Gospel according to Saint Matthew, commented on verse by verse

Chapter 21

has. Preparations for triumph, vv. 1-6.

Mt21.¹ When they approached Jerusalem and arrived at Bethphage, near the Mount of Olives, Jesus sent two of his disciples, – We will discuss a little later, in 26, 2, the main chronological data of the Gospel relating to the Passion, and we will then be able to establish with full knowledge the date of the most important events. In the meantime, we will accept as an indisputable point the ecclesiastical tradition according to which the solemn entry of the Savior into Jerusalem took place on the Sunday immediately preceding Passover, that is to say, the 10th of the month of Nisan (April 2nd in the year 782 of Rome). When they approachedTo get from Jericho to Bethphage, Jesus had to cross for several hours one of the wildest regions of Palestine: one of the most beautiful parables The divine Master, cf. Luke 10:25 ff., will provide us with the opportunity to describe it. Beth-Phaghe, House of Figs in Hebrew. It was a small village, or even probably just a hamlet of a few houses, located on the road from Jericho to Jerusalem. It was a short distance from Bethany (see Mark 11:1; Luke 19:29), but the exact direction is unknown. The traditional location shown to pilgrims, west of Bethany and about ten minutes away, seems to offer the strongest guarantees of authenticity (see Schegg, Gedenkbuch einer Pilgerreise, vol. 1, p. 361 ff.; Sepp; Jerusalem, vol. 1, p. 579 ff.). Moreover, it corresponds very well to the information provided by St. Matthew, for it is located near the Mount of Olives, on the eastern slope of that famous mountain which we must describe here in a few words. It rises to the east of the holy city, from which it is separated only by the deep valley of the Kidron Valley. Its name, cf. Zechariah 14:4, comes from the many olive trees that once covered, and still partly cover, its slopes. It rises scarcely more than three hundred feet above Mount Zion, although its actual altitude is 2,724 feet above sea level. It has three rounded peaks which bear, in a north-south direction, the following names: "Men of Galilee," Mount of the Ascension, and Mount of Scandal. The central peak is the highest of the three. While the western slope descends steeply to the bed of the Kidron, the eastern slope barely rises above the high, solitary plateau on which the villages of Bethany and Bethphage once stood. The admirable view enjoyed from the top of the Mount of Olives has been praised by all travelers. To the West, Jerusalem with its churches, mosques, streets, gardens, ruins and its admirable ring of crenellated walls; to the North, the heights of Samaria which rise gradually; to the South, the mountains of Judah as far as Hebron; to the East, deep and wild valleys, which wind through bare rocks, thrown pell-mell one on top of the other, then in the distance the Dead Sea with its azure colors, behind which rises like a gigantic wall the long chain of the mountains of Moab: all this forms a moving perspective that the eye never tires of savoring (cf. Schegg, loc. cit., p. 362 et seq.). But the heart is even more moved than the eyes when it thinks of the long and frequent stays that Jesus made on the Mount of Olives during the last days of his life. Jesus sentOne might suppose, based on the account in the three Synoptic Gospels, that the solemn entry of Jesus Christ into Jerusalem took place on the same day as his departure from Jericho (cf. 20:29 ff.). But the fourth evangelist tells us that at least a day passed (cf. John 12:2) between these two events, Jesus having stayed for twenty-four hours, perhaps even thirty-six hours, in Bethany at the house of Saint Lazarus and his sisters Martha and MarriedMatthew also recounts this stay (26:6 ff.), but a little later and without regard to chronological order, because he is eager at the moment to introduce Jesus as the Messiah into the Jewish capital and the temple. Two of his disciples. «Who were these two disciples,» said Maldonat with his usual reserve, “a prudent interpreter need not seek to know, a prudent reader should prefer to ignore it, since the evangelists did not specify. They certainly would have done so if they had judged that it was in our interest to know.” The ancients had ventured all sorts of contradictory hypotheses on this point, which are pointless to dwell on.

Mt21.² saying to them, «Go to the village ahead of you, you will immediately find a donkey tied up and a colt with her, untie them, and bring them to me. – By telling them. The triumphant one himself gives orders to organize his next triumph: he does so with the dignity of a prophet and a God-Man. For a triumphal entry into Jerusalem from the east, no location was more suitable as a starting point than Bethphage: it is therefore in the vicinity of this hamlet that Jesus entrusts the following mission to his two messengers. In the village that is in front of you, that is, right in front of you. As he said this, Jesus pointed to the two or three tenant farms that made up Bethphage. He then told the disciples that at the very entrance to the hamlet, right away, They would find a donkey tied up, and her colt beside her. This is how he encompassed even the smallest details in his prediction (cf. Mark 11:2; Luke 19:30). But why these animals? The answer is simple. The Savior wants to enter Jerusalem like a victorious king; for this, he needs a mount, for it would not be fitting for a triumphant figure to advance on foot, lost in the midst of the crowd. It is therefore the mount of his triumph that Jesus Christ sends for. Untie them and bring them to me. Jesus presents himself as the Messiah and with all the authority of this divine figure: everything belongs to him as the supreme leader of the Jewish people; he therefore has the right to requisition everything in his path. It is by virtue of this indisputable right that he disposes of the donkey and the colt as if they were his masters.

Mt21.³ And if anyone says anything to you, reply that the Lord needs them, and they will be let go immediately.» – And if we tell you…The hypothesis was very plausible; it was indeed borne out according to the parallel passages in St. Mark and St. Luke: it was therefore appropriate to warn the disciples to avoid any embarrassment for them. Does that ring a bell?, They may ask you to justify the liberty you are taking, or complain about a course of action that could cast doubt on your honor. In that case, they will simply reply that "the Master needs it." The Lord. Mr. Alford is of the opinion that this expression is synonymous with "God" in this passage; others translate it as King-Messiah. It certainly refers to Jesus Christ as the Lord par excellence, the true king of Israel, of whom all the Jews, with their possessions, were the complete property. We'll let them go right now.. There is something mysterious in this last explanation of the Savior, reminiscent of a similar communication we will soon come to (cf. 26:18). But we will be careful not to suppose, following several exegetes, that the divine Master had friends at Bethphage with whom he had planned this whole scene in advance. No, there had been no prior arrangement whatsoever; on Jesus' part, everything took place by virtue of a prophetic foreknowledge, similar to that which Samuel had shown concerning Saul (cf. 1 Samuel 10:2-7), though far superior, since the Savior is God.

Mt21.⁴ And this happened, so that the word of the prophet might be fulfilled: – But this. St. Matthew here makes a profound reflection, to show how this act of Jesus was connected to the divine plan concerning the Messiah. By sending the two disciples to Bethphage to carry out the mission detailed in verses 2 and 3, Our Lord intended, as in other similar circumstances, to fulfill a prophecy of the Old Testament. Everything that had been foretold about him by the prophets constantly hovered before his mind, and he fulfilled, at the hour ordained by Providence, even the most minute details. So that it may be accomplished. See 1, 22 and the explanation. We again protest against the "consecutive meaning" that Maldonat constantly attributes to this formula. By the prophet. See Zechariah 9:9.

Mt21.⁵ «Tell the daughter of Zion, »See, your king is coming to you, gentle and seated on a donkey, on a colt, the foal of her who bears the yoke.’” – Tell the daughter of Zion. These opening words of the text are not from Zechariah at all: they are from Isaiah 62:11, from which the evangelist, quoting from memory, perhaps unknowingly borrowed them. Moreover, Zechariah's prophecy also opened with a similar introduction: "Rejoice, Daughter of Zion! Shout, Daughter of Jerusalem! Here is your king, etc…" The change is insignificant and easily explained by the similarity of the expressions. Zion is the highest of the hills on which Jerusalem was built: the daughter of Zion is therefore, by correspondence between literal and figurative terms, the Jewish capital itself. Cities are frequently called the daughters of the places on which they stand in the East. It can also be said that the word "daughter" here designates collectively all the inhabitants of Jerusalem, represented in the figure of a virgin. Here is This particle attracts attention; it announces a remarkable, important fact. Your king, the king par excellence and at the same time the king of Jerusalem. It belongs to him insofar as it is the metropolis of the messianic kingdom, insofar as it has been specially promised to him. Come to youA new emphasis is placed on the pronoun: he belongs to you and it is for you that he comes, for you are the residence he has chosen and which he wishes to take possession of. – In this entrance of the Messiah-King, everything foreshadows peaceThe prophet is careful to highlight this peaceful aspect of Christ's triumph through two particular circumstances. 1. His character is kindness even, It is full of sweetness He presents himself to save, not to destroy; justice accompanies him: violent conquests are far from him! This is what the complete text of Zechariah says: «He comes to you as a righteous man and a savior; and he is poor.» The word that St. Jerome translates as «poor» has rather the meaning of «gentle» in this passage. As can be seen from several ancient versions (70, Chaldean, etc.) to which St. Matthew conformed, and from the interpretations of the Jewish commentators. 2. Christ’s mount has nothing to do with warlike intentions., mounted on a donkey."He will not make this entry mounted on a magnificent chariot like kings, he will not impose tributes, he will not demand taxes, he will not be proud and arrogant. He will not be feared by the large number of guards who accompany him; but he will show in all things gentleness and a humility "All divine. Let the Jews be asked what other king than Jesus ever entered Jerusalem riding on a donkey?" St. John Chrysostom, Hom. 66 in Matthew. Since the Hebrew name and its Greek equivalent are of both genders, it would be possible, according to a fairly large number of interpreters, that the following words, and on the donkey of the one who bears the yoke, Were these expressions synonymous with "donkey," we would have, in the original text of the prophecy, three parallel phrases to designate one and the same animal. In this case, the preposition "and" should be translated as "obviously, of course," since it would be explanatory and not copulative, as grammarians express themselves in their peculiar language. In support of this view, one cites, on the one hand, the poetic parallelism of the Hebrews, and on the other hand, the three other evangelists who mention only the donkey foal. But does it not, on the contrary, emerge from the very order given by Our Lord Jesus Christ, verse 2, with the intention of fulfilling the prophecy, and from the execution of this order, verse 7, that the Holy Spirit, in inspiring Zechariah, had two animals in mind? Why would Jesus have expressly commanded that the donkey and its mother be brought to him, and why would St. Matthew have added that he was acting in this way to fulfill an ancient prophecy, if that prophecy had spoken of only one animal? The child of the one who bears the yoke. Orientals readily accumulate synonyms, as can be seen from a similar example taken from the Targum: "on the lion's cub, son of the lioness." The phrase "who bears the yoke" is somewhat obscure: it is a literal translation of the Greek noun that St. Matthew borrowed from the Alexandrian version, where it is used more than twenty times as a synonym. It generally designates all beasts of burden. The Hebrew simply says: "son of the donkeys." Such, then, is the mount of Christ the Savior making his solemn entry into Jerusalem. The Jews have taken it as the subject of the most ridiculous legends, which are faithfully recorded in the Talmud. Sometimes it is King Shapur promising to send the Messiah a noble steed to replace this vile mount, and receiving from a rabbi this proud reply: "You have no horse with a hundred spots, like Christ's donkey." Sometimes it is the genealogy of this donkey, proving that it goes back in a direct line to those of Moses and Abraham, etc. A medieval rabbi, Emmanuel Ben-Salomo, fully immersed in rationalism, shows in a completely opposite way how much he had lost the theocratic spirit, when he dares, in one of his famous sonnets, to speak to the Messiah in the following terms: «If you can only make your appearance on such a miserable mount, I advise you to abandon the work of Redemption rather completely» cf. A. Geiger, Allg. Einleitung in die Wissenschaft des Judenthums, p. 132 and 214. – The Holy Fathers readily indulge, when they study this passage from the prophet Zechariah, in allegorical considerations: «One can also see in it a figure of speculation and practice, of science and works. This donkey, which had been tamed and which bore the yoke, represents the synagogue which had borne the yoke of the law, and the donkey's foal, the people of the fiery and untamed pagans; for, in God's plan, Judea was the mother of nations," St. Jerome in hl; likewise St. Justin, Origen, St. Cyril and later St. Thomas Aquinas and St. Bonaventure. 

Mt21.⁶ So the disciples went and did what Jesus had commanded them. – The disciples went. «Jesus knew what he wanted, which was the fulfillment of the prophecies; but a hidden power accomplished everything else… Thus, on this occasion, the donkey and the colt were found at just the right moment near the place where the famous entry was to take place,» Bossuet, Meditations, last week, 3rd day. Providence had prepared everything for the triumph of the Messiah, and the disciples carried out without difficulty the commission they had received.

b. The triumphant entry, vv. 7-11.

Mt21.⁷ They brought the donkey and the colt, put their cloaks on them, and made them sit on them. – The female donkey and the foal. The donkey was still untamed, as St. Mark 11:2 notes; its mother was brought with it to make it more docile, although she was not to be used as a mount by Jesus. Cf. Mark 11:7; Luke 19:35; John 12:14. They put their coats on top…as they returned to their Master, the two disciples spread over the backs of the donkey and the colt, in place of saddles or rather covers in the Eastern style, those large cloaks that the Hebrews always carried with them, and which could serve as blankets during the night if necessary; see the explanation of verse 40. And they made him sit there, That is to say, on their clothes. This is indeed the most natural explanation. However, some exegetes admit that the evangelist considered the two animals as a single unit, or that he meant that Jesus rode alternately on the donkey and the colt. This latter conjecture, adopted by several ancient writers, is completely implausible: Strauss's version, which has Our Lord riding "at the same time" on both animals to ridicule the Gospel, is unworthy of a sensible person. 

Mt21.⁸ The people in large numbers spread their cloaks along the road, others cut branches from trees and strewn them across the road. – All the preparations are complete, and the procession sets off, forming a glorious march; but in this triumphal procession there is nothing political or profane; on the contrary, the smallest details manifest a frankly religious character, the only one, moreover, worthy of the Messiah. The evangelist has lovingly described all the features of this unique scene. He shows us first the large crowd that thronged around Jesus, The people in great numbers They were Jews who had come from all over Palestine to Jerusalem to celebrate Passover; they had gone to meet Jesus in Bethany and they accompanied him to the temple amidst the most touching displays of their faith and love. He spread out his coats along the road… Those closest to the Savior took away their mehills, as the two disciples had done (v. 7), and spread them out in the middle of the road as he passed by, like carpets. This was a distinctly Eastern practice, traces of which we find as early as the time of Jehu (cf. 2 Kings 9:13). Dr. Robinson recounts that in 1834, the English consul in Damascus, having visited BethlehemThe inhabitants of this city, who had revolted against the Turks and feared the most terrible reprisals, went to meet him to implore his protection and spontaneously spread their garments under his horse's hooves; Palaestina, vol. 2, p. 383. We read in the Antiquities of the historian Josephus, 2.8, 5, that the Jews paid the same honor to Alexander the Great when he entered Jerusalem. Others were cutting..The road was lined all along with olive trees and other leafy trees, from which it was easy to remove a few branches without harming them: each person took a branch as a sign of joy. Leaves were also scattered under Jesus' feet, as we still do on Corpus Christi. The Jewish hero Judas Maccabeus was celebrated in the same way on the day he purified the temple after retaking it from the infidels. Cf. 2 Macc. 10:7.

Mt21.⁹ And all these people, in front of Jesus and behind him, shouted: «Hosanna to the Son of David! Blessed is he who comes in the name of the Lord! Hosanna in the highest heaven!» – After the deeds come the words. The procession was silent for a while; but soon, «when he was approaching the descent from the Mount of Olives, all the crowds of disciples began to rejoice and praise God with loud voices for all the wonders they had seen» (Luke 19:37). A twofold event suddenly ignited their enthusiasm. At the very spot indicated by St. Luke, the holy city suddenly appeared in all its magnificence, and before it rose the dazzlingly splendid temple (cf. 24:1 and the commentary). At the sight of the Messiah's capital, at the sight of his palace to which he was being led, the crowd could not contain itself and freely gave itself over to its joyful rapture. On the other hand, it was probably there that a second procession, which had set out from Jerusalem to meet the Savior, joined the procession coming from Bethphage (see John 12:17). When these two crowds arrived facing each other, lovingly surrounding Jesus in their midst, joy reached its peak and cries of blessing burst forth from every heart. In front of Jesus and behind him These words undoubtedly refer to the two distinct crowds we have just mentioned, which met on the summit of the Mount of Olives. HosannaIt is interesting to note the reflections inspired by this Jewish expression in two of the most celebrated Fathers of the Latin Church. St. Augustine, who did not know Hebrew, gives the following interpretation, a mixture of truth and falsehood: “Hosanna… is an exclamation of prayer; it indicates a feeling rather than a precise thing: such are the words which, in the Latin language, are called interjections: for example, in sorrow, we say: alas! or in joy we say: oh! The most learned Hebraist of antiquity, St. Jerome, comes closer to the truth when he thus determines the etymology and meaning of the word Hosanna: "'Osi' means Save ; 'Anna' is the exclamation of the person praying. If one wishes to form a single word, one would say 'Osianna' or, by omitting the middle vowel, Osanna," letter ad Damascus. The original pronunciation of this Hebrew phrase was Hoschiah-Na; later it was written Hoschah-Na as an abbreviation, then Hoschahna as one word, from which we derived Hosanna, following the Greeks and Latins. Its roots were the verb "to save." It means: "Save us!" as the Septuagint translates it. It was therefore an ardent and faith-filled prayer that seems to have later transformed into a cry of joy, a wish for happiness. The Jews repeated it thousands of times at the Feast of Tabernacles, waving palm branches they held in their hands and processing around the altar of burnt offerings. It is therefore understandable that, in the present circumstances, the phrase spontaneously arose on everyone's lips in honor of the Messiah, whom the crowd calls by his popular name, Son of David. The entire phrase "Hosanna to the Son of David" means: Save the Son of David, that is to say: Lord, bless the Messiah! Blessed is he who comes!. After the prayer for Christ comes a greeting to Christ: may he be welcome in his city, in his temple! In the name of the Lord, In the name of God, endowed with a truly divine mission, Zerubbabel, entering the Second Temple after the Babylonian captivity, was greeted with similar acclamations. – The phrase «Blessed is he who comes in the name of the Lord» is borrowed from Psalm 117, verse 26, which also played a major role in the liturgy of the Feast of Tabernacles: the inhabitants of Jerusalem, it is said, sang this verse upon the arrival of pilgrims to greet them. But who better than Jesus has deserved to be called the Welcome One? Hosanna in the highest heavens. With this new formula, the people prayed to the Lord, whose throne is in the highest heavens, to ratify in his glorious abode the wishes for happiness they held for the Messiah. And so Jesus was publicly acclaimed in Jerusalem as the Christ by an innumerable multitude, and he accepted these popular homages, he who for so long had refused them, silencing those who offered them to him before the hour ordained by his Father.

Mt21.¹⁰ When he entered Jerusalem, the whole city was in an uproar, people were saying, "Who is it?"« Verses 10 and 11 describe the effect produced within the city by this triumphal entry. After slowly skirting the western slope of the Mount of Olives and crossing the Kidron Valley, the procession enters the holy city and heads towards the temple. The whole city was in turmoil. Thirty-three years earlier, Jerusalem had already been troubled on the occasion of Jesus, Cf. 2, 3: but then it was only foreign princes who announced his birth, while today he comes in person to the capital of the theocratic kingdom. In a state of shock : a violent agitation. A thousand feelings, loveHatred, fear, hope, and doubt intertwined in the hearts of these men, who had come from all corners of the world for the Easter solemnity, and who had so ardently awaited their Messiah. Who is it, asked the foreigners who did not know Jesus, or who at least had not been able to catch a glimpse of him in the midst of such a considerable crowd.

Mt21.¹¹ And the people answered, "This is Jesus the prophet, from Nazareth in Galilee."« – The peopleSt. Matthew thus designates the multitudes who had taken part in the triumphal procession. They readily give the information requested of them. The one whom we accompany in triumph, as the promised Christ, is Jesus, the prophet of Nazareth in Galilee. We simply mention his name, his homeland, and the title that the people usually conferred upon him: this was sufficient, for his miracles and his preaching were known to most. – Such was the triumph of Our Lord Jesus Christ. “In the other entrances, the people are ordered to adorn the streets, and joy It is, so to speak, commanded. Here, everything is done solely through the rapture of the people. Nothing outwardly struck the eye: this poor and gentle king was mounted on a donkey, a humble and peaceful steed; it was not those spirited horses, tied to a chariot, whose pride attracted attention. One saw neither partisans, nor guards, nor the image of the vanquished cities, nor their spoils or their captive kings. The palm branches carried before him marked other victories; all the trappings of ordinary triumphs were banished from this one… The Savior is led with this sacred pomp through the heart of Jerusalem to the Temple Mount. There he appears as the Savior and as the Master, as the Son of the house, the Son of God whom they serve there. Neither Solomon, who founded it, nor the pontiffs who officiated there with such splendor, had ever received such honors,” Bossuet, Meditations, The Last Week, Day 1. – It has been noted that the Savior's entry into Jerusalem took place on the tenth of the month of Nisan, that is, on the very day when the Passover lamb was to be chosen and set apart until the hour of sacrifice. Cf. Exodus 12:3, 6. Jesus, the true Passover lamb, who would soon make all other victims obsolete, was thus led, at the hour fixed by Moses, to the place of his immolation. Therefore, his triumph has rightly been called a sacrificial procession; we can thus, without error, regard this solemnity as the beginning of his suffering life. – The entry of Jesus into Jerusalem was worthily celebrated by the brushes of Le Brun and Jos. Fuhrich.

Vendors driven from the temple, 21, 12-17. Parallel. Mark. 11, 15-19; Luke. 19, 45-48.

Mt21.¹² When Jesus entered the temple, he drove out all those who were buying and selling there, overturning the tables of the money changers and the seats of those selling doves., – Jesus having enteredWe must first answer two preliminary questions: 1. Does this expulsion of the merchants differ from that which the Evangelist St. John recounts almost at the beginning of the Public Life of Our Lord, 2:13 ff.? 2. Did it take place on the very day of the solemn entry into Jerusalem, or only the following day? – On the first point, our answer will be frankly affirmative. We will distinguish, with most exegetes, two purifications of the temple, quite distinct from one another and separated by an interval of about thirty months. – The expulsion of the merchants in the fourth Gospel should not be confused with that which the Synoptic Gospels relate. Cf. John 2, 14-22; Matthew 21:12 ff.; Mark 11:15 ff.; Luke 19:45-46. Undoubtedly, it has sometimes been suggested in Protestant and rationalist circles (Lücke, de Wette, Strauss, von Ammon, etc.) that the two scenes be identified. We are told that St. John took the liberty of placing at the beginning of Jesus' public life, as if it were a program for his hero, what in reality only took place in his last days; or else, this transposition is attributed to the Synoptic Gospels. But such an opinion is absolutely inadmissible. Indeed: 1) sacred writers never take such strange liberties with the facts they recount; 2° They very clearly establish the dates on both sides: if there is an identity, either St. John or the Synoptic Gospels were mistaken; but we cannot admit an error of this kind; 3° Each of the accounts, despite common points, has its individual character and presents important differences: notably, with regard to the words of Jesus, the use of the whip, the immediate consequences of the act; 4° Tradition has always distinguished two events (Cf. St. Augustine, De Cons. Evang., 2, 67); 5° Finally, the repetition of the same incident is not impossible, neither on the part of the Jews who, once the initial shock had subsided, quickly resumed their sad habits, nor on the part of Our Lord, who wished to mark the beginning and end of his ministry with this act of zeal, while tolerating the abuse during the intermediate stays he made in Jerusalem. The first and last act of Jesus Christ's public ministry during his mortal life was therefore to purify the temple, desecrated by the Jews and turned into a vile "market." The Messiah's role could not have begun or ended better. – Regarding the second question, we will abandon the chronology of St. Matthew and follow that of St. Mark, which is much more accurate. The first evangelist seems to assume that the expulsion of the merchants immediately followed Jesus' entry into Jerusalem and the temple (cf. vv. 1, 10, 12 ff.); likewise St. Luke, 19, 29, 41, 45 ff.); but St. Mark states explicitly that it took place only the following day, that is, on Holy Monday. Here, according to his account, is the very precise order of events. The triumph ends under the porticoes of the temple, where Jesus is led by the crowd. There, Our Lord examines everything (“He looked around at everything,” Mark 11:11) like a king newly ushered into his palace. But it is late, and the divine Master returns to Bethany with the Twelve. The next morning, he and his disciples set out again for Jerusalem and, after cursing the barren fig tree, he enters the temple once more, this time to make it disappear abuses which he had noticed the day before, and to drive out the vendors without mercy (Mark 11:11, 12, 15, ff.). St. Matthew thus grouped the events according to a logical order, as in several other places in his Gospel. We will soon have another example of the liberty he takes with regard to dates. Inside the temple. It was customary, even among pagan peoples, to conclude triumphs in a temple, in order to attribute all glory to the divine. Jesus had a special reason for conforming to this custom. He had just been led triumphantly into Jerusalem as the Messiah; but the Messiah had a fundamentally religious role, and, as such, the temple was his usual residence: it was therefore in the temple that his glorious procession had to end. We now turn to Holy Monday. He chased away all those who were selling..The Rabbis often speak of this trade, the origins of which probably date back to the end of the Babylonian captivity. Many Jews came from the most distant lands to celebrate the holy days of obligation in Jerusalem; they therefore needed to be able to obtain, in the vicinity of the Temple, the sacrificial animals, salt, wine, flour, oil, incense, and other items necessary for the sacrifice. But the priests, forgetting the most basic laws of respect for sacred places, had established shops and a large livestock market within the Temple precinct itself. In the temple, That is to say, in the gigantic courtyard called the Court of the Gentiles (the non-Jews: the pagans), because pagans were allowed to enter it. Thousands of oxen and sheep were found there; and it is easy to understand the noise and scandals that such a gathering must have caused. Jesus, indignant, drove out both men and beasts, buyers and sellers. The money changers' tables. We have seen (cf. 17:24) that every Israelite had to pay the annual temple tax, which consisted of half a shekel. Foreigners took advantage of their trip to Jerusalem for the festivals to pay it. But, since only the sacred and national currency was accepted, money changers were also allowed to set up shop under the temple courts. For a rather considerable fee levied on Greek and Roman coins, they supplied anyone who came along with the half-shekel required for worship. From this comes the name of Kolboz, given in rabbinic language to the usurious profit they derived from their trade. The seats of those who sold the doves. Doves were the sacrifice of the poor; a great many were sacrificed every day. The merchants who sold them kept them in cages displayed on tables, and they themselves sat opposite them on seats that the evangelist here calls seats, Although this name usually refers to the chairs of the Doctors in the New Testament, Jesus mercilessly overturns the tables of the money changers, along with the gold and silver on them, and the trestles of the dove sellers. What a singular scene must have ensued! The great masters of various schools of painting, including Jouvenet (in the Lyon museum), Panini, Rembrandt, Albrecht Dürer, Bonifazio, and others, delighted in depicting it.

Mt21.¹³ and said to them, «It is written: »My house shall be called a house of prayer,’ but you have made it a den of robbers.” – And he said to themThe divine Master adds words to actions to condemn abuses which we have just described. His holy zeal draws from him powerful expressions, which he borrows from the prophetic books to imbue them with even greater force. It is written : in Isaiah 56:7 and Jeremiah 7:11. The Savior unites the two texts into one. «My house will be called a house of prayer for all peoples,» God said through Isaiah. He asked his unfaithful people, on the contrary, through Jeremiah: «Is this house, which bears my name, a den of robbers in your eyes?» By means of a slight modification, Jesus produces a striking contrast and shows the astonished audience that they themselves (YOU(with emphasis), by his unworthy conduct, transformed the holiest place in the world, the house of the true God, into a den of brigands. Indeed, where only prayer should be heard, was one not deafened all day long by the cries of merchants, the quarrels of speculators, and the lowing of flocks? Was not the spectacle one beholden there like that which one might see in a cave where thieves fight over the goods they have hoarded there? Noble conduct, truly worthy of the Messiah! Thus, although they were perhaps a hundred against one, the merchants did not dare resist Jesus. Does this mean, as Origen thought, that Our Lord reduced his adversaries to impotence by resorting to his power as a Thaumaturgist? Such a conjecture is entirely useless; For this is not the only time we have seen an energetic man stand up to hostile crowds and manipulate them at will. And in Jesus there was more than moral strength. “Doubtless, a heavenly fire shone from his eyes, and the splendor of divine majesty shone on his face,” St. Jerome. – Mr. Schegg makes a very accurate observation here: that the last days spent by Jesus Christ in the Jewish capital were days of judgment and holy wrath against the Jewish people. “We find this judicial and terrible character in everything the Savior does and says from that moment until his death: in the curse of the fig tree, in the prophecy concerning the ruin of Jerusalem, the ‘Woe’s’ pronounced against the Pharisees and the Scribes, even in the parablesHe came to judge; his role as shepherd was over; both pastoral staffs were broken. He broke the staff of Amity at the Temple gate when he expelled the buyers and sellers; he broke the staff of Covenant when the Sanhedrin counted out to Judas the thirty pieces of silver for his betrayal (see Zechariah 11:7-14).

Mt21.¹⁴ Blind and lame people came to him in the temple, and he healed them. – To the preceding episode, St. Matthew connects, in verses 14-17, various secondary events that took place in the Temple immediately after the main scene. They came to him… «The new king first purified his palace anew, then he sat upon his throne. He then distributed his gifts to his people with royal munificence, thus doing a thing worthy of the place where he is. He confirms by heavenly signs the praise of the multitude, and demonstrates that to him truly belongs the right and the honor of the Messiah, to whom the prophets attributed signs of this kind, Isaiah 35:5-6,» Luke of Bruges. Blind and lame people, Jesus' usual entourage, always treated with such great kindness by the divine Master! And he healed them. He thus transformed the Temple into a sanctuary of mercy and salvation, while his compatriots turned it into a den of bandits.

Mt21.¹⁵ But the Princes of the priests and the Scribes, seeing miracles that he was doing, and the children who were shouting in the temple and saying, "Hosanna to the son of David," were indignant, – The princes of the priests, That is, the heads of the twenty-four priestly families, or at least some of them. Several Doctors of the Law accompany them. They are evidently offended by the conduct Jesus had displayed in the Temple, of which they were appointed guardians (cf. v. 23), for it contained a harsh lesson for them. Miracles, This expression, according to the context, refers both to the purification of the Temple and the miraculous healings mentioned in the preceding verse. And the children who were shouting…A delightful detail preserved only by the first evangelist. Little children—found wherever there is a crowd—also gathered around Jesus. They were in the front row when he healed the blind and the lame ; Overjoyed, they began to repeat at the top of their lungs the cheers they had heard the day before. This echo of the triumphant Hosanna must have been very sweet to the heart of Jesus! – But what a hideous contrast! were indignant These fresh and pure voices praising their greatest enemy are unbearable to the priests. In order to stifle them, they will hypocritically feign zeal for the glory of God and for the rights of the Messiah.

Mt21.¹⁶ And they said to him, «Do you hear what they are saying?» “Yes,” Jesus replied, “have you never read: ‘From the lips of children and infants you have prepared a hymn of praise for yourselves’?” – Addressing Jesus, they asked him: Do you hear?…? That is a clear reproach from them. Don't you see that their exclamations mean that you are the Christ? How then can you bear them? Impose silence on them. – Jesus does not misunderstand their intentions; but, disregarding them entirely, he increases the torment of these envious people even more by the composure and wisdom of his reply. Yes. Yes, no doubt, I hear what they're saying; but why should I silence them? And then he proves, with an inspired speech, that they are perfectly right. Have you ever read Cf. 12, 5, etc. Jesus considers these children as a choir of unconscious prophets, but who speak under divine inspiration, and this is precisely the meaning of the beautiful passage borrowed from Psalm 8, v. 3. From the mouths of children…That is to say, God is praised and glorified by what is smallest and humblest. Jesus applies to himself this text that the Psalmist initially addressed to God; but it is generally accepted that Psalm 8 is messianic, at least indirectly. It is very often quoted in the writings of the New Testament (cf. 1 Corinthians 15:17; Ephesians 1:12; Hebrews 2:6, etc.). – So here are the children blessing Our Lord, while the priests and teachers hurl insults at him. Nevertheless, after this skillful response, the Savior's enemies are confounded, and they have no reply to offer him.

Mt21.¹⁷ And having left them there, he went out of the city and headed towards Bethany, where he spent the night in the open air. Jesus turned his back on these unbelievers and, leaving the city, climbed the Mount of Olives to spend the night in his favorite retreat., in Bethany, at fifteen stades (cf. John 11:18), that is, about three-quarters of an hour from Jerusalem. We will describe this hospitable village elsewhere. See the commentary on Luke 10:3.

2. – The cursed fig tree, 21, 18-22. Parallel. Mark. 11, 12-14, 20-24.

Mt21.¹⁸ The next morning, as he was returning to the city, he was hungry. – The day after. According to St. Mark's account (see the explanation of verse 12), the narrative of this event must be divided into two acts. The first act took place on Monday morning, before the expulsion of the vendors: it corresponds to verses 18-19. The second act, verses 20-22, occurred only on Tuesday of Holy Week, when Jesus came to Jerusalem for the third time since the episode at Jericho, verses 20, 29 ff. He was hungry. Ancient commentators, following St. John Chrysostom, ask: «How could he have been hungry in the morning?» and they generally assume it was a feigned or miraculous hunger (compare Maldonatus, Corneille de Lapierre, etc.). But what would be the point of such a subterfuge? Had not Our Lord Jesus Christ adopted our nature with all its infirmities? And are not his fatigues of the preceding days sufficient to explain this morning hunger? In any case, it provides him with the opportunity to teach his apostles a lesson. 

Mt21.¹⁹ Seeing a fig tree by the roadside, he approached it, but found nothing but leaves on it, and he said to it, "May no fruit ever be born from you again." And at once the fig tree withered. – Seeing a fig tree. The fig tree, "Ficus carica" of Linnaeus, has always been one of the most common trees in Palestine, where it is readily cultivated because of its succulent fruit (cf. Deuteronomy 8:8). It was abundant in the vicinity of Jerusalem and particularly near Bethphage, the "house of figs" par excellence. Jesus, going from Bethany to the holy city, noticed one of these trees among all the others; this, as St. Mark tells us (12:13), was because it was already covered with leaves, an extraordinary circumstance for the season, and one that immediately attracted the attention of passersby. Near the path. Pliny reports in his Natural History, 15.17, that fig trees were often planted along roadsides because it was believed that their abundant sap was absorbed by the dust, thus halting the growth of vigorous branches and contributing to a superior quality of fruit. He approached it. Fritzsche, peculiar at times, interprets this otherwise perfectly clear phrase as "climbed the tree," as if the Greek preposition always expressed a truly ascending movement! Jesus thus approaches this tree hoping to find some figs to appease his hunger, but he found nothing, at least no fruit; for its foliage was luxuriant. A few details are necessary here so that we may fully understand the nature, if one can put it that way, of the fig tree's wrongdoing and the reason why it was cursed by Jesus, as if it were a moral agent. Let us first completely separate Christ's foresight from this fact. When he approaches the tree, he knows perfectly well that he will find only leaves; but he acts here as a man, and his omniscience is in no way called into question. It is known that the fig tree bears its fruit quite some time before producing leaves. «Its foliage appears later than its fruit,» Pliny, Natural History 16, 499; cf. Arnoldi, Palaestina, p. 64. But they are generally not ripe until August. However, there are also spring figs (the «ficus præcox» of Pliny, Natural History 15, 19; the Biccoura (of the Hebrews, the albacora of the Spanish) which ripen in June, sometimes in May and even in April, at Passover time, in the warm, sheltered ravines of the Mount of Olives. Finally, there is yet a third type of fig called the late fig, which often overwinters on the tree and can still be harvested in the spring. Thus, although it was not then the true fig season, Our Lord could seek and find either spring or late fruit; he could do so all the more easily because the tree to which he addressed himself was already covered in foliage, and thus displayed extraordinary precocity. May no fruit ever be born from you Such was the sentence pronounced by Jesus against this barren tree. It is punished not only because it is fruitless, but also and especially because, being ahead of the neighboring fig trees in terms of foliage, it ostentatiously proclaims that it surpasses them in fertility. It is important to note this fact for the explanation of the symbol. And at that moment the fig tree witheredThe sentence was fulfilled instantly; not that the tree was immediately dried out from top to bottom; but the sap ceased to rise and fall, gradually coagulating and no longer imparting life: the beautiful green leaves withered and fell back down the branches; then the sun, darting its rays upon them, scorched them completely. However, it took a good part of the day for these various phenomena to occur: they were not noticed immediately. – St. Hilary had already remarked that, among the Savior's many miracles, there is only one that has an appearance of harshness and that it takes place on a plant, not on a rational creature: "It is in this that we can find proof of his goodness." Indeed, when he wished to prove by example that he had come to save the world, he made the effects of his omnipotence felt in the bodies of men, thus establishing the hope of future blessings and the salvation of souls through the healing of the ills of this life; but now that he wishes to give an example of his severity against the obstinate rebels, it is by killing a tree that he gives us an image of future punishments. But why this miracle? Why strike down a tree thus, devoid of reason and responsibility? Did he simply intend, as has been said, to strengthen the faith of his disciples in view of the Passion? Did he want, as has also been said, to avert, by a manifestation of his divine power, the scandal that this anticipated hunger, which had forced him to seek his food like other men, might have caused them? These would, it must be admitted, be very strange motives indeed, and would have required miracles from the Savior at every turn during this last week. Everything becomes clear if we say, with Bossuet, in his Meditations, last week, 20th day, following Origen and St. Jerome: “It is a parable of things, similar to the parable of words found in St. Luke, chapter 13, verse 6,” and this parable, according to the same Fathers, concerned the Jewish synagogue, which, although it was then like a verdant tree, was nevertheless completely barren and devoid of the fruits of salvation. “This tree that he encounters on the road is the synagogue and the assemblies of the Jews… he found nothing there except leaves, rustling with promises, Pharisaic traditions, and displays of the Law, ornaments of words but without any fruit of truth,” St. Jerome, Comm. in hl; cf. St. Hilary, ib. How far ahead of other nations the Jewish people, filled with divine favor, must have been! What sweet hopes one should have conceived at the sight of their laws, their worship, their inspired writings! And yet the fruits were lacking: the divine agronomist therefore takes up the axe to strike them. Such is the meaning of the curse on the fig tree: it is a typical action, a prophetic symbol of the punishment reserved for the Jews in the near future. Several of Jesus' subsequent discourses (21:26-44; 22:1-14; 23:24-25) will be a fervent commentary on this act, which he performs with the holy anger of a sovereign judge. – However, a day will come, a day of repentance and conversion, when the withered tree will flourish again through a new effect of divine power. Romans 11, 25 and following; then the Jewish people will believe in Our Lord Jesus Christ, and through Him will bear abundant fruit which will merit their salvation. Therefore, the words should not be rushed. forever of the sentence. – Luke of Bruges makes an excellent moral reflection here: “Let this example serve us also: if we are like this fig tree, having a form of godliness, but denying its power (2 Tim. 3:5), we will be rejected along with the Jews,” Comm. in hl [The founders of the Christianity They are all Jewish; this is simply a religious condemnation of the refusal to recognize Jesus as the Messiah, as the Christ. Catholicism condemns all forms of antisemitism and racism.

Mt21.²⁰ At this sight, the disciples said in amazement, "How did it dry up in an instant?"« As we said earlier, in verse 18, St. Matthew here sacrifices chronological order to logical order. He likes to present events all at once, without worrying about the intervals of time that might have separated the different parts, without taking into account the historical perspective that, on the contrary, is so dear to St. Mark. Thus, it was only on Tuesday morning, twenty-four hours after the curse pronounced by the Savior, that the Apostles saw again the fig tree on which it had fallen. On Monday evening, on returning to Bethany, they may have taken a different route, or perhaps the darkness had prevented them from noticing the marvelous effect of Jesus' words. Now that they have before them this completely withered tree, forever barren, they experience profound astonishment., the disciples said in astonishment. And yet, they had witnessed countless and far more astonishing miracles; but it is the nature of supernatural manifestations to plunge those who contemplate them into ever-increasing and ever-new admiration, because they constantly reveal a new aspect of divine power. How did it dry out in an instant? Jesus spoke only of perpetual barrenness, and yet even the fig tree lost its life, and so quickly! This unexpected circumstance undoubtedly contributed to the Apostles' astonishment. Did they understand the symbol hidden beneath this death? It is possible that they only grasped its full meaning later. Jesus, at least, could repeat those words he had once inspired in the prophet Ezekiel: «Then all the trees of the field will know that I am the Lord. I will cut down the tall tree and raise up the fallen; I will dry up the green tree and make the dry tree flourish. I am the Lord; I have spoken, and I will do it.» (Ezekiel 17:24). The Jews will be abandoned, and the Gentiles will share in the Messianic salvation.

Mt21.²¹ Jesus answered them, «Truly I tell you, if you have faith and do not doubt, not only will you do as was done to the fig tree, but also you will say to this mountain, ‘Go, throw yourself into the sea,’ and it will be done.Our Lord misses no opportunity to instruct his disciples. Starting from the reflection they have just expressed, he takes the opportunity to strengthen their faith. This miracle astonishes you; but have I not already told you that you yourselves will be able to perform even greater miracles, if you have a lively faith? Indeed, we have previously encountered and commented on (cf. 17:19) the magnificent assurance that Jesus gives to the Twelve at this moment: it undergoes only slight modifications due to the circumstances. And that you do not hesitate. The Greek text uses the verb meaning "to debate the pros and cons," which aptly expresses a hesitation of mind. You would do as it has been done, That's what happened to the fig tree. You, like me, can curse a tree and make it perish instantly. To this mountain. Jesus pointed either to the Mount of Olives, or to the hill of Zion, or to the Mount of Evil Counsel, depending on where he was at the time. In the sea, the Mediterranean Sea, although located at a considerable distance from Jerusalem.

Mt21.²² Whatever you ask for in prayer with faith, you will receive.» – Jesus, expanding on his promise, moves from the particular to the general. It is not just one kind of miracle, but all the wonders without exception that his disciples will be able to accomplish through faith. In prayer This is an important reflection, intended to show that the miracle worker, in addition to his faith, still needs special help from heaven to succeed. His personal power is nothing; everything he produces, he produces through God, whose instrument he is and to whom he must therefore unite himself through fervent prayer. This verse also recalls the all-powerful and infallible results of prayer (cf. 7, 8, 9; 18, 19).

Matthew 21, 23-27. – Parallel. Mark. 11, 27-23; Luke. 20, 1-8.

Mt21.²³ When he entered the temple and was teaching, the chief priests and the elders approached him and said, «By what authority are you doing these things, and who gave you this authority?» – In the temple. It was there, as in his messianic palace, that Jesus spent a large part of Holy Monday and Tuesday. A word from the evangelist, he was teaching, This tells us what his main occupation was: he devoted the last hours of his life to instructing those poor, lost sheep of Israel who were so dear to him, and whom wicked shepherds were leading to ruin. He, on the contrary, tried to bring them back to God and convince them of his heavenly mission. The temple courts were then filled with pilgrims who readily gathered around the popular prophet of Nazareth, remaining there for long hours under the spell of his sublime word. Cf. Luke 19:48. The princes of the priests and the elders. To these two categories, Mark 11:27 and Luke 20:1 add a third, that of the Scribes or Doctors of the Law: thus we have the three classes that made up the great Council; see the explanation of chapter 2, verse 4. It is probable, however, that the entire Sanhedrin did not come to Jesus, but that it simply sent a delegation chosen from among its most influential members. By what authority…This question appeared legitimate, since the Sanhedrin was bound to safeguard the purity of theocratic doctrine; but, after the so evident proofs that Our Lord had provided of his divine mission, the Sanhedrin's act was, in essence, an indignity masked by the appearance of legality. On what grounds did they presume to verify the full powers, the doctoral title of Him who was in manifest communication with God, who led the holiest life, who sowed miracles under his feet? “Master,” Nicodemus had rightly said two years earlier, “we know that it is God who has made you a Doctor, for no one can do miracles that you operate unless you have God with you,” John 32. What would a Rabbi's patent issued in due form by Gamaliel have been in the face of such guarantees? An old question, moreover, already posed to the Savior by the priests at the beginning of his public life, although in a less pressing manner cf. John 2, 18. – And who gave it to you.... A second request, parallel to the first which she develops and clarifies: they want to know not only the general source from which her authority derives, but also the person who conferred it upon her. This power : the power to act as he had been doing for three days. These words therefore refer all at once to the triumphal entry, the purification of the Temple, the public teaching, the homage of the crowd accepted without hindrance, etc.

Mt21.²⁴ Jesus answered them, «I too will ask you a question, and if you answer it, I will tell you by what right I do these things: The members of the Sanhedrin hoped to cause Jesus an embarrassment from which he would be unable to extricate himself. Either he would answer that he was the Messiah and then be accused of blasphemy (cf. 26:65); or he would be unable to legitimize the rights he claimed and would be humiliated before the people; or, though this hypothesis was hardly considered, the interrogators themselves would be caught in their own trap: yet that is precisely what happened. I'll do the same for you.... Jesus does not answer the question posed to him directly. The true answer will, however, emerge very clearly from his actions; but it will be his adversaries themselves who must provide it. «A popular saying goes: A bad knot in a tree will be struck with a bad wedge or a bad nail. Our Lord could refute the calumnies of those who tempted him with a clear answer; but he prefers to ask them a question full of prudence, so that they may be condemned, either by their silence or by their supposed knowledge,» St. Jerome. He therefore poses them a counter-question, promising to satisfy their desire as soon as they have satisfied his. A question : Hebraism, one thing, just one small word.

Mt21.²⁵ "Where did John's baptism come from, from heaven or from men?" But they were considering this among themselves: – The baptism of John. Jesus mentions only the most characteristic aspect, the central point of John the Baptist's ministry; but he has in mind the entire activity of the Forerunner. From the sky, that is to say «of God», as Wettstein points out: «The Talmudists frequently use the word heaven to refer to God, as opposed to men», Hor. in hl – Or men. John the Baptist, in this second case, would have simply been a party man, a fanatic, or rather an imposter without a mission. Christ's dilemma is perfect: the Forerunner's mission could only come from God or from men, from heaven or from earth. Whatever their answer, the delegates of the Sanhedrin will receive a blow from a "cutting argument." Moreover, their embarrassment reveals to us better than anything else the skill of the Savior's question: it seems that the evangelist takes pleasure in describing their confusion, which he had, moreover, witnessed with his own eyes. they were thinking to themselves. It is no longer a question of attacking their opponent, they have to defend themselves on their own ground, and they are holding council to do so prudently.

Mt21.²⁶ «If we answer, »From heaven,’ he will say to us, ‘Why then did you not believe in him?’ And if we answer, ‘From men,’ we have to fear the people, for everyone considers John to be a prophet.” – An interesting summary of the deliberation. It reveals hypocrites who are not asking themselves where the truth lies, but what they must say to avoid compromising themselves. If they answer that John the Baptist was a messenger of God, Jesus will immediately hurl this terrible reproach at them, as they well anticipate: Why then did you not believe in him? Has not John repeatedly and categorically affirmed that I am the Christ? Cf. John 133. If he were a prophet and sent by God, why then do you not believe in me? This is the reasoning they feared in this first hypothesis. We have to fear the people. According to St. Luke, "the whole people will stone us." How clearly they demonstrate the baseness of their character with this language! Deep down, they don't believe in the mission of the Forerunner, and yet they pretend to believe it for political reasons, for fear of turning the people against them if they publicly confessed their disbelief. Such was the moral worth of the men who then wielded supreme authority among the Jews in matters of religion. Because everyone…Indication of the reason why they fear exasperating public opinion if they deny the divine origin of St. John's role. Herod, too, had hesitated for some time to put the Baptist to death, because he feared stirring up a revolt among the people. Cf. 16:5. John considers him a prophet.

Mt21.²⁷ They answered Jesus, «We do not know. And I,» Jesus said, “cannot tell you by what authority I do these things.” – They replied. Placed in an awkward dilemma, they try to get out of it with an evasive answer. But their We don't know Lying was a complete defeat, especially considering that the crowd was there, witnessing the whole discussion, and heard his teachers admit their ignorance. Jesus finishes by condemning them, saying: I won't tell you either…But, exclaims St. John Chrysostom, should not the Lord have instructed them, since they were ignorant? He immediately adds: He rightly refused to answer them, because they were acting maliciously. Hom. 67 in Matth. «He thus demonstrates to them that they know it very well, but that they do not want to answer, and that he also knows what to answer, but does not want to do so, because they themselves do not want to say what they know,» St. Jerome. What royal dignity and majesty shine forth here in Jesus! 

Parable of the Two Sons 21.28-32.

Mt21.²⁸ «But what do you think? A man had two sons, and he went to the first and said, ‘My son, go and work today in my vineyard. – What do you think? With this vague transitional formula, Jesus begins a series of beautiful and striking parables, through which he will make them contemplate, as in a mirror, the shame of their conduct, the gravity of their sins, and the magnitude of the punishment that awaits them. The first, that of the two sons sent to the vineyard, is almost limited to outlining the situation: thus, it is less threatening. Moreover, it is very easy to interpret. A man This man represents God, "from whom every family in heaven and on earth derives its name," Ephesians 3:15. He has two sons (see Luke 15:11), who, according to verses 31 and 32, represent two categories of Jews contemporary with the Savior: the Pharisees and their imitators on the one hand, and on the other, the tax collectors, sinners, and all those who resembled them morally. It is wrong for several authors to have seen in the first son the image of the Gentiles, and in the second that of the Jewish nation in general. Jesus Christ shows us, in fact, through his authentic commentary, that if we wish to restrict ourselves to the literal and historical meaning of the parable, the explanation must be made within the very limits of Judaism. But we can allow ourselves greater latitude when commenting on this parable from a moral point of view. Addressing the first. The order is given with the utmost kindness. Note the adverb. Today which demands immediate obedience. "Today, will you listen to his word? Do not harden your hearts" Psalm 94:7-8.

Mt21.²⁹ He replied: I don't want to, but then, moved by remorse, he went. – I don't want to. The refusal is brutal, disrespectful to the extreme: this bad son doesn't even try to soften his disobedience with a polite reply. In this, he is the image of so many shameless sinners who have lost all modesty, and whose sins no longer make them blush. A life of sin is, in reality, nothing more than a cry, a declaration: We do not want to do God's will. He is, in particular, the image of the tax collectors, who at first received without any heed the exhortations to repentance that the Lord had addressed to them through the mouth of the Forerunner and the Messiah. However, impetuous and violent natures are not always the worst; it frequently happens that they repent generously and that a sincere conversion gives way to their past excesses: such was the story of this rebellious son. He went there.

Mt21.³⁰ Then, addressing the other, he gave him the same command. The latter replied: I will go, lord, and he did not go. – Addressing the other. The father approaches his second son and treats him in the same way, ordering him, as he did the first, to go and work in his vineyard. This time the order is received with affected politeness and respect. I'm going, lord. The title of lord is noteworthy. Among the Hebrews, sons sometimes bestowed it upon their fathers; but here it serves only to better conceal conduct rife with hypocrisy and outright disobedience., and he did not go. This was also the behavior of the Pharisees, the scribes, and the Jewish priests: zealous for God and his worship, if one considers only outward appearances, they very often acted against his most important commandments (see chapter 23), honoring him with their lips, but in reality having their hearts separated from him. They clearly revealed the depths of their souls when Jesus brought them the kingdom of heaven.

Mt21.³¹ Which of the two did the will of his father? The first, they told him. Then Jesus said, «Truly I tell you, the tax collectors and prostitutes are entering the kingdom of God ahead of you. – Which of the two. To make the application more intriguing, Jesus had the case resolved by the delegates of the Sanhedrin, thus forcing them to admit their own guilt, since they were represented by the second son. Their solution was perfect: The first, "Yes," they replied without hesitation. The first son had indeed redeemed, through his repentance, the outrageous disobedience of which he had initially been guilty; on the contrary, the hypocritical conduct of the second son was extremely odious, and nothing had subsequently remedied it. I tell you the truth.… Jesus, now removing the veil of figures, clearly expresses his thought. The tax collectors and the prostitutesThe tax collectors and women Those of ill repute are named as representatives of the greatest sinners; these two classes were treated among the Jews with the deepest contempt, the first because they were seen as the epitome of injustice and unpatriotic servility, the second because of the immorality they personified. They will get ahead of you., That is to say, they will enter the kingdom of heaven before you. This does not mean, however, that the Pharisees and their like will also enter. – What a shameful comparison for the proud priests and teachers to whom Our Lord Jesus Christ was then addressing himself!

Mt21.³² For John came to you in the way of righteousness, and you did not believe him, but the tax collectors and prostitutes did believe him; and you, having seen this, have not yet repented to believe him. – For John came…In this verse we find the reason why tax collectors and sinful women will precede the Jewish leaders into the kingdom of God. The latter did not heed the preaching of the Forerunner, while the former believed and converted. In the path of justice. Jesus meant that the Forerunner brought to the Jews the means of easily attaining true justification, and thereby salvation. However, a considerable number of commentators believe that this expression refers more to the holy and perfect life of John the Baptist. The general meaning would then be this: John presented himself to you as a perfect man, attesting to his divine mission through his eminent holiness, and yet you refused to believe in him. – Cru in him. We find in the Gospel accounts several examples of these astonishing conversions (cf. Luke 3:12; 7:29), brought about by the vehement language of the Forerunner. And you, who saw thisThe hierarchs were already deeply guilty of not having immediately recognized the authority of St. John the Baptist and of not having accepted the means of salvation he presented to them; they are even more so because they did not take advantage of the fine examples they thus received from the most hardened sinners. The repentance of the tax collectors and courtesans was a moral miracle that, for St. John, amounted to letters of credence sent directly from heaven. The priests and Doctors should have understood this and, albeit belatedly, acknowledged the evidence of this proof. Their guilt is significantly aggravated by this second, entirely inexcusable refusal. "He displayed extraordinary wisdom in everything," and yet you did not believe him. And what increases your crime is that even the tax collectors and women Those who were lost believed in him; and moreover, it is “that you who saw their example were not moved afterward to repent and believe in ‘at least after them,’ you who should have believed before them. Thus you are entirely inexcusable, as they are worthy of all praise. And consider, I pray you, how many circumstances here highlight the unfaithfulness of the former and the faith of the latter. He came to you and not to them. You did not believe in him, and they were not scandalized; they believed in him, and you were not moved,” St. John Chrysostom, Homilies 67 in Matthew.

Parable of the Treacherous Vineyard Workers, 21, 33-46. Parallel. Mark. 13, 1-12; Luke. 20, 9-19.

Mt21.³³ «Listen to another parable. There was a family man who planted a vineyard. He put a hedge around it, dug a winepress in it, and built a tower. Then he rented it to some tenants and went on a journey. – Another parable. The members of the Sanhedrin would certainly have preferred that Jesus stick to the parable of the two sons, for they sensed that the situation was becoming increasingly volatile, their position increasingly precarious. But the lesson was far from over, and they had to listen to the harsh truths that the Savior still had to make them hear. The roles had changed considerably since the beginning of this scene (cf. v. 23). Those who had questioned the divine Master with such nonchalance just moments before were now reduced, according to Stier's astute observation, to standing before him like little children being catechized and asked humiliating questions. However, as Bossuet says, "Jesus speaks to us as well as to the Jews; let us therefore listen and see, in the clearest and simplest form ever, the whole history of the Church" (Meditat). On the Gospel, last week of the Savior, 28th day. Indeed, in this parable we have the complete history of the Jewish Church, then, in summary, that of the Christian Church, designated by the conversion of the Gentiles. But the aim Our Lord intends here is above all to announce the reprobation of the Jewish nation and its leaders. His language becomes increasingly expressive. «In the preceding parable, he had made the senators, the Doctors, and the pontiffs feel their iniquity; he will now make them confess the punishment they deserve. For he will convince them so powerfully that they themselves will be forced to pronounce their sentence,» Bossuet, ibid. The parable of the two sons thus simply described a past event; that of the Vineyard Workers, although it contains several retrospective features, has above all a prophetic character. There was a father of a family. It is still God, the head of the great human family spread throughout the earth, throughout all the ages: but he is considered more specifically in his relationship with the people of Israel, who constituted the privileged part of his family. Who planted a vineyard. No image recurs more frequently than that of the vine in the various writings of the Old Testament to represent the kingdom of God on earth, and in particular the Jewish theocracy (cf. Deuteronomy 32:32; Psalm 79:8-16; Isaiah 27:1-7; Jeremiah 2:21; Ezekiel 15:1-6; 19:10; Hosea 10:1, etc.). Thus, a vine, a bunch of grapes, and a vine leaf were, in the time of the Maccabees, the usual emblems of Judea. But nowhere has the comparison been better developed than in the first verses of the fifth chapter of Isaiah, to which Jesus is now making a clear allusion, or rather, which he is partly appropriating in his parable. Here, according to the Hebrew, is this song of the vine, both gracious and sad, composed by the son of Amos to depict God's relationship with his chosen people: Isaiah 5. ¹ I will sing for my beloved the song of my beloved about his vineyard. My beloved had a vineyard on a fertile hillside. ² He dug up the soil, removed the stones, and planted it with exquisite vines. He built a tower in the middle and also dug a winepress there. He expected it to bear grapes, but it produced sour grapes. ³ «And now, you inhabitants of Jerusalem and men of Judah, judge, I pray you, between me and between my vineyard.”. ⁴ What more could I have done for my vineyard that I haven't already done for it? Why did I wait for it to bear grapes, and it only produced sour grapes? ⁵ «And now I will tell you what I am going to do to my vineyard: I will tear down its hedge and it will be grazed, I will break down its wall and it will be trampled underfoot. ⁶ I will make it a desert, and it will no longer be pruned or cultivated; briers and thorns will grow there, and I will command the clouds to no longer let rain fall on it.» ⁷ For the vineyard of the Lord of hosts is the house of Israel, and the men of Judah are the plant he cherished; he looked for justice from them, but behold, bloodshed, righteousness, and a cry of distress. God, therefore, did not merely plant his vineyard. «He himself did most of what these servants were to do themselves. He planted his vineyard, he surrounded it with a hedge, and did everything else. He left them to do very little, namely, tending the vineyard and keeping in good condition what had been entrusted to them. For we see from the Gospel account that this most wise Master had omitted nothing,» St. John Chrysostom, Hom. 68 in Matthew. – Several details highlighted together by Isaiah and Our Lord show us the extent of his care. He surrounded it with a hedge. He surrounded it with a protective wall that would stop any hostile incursion. Physically, it was this sea with its inhospitable shores, these deserts of the South and East, these northern mountains, this deep Jordan Valley, that made Jewish territory so easy to defend, so difficult to invade. Morally, it was this set of rigorous, meticulous prescriptions that completely separated the theocratic people from all other nations, forming, in the language of the Talmud, a hedge around the Law; "He placed around him the enclosure wall of the heavenly preceptors, and entrusted its guard to the angels," S. Amb. Hexam. 3, 12. Creusa a wine press. This is more of a lower vat than a winepress proper. The winepress of the ancient Orientals consisted of two superimposed vats: in the first, the grapes were piled and crushed by the winemakers underfoot; the juice, which escaped through an opening at the bottom, flowed into the second vat, placed underground and frequently hewn from the rock. Several Fathers have thought that the "winepress" of the song and the parable refers to the prophets of the Old Covenant. "He has dug a winepress, he has prepared the receptacle to collect the spirit of the prophets," St. Irenaeus, Against Heresies 4, 36; Cf. St. Hilary, in h. l. Built a tower. This tower was originally intended to protect the vineyard, according to ancient and modern Eastern custom. It is there that the guardian takes up residence day and night during the fruit ripening season, to prevent marauders and wild animals from damaging the harvest. The tools used for cultivation are also kept there, and the owner sometimes resides there during the grape harvest. He rented it out to winegrowers. Among the Jews, as in our own lands, there were two kinds of contracts for renting vineyards: sometimes the vinedresser committed to paying the owner a fixed sum of money each year; sometimes he was simply a sharecropper and shared the fruit or wine with the vineyard owner. Verse 34 tells us that the head of the family in the parable preferred the second type of lease. All these preliminary details being concluded, he left for a triprelying on loyalty winegrowers. Through this distant journey, as Bengel so aptly puts it, Gnomon in hl, "Divine silence allows men to act according to their free will." – Such is the situation: everything is clear, and one only has to reread the song of Isaiah to apply these initial details: their obvious purpose is to show that God has done all that he should, and much more, for the spiritual prosperity of his chosen people.

Mt21.³⁴ When the time for harvest came, he sent his servants to the tenants to receive the produce of his vineyard. – Fruit season, The time of the grape harvest. The vineyard owner sends for his share of the grapes, in accordance with the agreed terms. Product of his vineyard. The pronoun refers to the head of the family. – In God's mystical vineyard, there is no special time set aside for harvesting, because it must bear fruit perpetually: but grapes only grow once a year on the physical vines. – The servants sent by God represent the prophets, those elite messengers whom he boasts in the Holy Scriptures of having sent to his people at every moment: «I have continually sent to you all my servants the prophets, saying, “Turn now, each of you, from your evil ways, and make good your deeds, and do not go and follow other gods to serve them; you shall dwell in the land which I have given to you and to your fathers,”« Jeremiah 35:12 (cf. 25:3). But, the Lord adds sadly, »You have not given ear, you have not listened to me.” The same thing will happen in the parable.

Mt21.³⁵ The vineyard workers seized his servants, beat one, killed another, and stoned the third. – The winegrowers… Chardin, in his *Voyage en Perse*, vol. 5, p. 384, Langlès edition, describes in these terms, based on various events he had witnessed, the numerous drawbacks that arise in the East from the second system of lease mentioned above: «This agreement, which appears to be a good-faith transaction and should be so, nevertheless proves to be an inexhaustible source of fraud, dispute, and violence, where justice is almost never upheld, and what is most peculiar is that the lord is always the one who suffers the worst and is wronged.» Nothing has changed, then. But, in the time of the Savior and long before, it was far more serious rights that were shamelessly violated; it was a far more honorable lord who was insulted and wronged. When the landowner's servants arrive to receive their share of the harvest on his behalf, the vineyard workers subject them to the most inhumane treatment, beating one, killing another, and condemning a third to the horrific punishment of stoning. The words beat, killed, stoned They thus form an ascending gradation, each expressing a new degree of rebellion and atrocity. – Morally speaking, when God sent his prophets to the Jewish nation, how were they treated? Jesus will say it later, 23:37; St. Stephen will say the same to his executioners: “Which of the prophets did your fathers not persecute?” Acts of the Apostles 7, 52; St. Paul will repeat it in the Letter to the Hebrews, 11, 36-38: «Others have endured the ordeal of mocking and whipping, of chains and of the prison. They were stoned, sawn in two, massacred with swords. They wandered here and there, lacking everything, harassed and mistreated… They led a vagrant life in the deserts and mountains, in the caves and caverns of the earth.»

Mt21.³⁶ He sent other servants again, in greater numbers than the first time, and they treated them the same way. – He sent again. Admirable patience, truly prodigious forbearance from the Master of the vineyard. How many others, quite justly, would have avenged the first insult at once? But he waits kindly, he even deigns to send other servants to thus touch the hearts of the rebellious tenants. For this landowner is the image of the God who deigns to call himself in Scripture, Psalm 102:8, "tender and compassionate, slow to anger and abounding in love." This act of condescension is, however, useless, for it brings neither the tenants of the parable, nor the Jews they represent, back to a sense of duty. They treated them the same : the new envoys are treated with the same barbarity as the first ones.

Mt21.³⁷ Finally he sent them his son, saying: they will respect my son. – Finally. A new attempt, more merciful than the others: however, this will be the last, for if the winegrowers do not respect even their landlord's son, if they dare to raise criminal hands against him, they will no longer deserve any pity, and they will be dealt with in full force by the law of retaliation. My son, «The only begotten and beloved Son,» says St. Mark 12:6. – The Holy Fathers frequently relied on this verse to prove the divinity of Our Lord Jesus Christ; St. Ambrose, for example, who writes in his treatise «De fide,» 5, 7: «See why he first sent servants, and then his Son: so that you may know that the only begotten Son of God enjoys divine power and has neither the name nor any share in common with servants.» The father in the parable hoped that the tenants would respect his son; as for God, observes St. John Chrysostom, 11:1, “knowing that his Son was going to be killed, he nevertheless sent him.”.

Mt21.³⁸ But when the tenants saw the son, they said to one another, “This is the heir. Come, let’s kill him, and we’ll have his inheritance.”. – The sad story continues. when the winegrowers saw the son, as soon as they recognize him from afar. Between them ; They are plotting the darkest of schemes among themselves. Come on, let's kill him. Such had been the language of Jacob's sons at Dothain, when they saw their brother Joseph, a type of Our Lord Jesus Christ, approaching them. "Come," they had said, "let us kill him" (Genesis 37:20). Such had been (Matthew 12:14; Mark 3:6; John 7:1; 11:50-53; Luke 19:47), and such was to be (cf. Matthew 26:4; 27:1), the language of the hierarchs. And we will have his legacy. Those who speak thus in the parable had until then been nothing more than hired tenants; they suppose that after killing the heir, they will be able to divide the vineyard among themselves and enjoy it freely. But as St. Augustine points out, they are strangely mistaken. «They killed to take possession; and because they killed, they lost everything.» St. Hilary applies this trait to the Synagogue in the following terms: «The tenants» plan is to seize the inheritance of the slain son; they have the vain hope of appropriating the glory of the Law, once Christ is dead.” (Comm. in hl) The error of the members of the Sanhedrin is therefore no less strange than that of the tenants.

Mt21.³⁹ And having seized him, they threw him out of the vineyard and killed him. – Having seized him. This cruel decision was carried out without delay. The heir was seized, even though he arrived with intentions of peace and mercy; he was dragged from the vineyard and beaten to death. They threw him out of the vineyard. By citing this detail, Jesus was obviously alluding to a circumstance that accompanied his death. He too was led out of the vineyard, that is, out of Jerusalem, to suffer the final torment, «Jesus… suffered his Passion outside the city gates,» Hebrews 13:12-13 cf. John 19:17. Everything is prophetic in these last verses (37 ff.): Our Lord has before his eyes the scenes of his Passion, which he recounts as if they had already taken place, so certain is he, by his divine foreknowledge, that his enemies will turn against him to the very last extremities.

Mt21.⁴⁰ Now, when the owner of the vineyard comes, what will he do to those tenants?» Driven to despair by so many crimes, and especially by the death of his only son, the vineyard owner will finally come himself to demand a severe reckoning from the guilty. How will he treat them then? Jesus, following the example of Isaiah 5:3, has this question resolved by those whose conduct he had described at the end of the parable.

Mt21.⁴¹ They replied, "He will strike these wretches without pity, and rent his vineyard to other tenants, who will give him the fruit in due season."« – He will strike these wretches without mercy., or these villains. They respond with accuracy and impartiality, showing, through one of those plays on words that Orientals so readily employ, that the punishment will be in perfect accordance with the nature of the criminals: wretched, they will perish miserably. It was the sentence of their own condemnation that they pronounced: the Jewish assassins and the Roman Titus were charged by God to execute it. Other winegrowers. After predicting their own destruction and that of their people, they announce with equal truth the future conversion of the pagans, to whom God will entrust his vineyard and who will prove to be faithful vinedressers. In their time, That is, at harvest time. The parable is now finished. St. John Chrysostom, in Hom. 68 in Matth., notes the multiplicity of lessons it contains despite its perfect unity. «Jesus Christ reveals many things through this parable. He shows the Jews with what care God's providence has always watched over them; that it has omitted nothing that could contribute to their salvation; that they have always been inclined to shed blood; that after they so cruelly killed the prophets, God, instead of rejecting them with horror, sent them his own Son. He also shows them through this image that the same God was the author of the Old and New Testaments; that his death would produce admirable effects in the world; that they should expect a terrible punishment for the outrage by which they were about to put him to death on a cross.» That the pagans would be called to the knowledge of the true God, and that the Jews would cease to be his people.

Mt21.⁴² Jesus said to them, «Have you never read in the Scriptures: ‘The stone the builders rejected has become the cornerstone?’ The Lord has done this, and it is marvelous in our eyes. – The image changes suddenly, so vivid and rapid is Jesus' language; but the idea remains absolutely the same. “He had previously compared the Church to a vine, he now compares it to a building that God has erected, as does St. Paul (1 Corinthians 3, 9); and those whom he had previously called farmers, he now calls builders; He whom he had previously called the Son, he now calls a stone, as St. Jerome and Euthymius observed,” Maldonat in hl – Have you ever read. A familiar phrase used by Jesus when addressing educated people. Here, it introduces a solemn confirmation of the sentence the Sanhedrin had just pronounced against themselves. Yes, you answered correctly: have you not read this passage of Scripture which ratified in advance the judgment you have passed? In the Scriptures See Psalm 117:22 ff.; Isaiah 28:16. There is a very important Messianic prophecy here, which St. Peter would later recall in turn to the Sanhedrin. See. Acts of the Apostles 4:11; 1 Peter 2:4 and following. The stone. The noun is in the accusative case by virtue of the law of attraction, Cf. John 1424: This is a construction of which one finds frequent examples in the Greek and Latin classics. What they rejected. The architects and contractors rejected this stone as useless or unsuitable for construction; but a superior architect judged it otherwise, and as a result of his all-powerful intervention, this scorned block was precisely assigned the principal role, for it became the knot and foundation of the entire edifice. The expression cornerstone, It designates a cornerstone that joins and supports two main walls at their base. What is this stone? The Rabbis unanimously say that it represents the Messiah. "Rabbi Solomon, regarding Micah 5:1: This is the Messiah, son of David, of whom it is written: 'the stone they rejected,' etc." Abarbanel, regarding Zechariah 4:10: "The bronze stone indicates the Messiah, the king. And he will complete it with: 'the stone they rejected,'" Wettstein. But St. Paul also told us this in magnificent terms, Ephesians 219-22: “You are fellow citizens with the saints, … built on the foundation of the apostles and prophets, Christ Jesus himself being the cornerstone. In him the whole structure is joined together and grows into a holy temple in the Lord. In him you also are being built together into a dwelling place for God through the Holy Spirit As for the builders who despised and rejected it, they are the spiritual leaders of Judaism: but such conduct will bring upon them just punishment. It was the Lord who did this…«that,» meaning the reintegration of the stone into the building for which it was intended. God himself undertook to accomplish this work of justice and to restore to the Messiah the place that had been unworthily taken from him. – In the Greek text, the pronoun is feminine (cf. Psalm 117:22 ff. according to the Septuagint), which is a literal translation from the Hebrew. It is known that the Hebrews do not have a neuter gender and that they very often express it using the feminine.

Mt21.⁴³ That is why I tell you that the kingdom of God will be taken away from you and given to a people who will produce its fruits. – After demonstrating the sin of his compatriots, Jesus proceeds to the solemn promulgation of the punishment that awaits them. This punishment will be both negative and positive. The negative aspect is indicated in verse 43. That's why…because you rejected the Messiah, because you put the Son of God to death. The kingdom of God will be taken away from you.. You will cease to be the Lord's chosen people; the special rights you had to be part of God's kingdom on earth will be taken from you without mercy. It will be given to a people…God will form a new theocratic people, a mystical Israel whose predominant element will be taken from among the pagans. And while the Jews, like faithless vinedressers, have not provided God with the fruits he expected, this new nation, the Christian Church, will bring him abundant harvests. The fruits. The last words of the verse bring us back to the preceding parable.

Mt21.⁴⁴ Anyone who falls on this stone will be broken to pieces, and anyone on whom it falls will be crushed.» – The positive side of the punishment of the Jews, expressed through the image of the cornerstone they rejected. Jesus thus returns to the figurative language he had partly abandoned in verse 43. The one who will fall…We stumble upon this stone when we willfully offend Christ. We rush upon it to overthrow and destroy it, but the aggressors unfailingly shatter against this unshakeable block. This is what will happen in response to the refusal to recognize the Messiah. The one she will fall for. The same thought is repeated, albeit with a nuance and in a more forceful manner; for while a fragile vessel is bound to break when struck against a stone, it is literally reduced to dust, annihilated, when that stone rolls down upon it from above. The famous stone of Daniel's vision (2:34-35) had thus pulverized the statue that represented the ungodly kingdoms hostile to that of Christ; the enemies of Jesus or his Church, whatever their name, will have no other fate: they will be crushed by the cornerstone.

Mt21.⁴⁵ The chief priests and the Pharisees, having heard these parables, They understood that Jesus was talking about them. – Pharisees. We had spoken earlier only of the chief priests and elders; but since the latter mostly belonged to the Pharisee party, which held a majority in the Sanhedrin, the evangelist here refers to them by the general name of Pharisees, to better highlight their mindset. It can also be said that several members of the sect had joined the delegates of the Sanhedrin, hoping to benefit from Jesus' humiliation. Jesus was talking about them. This knowledge throws them into a turmoil similar to that experienced by King David when Nathan had him pronounce his own condemnation in a similar manner. But at the same time, it intensifies their rage and hatred against Jesus. 

Mt21.⁴⁶ And they sought to seize him, but they feared the people, who regarded him as a prophet. – They were trying to seize him. They briefly considered seizing him to carry out the death sentence they had long held against him; but fear held them back. By resorting to violence, they were afraid of incurring the wrath of the crowd, which was clearly inclined to support their enemy. Indeed, they considered him a prophet (cf. v. 11), and it was likely they would defend him by force if anyone tried to arrest him in their presence.