PMW 2024-059 by Kenneth L. Gentry, Jr.

I have been doing a few surveys in Matthew’s Gospel. These are showing the failure of Israel and the expectation of Gentile salvation. I will skip now to the end of Matthew to continue this survey. By this means, I am tracing Matthew’s highly-structured presentation of Jesus’ ministry to show how it leads up to the Olivet Discourse in Matthew 24–25. Now in Matthew 21:10 Jesus enters Jerusalem (for the first time in this Gospel). Jerusalem is the capital of Israel, the home of God’s temple, the seat of the high priesthood and their religious rule over Israel.

Matthew is clearly organizing his material to emphasize Jesus’ climactic entry into Jerusalem to confront and rebuke Israel’s religious authorities. As noted above, this confrontation has been brewing since Matthew 16:21: “From that time Jesus Christ began to show His disciples that He must go to Jerusalem, and suffer many things from the elders and chief priests and scribes, and be killed, and be raised up on the third day” (cp. 20:18).

Now that we are entering into Matthew 21, we must recognize, as France points out, that Olivet is the climax of 21:23–23:39, which presents Christ in the temple. He dramatically enters the temple in 21:12–16 and just as dramatically leaves it in 24:1. [1] Another oddity in Matthew’s presentation is that he never mentions Jesus even going near the temple until he enters it to cast out the moneychangers (21:12–23). In John’s Gospel, however, John mentions the Lord’s appearing there frequently, even at the very beginning of his ministry (John 2:14–15; 5:14; 7:14, 28; 8:2, 20; 10:23; 18:20).

Thine Is the Kingdom
(ed. by Ken Gentry)

Contributors lay the scriptural foundation for a biblically-based, hope-filled postmillennial eschatology, while showing what it means to be postmillennial in the real world.

See more study materials at: www.KennethGentry.com

Jesus carefully orchestrates his public entry into Jerusalem by securing a lowly donkey to ride on (Matt. 21:1–7) in fulfilment of prophecy (v. 5; cp. Zech. 9:9). He seems to be accepted by the common people as they spread their garments before him and cry out: “Hosanna to the Son of David; / Blessed is He who comes in the name of the Lord; / Hosanna in the highest!” (v. 9).

However, only a part of the people’s accolades comes from Scripture (Psa. 118:26). The other part betrays their nationalistic and political expectations as they add to the Psalm reference: “Hosanna to the Son of David.” We will learn that this proclamation does not represent a deep commitment. For not long afterwards the chief priests and elders persuade the multitudes to ask for Barabbas to be released rather than Jesus (Matt. 27:20–21). They then cyry out to Pilate: “Let Him be crucified” (27:22–23).

So then, at Matthew 21:12–13 Jesus enters the temple and casts out the moneychangers and overturns their tables. This is not solely directed at the moneychangers and sellers (and through them the religious authorities who oversee their activities). Rather it is also directed at all who have come to the temple to worship. For Matthew notes that Jesus “cast out all those who were buying and selling in the temple” (v. 12). That is, he is casting out worshipers who are “buying” the sacrificial animals so that they might offer them in worship. The temple has become something contrary to God’s design. By this action Christ is rejecting “the whole system of sacrificial worship.”[2]

This dramatic action is what scholars call “prophetic theater,” a purposely acted out prophecy.[3] As Nolland well observes: This “seems to be yet another instance of prophetic symbolism. The other temple texts to which it perhaps has some relationship are the prophecy of the temple’s doom in 24:1–2 (cf. v. 15) and the accusation against Jesus in 26:61; 27:40.”[4] As Wright expresses it: “Jesus not only predicted its destruction, but symbolized it in his prophetic action, commonly called its ‘cleansing.’” [5] Jesus is here symbolically acting out the overthrow of the wealth-producing temple in AD 70 (as noted in antiquity, it was a “temple of immense wealth,” Tacitus, Hist. 5:8).

THE APOCALYPSE OF JOHN
by Milton S. Terry
This book is Terry’s preterist commentary on the Book of Revelation. It was originally the last half of his much larger work, Biblical Apocalyptics. It is deeply-exegetical, tightly-argued, and clearly-presented.

For more study materials: https://www.kennethgentry.com/

We may see that Jesus intends his actions as prophetic theater by the following: (1) He could not have been attempting to put a final stop to all the merchandising activity, for one man could not stop the whole enterprise in the enormous temple. Yet Jesus acted alone and did not even call upon his disciples to assist him. (2) We do not read of him coming back to the temple to see that this merchandising was no longer operating, nor do we read of his taking any further action against it.

(3) Jesus specifically quotes a verse from a famous passage in Jeremiah: “My house shall be called a house of prayer” (Matt. 21:13; cp. Jer 7:11). In its original context this verse is a part of God’s denunciation of the Old Testament temple and his warning of its coming destruction (Jer. 7:1, 13–15, 20) despite Israel’s confidence in it (Jer. 7:4). [6]

(4) When the chief priests and elders demand to know by what authority Jesus does this (Matt. 21:15–16), he directly links himself back to John the Baptist who prophesies Israel’s coming judgment (vv. 23–26; cp. 3:1, 7–12). (5) Matthew seems to confirm this by the next action Jesus undertakes just seven verses after his “cleansing”: he curses the fig tree (vv.18–19). (6) Not much later he will declare the temple desolate (23:38) and announce its coming destruction (24:2).

Following quickly upon this action, in Matthew 21:19–21 Jesus curses the fig tree and speaks of the mountain being thrown in the sea. The curse on the fig tree is certainly “an acted symbol of judgment to come on Jerusalem.” [7] Otherwise, it would be an uncharacteristic, vindictive display of destructive power by Christ. This action seems to reflect Micah’s lament regarding Israel’s lack of fruit and of the absence of godly persons in the Land (Mic. 7:1–2). In fact, Jesus gives a fig tree parable expressing the same truth in Luke 13:6–9, which summarizes his three-and-one-half year ministry to fruitless Israel. The Lord’s curse symbolically warns that Israel “has reached a point of no return.” [8]

As It Is Written: The Genesis Account Literal or Literary?
Book by Ken Gentry

Presents the exegetical evidence for Six-day Creation and against the Framework Hypothesis. Strong presentation and rebuttal to the Framework Hypothesis, while demonstrating and defending the Six-day Creation interpretation.

See more study materials at: www.KennethGentry.com

This whole cursing of the fig tree episode is surprising as we may discern from Mark’s version. Mark specifically notes that “when He came to it, He found nothing but leaves, for it was not the season for figs” (Mark 11:13). This alerts us to the fact that Jesus’ desire was not actually to find food. Rather, he was making a dramatic point about Israel’s fruitlessness and her coming judgment. The Lord frequently states in his ministry: “He who has ears, let him hear” (Matt. 11:15; 13:9, 43). His disciples must carefully consider what he is doing here — not long after denouncing the temple and all of its worshipers (21:12–13). Before long he will give a parable about how Israel was nurtured by God but failed to produce fruit (see below at 21:33–45) and how God will take the kingdom from her and give it “to a nation producing the fruit of it” (21:43).

The use of this proverbial saying about casting a mountain into the sea probably refers to the destruction of the temple. Several commentators apply the parallel account in Mark 11:23 to the destruction of the temple. Hooker notes that this mountain “may well have been understood by Mark as a reference to the temple mount…. Mark has here reminded us that the withered fig tree and the action in the temple have the same significance.” [9] Gray agrees: “Just as the withered tree was a symbol of the temple’s fate, so too the mountain cast into the sea reaffirms Jesus’ condemnation of the temple.” [10] Wright well notes that “anyone using this language while standing in the vicinity of the Mount of Olives and looking towards the city could only mean one thing, especially in the first century,” i.e. the temple mount. [11]

Speaking directly of Matthew’s version, Brown comments: “That this story of the fig tree points back to Jesus’ judgment upon the temple is confirmed by this reference to a mountain. As they return to Jerusalem from Bethany, the obvious referent of ‘this mountain’ would be the Temple Mount itself, further underscoring its coming judgment.” [12] Blomberg agrees: “As Jesus and company were traveling from Bethany to Jerusalem, they would be facing Mount Zion, the temple mount. Jesus’ community will therefore see the overthrow of the temple — physically in A.D. 70 and spiritually with Jesus’ death and resurrection in just a few days…. It is almost certainly correct to see in this passage a foreshadowing of the destruction of the sacrificial system in Israel.” [13] See also W. R. Telford.[14]

Covenantal Theonomy
(by Ken Gentry)
A defense of theonomic ethics against a leading Reformed critic. Engages many of the leading objections to theonomy.
See more study materials at: www.KennethGentry.com

Though Scripture can speak proverbially of moving mountains (Isa. 40:4; 45:2; 49:11; Zech. 4:7), here in Jerusalem Jesus is being more specific for he is referring to “this mountain [Gk., to orei touto]” (Matt. 21:21).

After this, Matthew records a series of parables and vigorous dialogues between Jesus and Israel’s religious authorities: the chief priests (Matt. 21:15, 23, 45), scribes (21:15; 23:2, 13ff), elders (21:23), Pharisees (21:45; 22:41; 23:13ff), Herodians (22:15–16), and the Sadducees (22:23– 24). His three warning parables in 21:28–22:14 clearly show his denunciation of Israel’s leaders and their coming judgment.

In Matthew 21:28–32 we read the parable of the two sons. This parable sets up a demeaning contrast between the religious leaders and the outcasts of Jewish society. The first son represents the religious authorities who claim to be obedient to the father but who are not (v. 30). The second son represents “the tax-gatherers and harlots” (v. 31) who will enter God’s kingdom before “you,” i.e., the chief priests (vv. 31–32, cp. v. 23). Once again Jesus highlights the failure of Israel’s leaders (cp. 3:7–10; 12:38–42; 15:1–7).

In Matthew 21:33–45 Jesus presents the parable of the landowner. In this parable the landowner obviously represents God, and his vineyard pictures Israel (Isa. 5:7; cp. Isa. 5:1ff; Psa. 80:8; Jer. 12:10). The “tower” points to the temple, in both Isaiah 5:2 and Matthew 21:33 (cp. Mic. 4:8). The landowner carefully prepares his vineyard, then rents it out to vine-growers (Israel’s leaders) expecting to receive its produce (its fruit).

The Reformed Eschatology of Geerhardus Vos
Ed. by Ken Gentry and Bill Boney
This collection of several key eschatological studies by the renowned theologian Geehardus Vos will be published in late Summer or early Fall 2024. We have modernized Vos’ grammar and syntax and updated his publications according to modern style conventions (shorter sentences and paragraphs).

For information on the upcoming Geerhardus Vos work, see:
https://axeheadpress.com/pages/coming-soon-vos

When the time for its harvest comes, the owner sends his “slaves” (Gk.: doulos) to receive his produce. These represent the prophets who are called God’s douloi (“servants”) in the Old Testament (1 Kgs. 18:13, 22–27; 2 Chr. 24:21; 36:15–16; Neh. 9:26; Amos 3:7; Zech. 1:6). But the vine-growers kill them. Then he sends his son, only to have the vine-growers kill him. [15] This indisputably speaks of the religious authorities of Israel killing Jesus (cp. Matt. 16:21; 20:18) for at the end, Matthew informs us: “And when the chief priests and the Pharisees heard His parables, they understood that He was speaking about them” (21:45).

Charismatic Gift of Prophecy
(by Kenneth Gentry)

A rebuttal to charismatic arguments for the gift of prophecy continuing in the church today. Demonstrates that all revelatory gifts have ceased as of the conclusion of the Apostolic era.

See more study materials at: www.KennethGentry.com

According to Jesus’ own interpretation this shows that God will take his kingdom from the Jews, resulting in their being crushed:

“Therefore I say to you, the kingdom of God will be taken away from you, and be given to a nation producing the fruit of it. And he who falls on this stone will be broken to pieces; but on whomever it falls, it will scatter him like dust.” And when the chief priests and the Pharisees heard His parables, they understood that He was speaking about them. (Matt. 21:43–45)

This is all based on the theological fact that God owns “the Land” (Lev. 25:23) and dwells therein (Num. 35:34; cp. Num. 5:3).[16] Because of God’s ultimate ownership, “land and righteousness are inextricably linked.” [17] Thus, when Israel rebels against God, her beloved Land will be judged (Lev. 20:22–26; 26:14–43; Deut. 4:25–27; 28:15–68). God will take the kingdom from Israel and give it to “a nation” that will produce fruit. The word for “nation” is singular, not plural. It speaks of a new “holy nation” (1 Pet. 2:9), the international church which Jesus establishes (Matt. 16:18). As France puts it: “This ‘nation’ is neither Israel nor the Gentiles, but a new entity, drawn from both, which is characterized not by ethnic origin but by faith in Jesus,” i.e., the church, the body of Christ (Eph. 2:11–22).[18]

Notes

1. France, Matthew (NICNT), 886

2. France, Matthew (TNTC), 786.

3. See Old Testament examples of prophetic theater: Isa. 20; Jer 13:1–11; 19; 27:1–15; 32; 43:8-13; Eze. 4:1-3; 4:4–8; 4:9–17; 5:1–54; 12:1–16; 12:17–20; 37:15–28.

4. Nolland, Matthew, 844.

5. Chris Wright in Peter W. L. Walker, ed., Jerusalem Past and Present in the Purposes of God (2d ed.: Grand Rapids: Baker, 1994), 11. N. T. Wright in Borg, Conflict and Holiness, xvi.

6. Oftentimes when Old Testament prophecies are cited in the New Testament they are evoking the whole original context. This interpretive practice is called metalepsis. In antiquity the Scriptures were not divided into chapters and verses, so that metalepsis was the means whereby a writer could point readers to the fuller contexts of a passage.

7. France, Matthew (NICNT), 792. See also: Witherington, Mark, 351; Jordan, Matthew 23–25, 185.

8. France, Matthew (NICNT), 794.

9. Morna D. Hooker, Gospel according to St. Mark (BNTC) (Peabody, Mass.: Hendrickson, 1991), 269.

10. Timothy C. Gray, The Temple in the Gospel of Mark: A Study in Its Narrative Role (Grand Rapids: BakerAcademic, 2010), 52.

11. Tom Wright in Peter W. L. Walker, ed.. Jerusalem Past and Present in the Purposes of God (Grand Rapids: Baker, 1994), 63.

12. Brown, Matthew, 247.

13. Craig L. Blomberg, Matthew (NAC) (Nashville: B & H, 1992), 318.

14. W. R. Telford, The Barren Temple and the Withered Tree (Sheffield: JSOT, 1980), 238–39.

15. Israel is notorious for killing her prophets: 1 Kgs. 18:13; 19:1, 10, 14; 2 Chr. 24:19–21; Neh. 9:26; Jer. 2:30; 26:20–24; Matt. 5:12; 21:35–36; 23:37; Luke 11:47; 13:33; Acts 7:52; Rom. 11:3; 1 Thess. 2:15; Heb. 11:36–37.

16. Since God ultimately owns the land, the Israelites dwell in it as resident aliens or sojourners (1 Chron. 29:15; Psa. 39:12; Heb. 11:13).

17. Gary M. Burge, Jesus and the Land: The New Testament Challenge to “Holy Land” Theology (Grand Rapids: Baker: 2010), 6.

18. France, Matthew (NICNT), 817. See also Craig A Evans, Matthew (NCBC) (Cambridge: University Press, 2012), 375.