding into the capital in a way that fulfilled the prophecy. He was showing himself to be the Messiah. They did not stop to reflect that he was also proclaiming himself a man of peace and giving no countenance to their nationalistic fervour. They wanted a Messiah. And now they saw one.
38. All four Evangelists tell us that the crowd cried Blessed and he who comes in the name of the Lord (cf. Ps. 118:26), but only Luke and John that they called Jesus the King (John adds ‘of Israel’). Mark refers to the kingdom but not the King. But, expressed or not, this is implied. The crowd wanted to see the Messiah claim his kingdom and their delighted delirium arose from the fact that they saw him as doing this. Luke alone tells us that the acclamation included Peace in heaven (cf. 2:14). ‘God is reconciled to the human race’ (Arndt), and thus his glory is demonstrated. There may also be a reference to the situation that resulted from Satan’s defeat (10:18). Luke omits the foreign word ‘Hosanna’ (found in the other Gospels) and substitutes glory.
39–40. We owe to this Evangelist the information that some of the Pharisees in the crowd (pilgrims from Galilee?) said, Teacher, rebuke your disciples. They would have objected to the enthusiasm on general principles and they certainly did not want to see Jesus proclaimed as Messiah. They were not in favour of the use of force unless the practice of their religion was directly involved, and they would have opposed anything that might provoke Roman intervention. There was no hope of stilling the tumult by appealing to the people, so they ask Jesus to calm them down. In a striking saying Jesus affirms that the shouting is inevitable. If the people were to keep quiet the very stones would cry out, which may have been a proverbial saying (cf. Hab. 2:11).
2. The lament over Jerusalem (19:41–44)
This short section is peculiar to Luke. It shows that Jesus knew what the enthusiasm he was witnessing was worth. The words are taken by some scholars as a late composition, written after the destruction of the city, on the ground that they are too detailed to have been uttered in Jesus’ time. But, setting apart for the moment the extent of Jesus’ prophetic powers, there is nothing here that is not common to the siege techniques of the day and much that is already found in the Old Testament. There is no reason to be apprehensive about the authenticity of this paragraph. Cf. T. W. Manson: ‘To describe these verses as a Christian composition after the event is the kind of extravagance that brings sober criticism into disrepute.’35
41–42. The lament took place near the city, but Luke does not say precisely where. It forms a striking contrast to the joy of the crowd. Wept might be rendered ‘wailed’; Jesus burst into sobbing as he lamented lost opportunity. The Jerusalemites did not know the things that make for peace. There is irony here for the name ‘Jerusalem’ has ‘peace’ as part of its meaning (cf. Heb. 7:2). But those in the city of peace did not know what made for peace! Especially important in the Hebrew understanding of peace (which carries over into the New Testament) is its emphasis on peace with God, right relationship between the creature and the Creator, as a necessary ingredient in true peace. It was this that the people of Jerusalem had failed to realize. And their failure to get to grips with the message of God was now final. These things, Jesus says, are hid from your eyes.
43–44. The destruction of the city is inevitable. Jesus describes a typical siege when he speaks of the bank the enemies would cast up (as a protection for themselves and a base from which they could launch their attacks) and of the city as being completely surrounded (cf. Isa. 29:3). The word charax, rendered bank, means basically a stake (for example used for supporting vines). It came to mean timber used in fortifying a camp. The singular here is collective and denotes a palisade encircling a city. Josephus tells us that when the Romans besieged Jerusalem they set up siegeworks (Bellum v.262, 264). There must have been a good deal of timber in them, for the Jews destroyed them with fire (Bellum v.469ff.; the Romans replaced them with a wall). Jesus says further that the enemy will dash you to the ground, you and your children within you (cf. Ps. 137:9). This means complete overthrow. Not only will the city be captured, but it will be totally destroyed. The repetition of you (ten times in two verses) makes it all very personal. Jesus finishes with the reason, because you did not know the time of your visitation. This last word is quite general. It could mean any visit, for blessing or for cursing. But in the context there can be no doubt that it is the divine visitation when God’s Messiah came among them that the people had failed to know, ‘God’s moment’, as NEB translates. There is an ignorance that is innocent, but there is also an ignorance that is culpable. These people had the revelation God had made known in the scriptures of the Old Testament. They had the continuing evidence that God was active in the life and ministry of Jesus. They could see in him that God had not forgotten his people. There was every reason for them to have welcomed Jesus as his disciples did. But they refused to accept all this evidence. They rejected God’s Messiah. They would now have to live with the consequences of their rejection. It is this that brought forth Jesus’ tears.
6. Jesus in Jerusalem (19:45 – 21:38)
We have nearly reached the passion narrative. After Jesus came to Jerusalem he continued to teach for a short time and Luke relates some of the things he said and did in those days. But all this is really no more than a prelude to the passion.