Matthew 21


The Triumphal Entry

¹As they approached Jerusalem and came to Bethphage on the Mount of Olives, Jesus sent two disciples, ²saying to them, "Go to the village ahead of you, and at once you will find a donkey tied there, with her colt by her. Untie them and bring them to me. ³If anyone says anything to you, tell him that the Lord needs them, and he will send them right away."
⁴This took place to fulfill what was spoken through the prophet:
    ⁵"Say to the Daughter of Zion,
       'See, your king comes to you,
   gentle and riding on a donkey,
       on a colt, the foal of a donkey.' "
⁶The disciples went and did as Jesus had instructed them. ⁷They brought the donkey and the colt, placed their cloaks on them, and Jesus sat on them. ⁸A very large crowd spread their cloaks on the road, while others cut branches from the trees and spread them on the road. ⁹The crowds that went ahead of him and those that followed shouted,
   "Hosanna to the Son of David!"
   "Blessed is he who comes in the name of the Lord!"
   "Hosanna in the highest!"
¹⁰When Jesus entered Jerusalem, the whole city was stirred and asked, "Who is this?"
¹¹The crowds answered, "This is Jesus, the prophet from Nazareth in Galilee."

Matthew 21:1-11

Explanation:

Jerusalem's King Enters Its Gates (21:1-11)
Despite the prevalence of skepticism in our culture, there is little reason to question the substance of this account. Later storytellers would probably not have thought to have invented accurate allusions to Jerusalem Passover customs, such as an acclamation from Psalm 118 (which was recited during festivals); this suggests genuine historic tradition in the triumphal entry. If Jesus rode an ass into Jerusalem, he himself probably intended an allusion to Zechariah (E. Sanders 1993:254). And why not, if Jesus both read the Hebrew Bible and knew himself to be descended from David?
More important, this narrative both portrays Jesus as a king and defines the significance of his kingship. Because his kingship was so different from worldly models of authority (20:25), Jesus subverts the worldly understanding of kingship to suggest a reign of a different order.

All Our Possessions Belong to Our King (21:1-3)

Matthew devotes less space than Mark to Jesus' "impressing" or commandeering an animal, but in both Gospels Jesus exercises a prerogative of royalty. Although household servants could think of the Lord as the donkey's absent earthly owner, the borrowing more likely testifies to Jesus' status. Whether or not the owner is a disciple, he has heard of Jesus, and Jesus foreknows his response; this testifies first of all to the man's respect for Jesus. More important, the passage testifies to Jesus' foreknowledge (that he would have prearranged the situation with the man without the knowledge of his disciples-who would have been his agents-is unlikely; compare 26:18). Thus Matthew is making a statement not so much about possessions here as about Christ: as the rightful King he has the right to anything in creation, certainly among his people (compare Gundry 1982:408; Blomberg 1992:311-12).

Jesus Chose to Define the Kind of King He Is (21:4-6)

Mark seems unaware of Zechariah 9:9 (see Gundry 1975:197-98), but Matthew and John, the Gospels bearing the most Palestinian flavor and most apt to recognize the source of the allusion, explicitly cite this text. Although later teachers and probably Jesus' contemporaries regarded this prophecy as messianic (b. Sanhedrin 98a; 99a; Gen. Rab. 75:6; Edgar 1958:48-49), it was not such a popular text that his first followers need have grasped the full significance of his actions immediately. Jesus was announcing that he was indeed a king, but not a warrior-king (Moule 1965:87; E. Sanders 1993:242). Jesus was the meek one (11:29; 12:18-21; compare 5:5).


Many of Jesus' People Did Offer Homage (21:7-11)

Even many who did not understand the nature of Jesus' kingship paid him royal homage. Matthew specifically upgrades the Christology of Mark's crowd; his coming leads not only to cries that the Davidic kingdom must be imminent but to hailing Jesus himself as Son of David, the promised King. Yet even in Matthew, Jerusalem itself does not know Jesus (v. 10; compare 8:27); the crowds of Passover pilgrims (presumably from Galilee) must announce him (21:11).


Although the crowds had to honor Jesus by casting something before him (2 Kings 9:12-13) and branches were appropriate to the festal setting (Ps 118:27; compare Rev 7:9; 2 Macc 10:7), another Gospel's specific mention of palm branches (Jn 12:13) is significant, for they normally were more in use at the Feast of Tabernacles-or for triumphal entries. Whereas Jesus by riding the donkey implies his renunciation of revolutionary aspirations, the crowd's use of palm branches, an allusion to the Maccabean triumphs, implies that they still see him in more revolutionary messianic terms (1 Macc 13:51; 2 Macc 10:7; Rev 7:9; Cullmann 1956b:38; Stauffer 1960:110).

Jesus now accepts such public homage, which is appropriate (Mt 21:16). Nevertheless, the crowds understand the meaning of his messianic identity no more than the disciples had (16:20-22; 27:20); Son of David reflects a true but inadequate Christology (22:41-45). Even today many people call themselves Christians but have not pressed far enough in Jesus' teachings to understand the real character of his Lordship or his demands on their lives. The praises of the masses are good, but it is the disciples who truly submit to Christ's will-those who read his kingship in light of the cross-who will carry out his purposes in the world.

Matthew 21


Jesus at the Temple

¹²Jesus entered the temple area and drove out all who were buying and selling there. He overturned the tables of the money changers and the benches of those selling doves. ¹³"It is written," he said to them, " 'My house will be called a house of prayer,' but you are making it a 'den of robbers.'"
¹⁴The blind and the lame came to him at the temple, and he healed them. ¹⁵But when the chief priests and the teachers of the law saw the wonderful things he did and the children shouting in the temple area, "Hosanna to the Son of David," they were indignant.
¹⁶"Do you hear what these children are saying?" they asked him.
"Yes," replied Jesus, "have you never read,
   " 'From the lips of children and infants
       you have ordained praise'?"

Matthew 21:12-16

Explanation:

Judgment on the Temple Establishment (21:12-16)
The Gospel has been building toward a confrontation between Jesus and the leaders in Jerusalem. Now Jesus indirectly confronts the most powerful Jerusalem leaders, who to this point have felt less threatened by him than the more populist Pharisees. Such a move can only foreshadow Jesus' death.
Jesus courageously confronts injustice. First-century Jewish theologians debated various issues, but it was most likely those actions of Jesus which could be interpreted politically that led to his execution (Young 1989:296). Protest actions are common today in the West; in many cases they excite little attention because they provoke little danger. When ancient philosophers like the Cynics criticized the authorities, however, they invited both persecution and general suspicion of itinerant teachers (Liefeld 1967:162). By challenging nationalism and rulers' policy, the biblical prophets had invited retribution even more consistently (despite a frequently observed tradition of "prophetic immunity" in Judah and Israel). Many Christians today are able to avoid persecution in part because some of us live in more tolerant societies and in part because we do little to challenge the sinful practices of our societies.

The money changers probably did not see themselves as taking advantage of the pilgrims. Even in Galilee the varieties of local currency required money changers to convert coinage for use in the temple (and local economy); changing coins was necessary, not an option (see Goodman 1983:57; E. Sanders 1992: 63-65). Further, the temple money changers seem to have made little if any profit (m. Seqalim 1.6-7), though Jerusalem undoubtedly profited from the resultant trade. We have no evidence that the priestly aristocracy made a direct profit (pace Reicke 1974:168).


Because Jesus opposed the buyers as well as the sellers, he probably was not criticizing economic exploitation or high prices (pace Gundry 1982:413). Jesus probably viewed the temple as morally and spiritually impure, as the Qumran sect also believed (compare 1QpHab 9.4-5; CD 5.6-7). Yet Jesus was not simply seeking to renew the temple's holiness (compare m. Berakot 9:5; Mal 3:1-4). He could have symbolized a mere purifying of the temple by pouring out water; overturning tables signified something more ominous (E. Sanders 1985:70).

Jesus defends Gentiles' worship. That the selling occurred in the outer court, beyond which Gentiles could not travel, may have been significant (compare Jos. Ant. 12.145; 15.417). Later reports claim that the front court of the temple was normally to be kept clear as a sacred area (compare m. Berakot 9.5), but the many temporary shops for selling animals inside would have violated this custom even if they took up but a small part of the temple area.

Matthew claims that Jesus quoted two texts, Isaiah 56:7 and Jeremiah 7:11. In Isaiah 56 God promises to accept foreigners and eunuchs (previously banned-Deut 23:1) as members of his people, declaring that his temple will welcome all peoples; indeed, its purpose had been universalistic from the start (1 Kings 8:41-43). But by Jesus' day (in contrast to the Old Testament temple) a partition with warning signs segregated Gentiles from the Israelite section of the outer court (Jos. War 5.194; 6.124-26; Ant. 15.417), probably for purity reasons (women were similarly considered less pure than men; compare also 11QTemple 3-48). Concern for the sanctity of this outer court, hence for the worship of the Gentiles, may have been part of Jesus' objection to the current temple order (pace E. Sanders 1985:67-68). But that Matthew deletes the words "for all nations" from Mark's quotation may suggest that he wishes to lay the emphasis elsewhere-perhaps especially on the next quotation (Jer 7:11).

Jesus warns that religious symbols cannot protect us from God's wrath. Jeremiah 7 promised judgment on God's people who treated his temple as a safe haven for robbers. Jeremiah warns his contemporaries that the presence of the temple will not stay God's wrath against them; Matthew, probably writing after A.D. 70, wishes to stress judgment against a temple establishment that rejected Jesus (Mt 23:31-36; 24:15; 27:25). Not so much the brigands in the wilderness as the temple authorities are the real bandits. Even today it is arrogance to think that merely having coins that claim "In God we trust," or a state church, or any other mere symbol of religious attachment can prove sufficient to stay God's wrath if we do not live according to his will.

True prophets must face the consequences of their message. Of all Jesus' acts, his attack on the temple came closest to appearing as a revolutionary challenge to the political order, but this action was a prophetic declaration rather than the challenge of a Zealot leader seeking a following. The act itself was undoubtedly more symbolic than efficacious; the sellers undoubtedly set up their tables again soon after the disruption. Jesus probably symbolized prophetically what Jeremiah's smashing of the pot in the temple did (Jer 19): impending judgment (for example, Harvey 1982:131-32; Aune 1983:136; Catchpole 1984:334; E. Sanders 1985:70). Yet Jesus' action was politically dangerous: merely prophesying the temple's destruction invited scourging and the threat of death (Jer 26:11; Jos. War 6.300-309), especially if one had a significant gathering of followers (E. Sanders 1985:302-3).

Jesus embraced the blind and lame. It is easy for readers today to miss the significance of the disabled approaching Jesus in the temple (21:14). Jewish teachers did not require blind or lame people to make the journey to the temple (m. Hagiga 1:1), and at least some traditions excluded them from the temple (2 Sam 5:8 LXX). Here again Jesus apparently challenges the way the temple hierarchy has conducted temple affairs (for example, Hill 1972:294). Even today it is easy for us to marginalize those who cannot participate in our own activities; many of us fail to make necessary sacrifices to give special attention to those whom others leave out, whether it be a blind person or someone whose mobility is limited by muscular dystrophy. When we fail to care for those disabled in this way, we are unlike Jesus (on serving the disabled, see Newman and Tada 1987).

God can speak through children. Jesus' deeds were not the only cause for the chief priests' and legal experts' discomfort; Jesus was accepting public praise as the Son of David, and even if the priestly aristocracy was gentler than their opponents' portraits of them suggest, Roman rule left them no choice but to correct him or betray him to the governor (vv. 15-16). To them he appeared to be simply another charismatic leader whose ego had gotten out of hand; Josephus provides many examples of such leaders in first-century Palestine.

Jesus, who again defends the receptiveness of children (v. 16; compare 18:1-5; 19:13-15), responds from Scripture (since he now addresses those educated in Scripture): from the lips of children God has ordained praise. And if children praise him, how much more (borrowing a standard line of argument from Jesus' day) ought the religious leaders to join in!

Matthew 21


¹⁷And he left them and went out of the city to Bethany, where he spent the night.

The Fig Tree Withers

¹⁸Early in the morning, as he was on his way back to the city, he was hungry. ¹⁹Seeing a fig tree by the road, he went up to it but found nothing on it except leaves. Then he said to it, "May you never bear fruit again!" Immediately the tree withered.
²⁰When the disciples saw this, they were amazed. "How did the fig tree wither so quickly?" they asked.
²¹Jesus replied, "I tell you the truth, if you have faith and do not doubt, not only can you do what was done to the fig tree, but also you can say to this mountain, 'Go, throw yourself into the sea,' and it will be done. ²²If you believe, you will receive whatever you ask for in prayer."

The Authority of Jesus Questioned

²³Jesus entered the temple courts, and, while he was teaching, the chief priests and the elders of the people came to him. "By what authority are you doing these things?" they asked. "And who gave you this authority?"
²⁴Jesus replied, "I will also ask you one question. If you answer me, I will tell you by what authority I am doing these things. ²⁵John's baptism--where did it come from? Was it from heaven, or from men?"
²⁶They discussed it among themselves and said, "If we say, 'From heaven,' he will ask, 'Then why didn't you believe him?' But if we say, 'From men'--we are afraid of the people, for they all hold that John was a prophet."
²⁷So they answered Jesus, "We don't know."
Then he said, "Neither will I tell you by what authority I am doing these things.

Matthew 21:17-27

Explanation:

Jesus Debates Jerusalem's Leaders (21:17-22:46)
Because of the flow of context, it is not clear whether the first passage of this unit (21:17-22) belongs in this section or the preceding one, if Matthew himself would have made such a distinction. The rest of the passages in this section, however, reveal a common theme: Jesus offers his closing public debates with Jerusalem's elite, debates that increase his populist support and further threaten their base of power. Because he is headed for the cross, he can afford to cut through their self-delusions unapologetically. Because he cares about the people as a whole (20:28), he is especially angry with those who claim to lead God's people but in fact have usurped prerogatives that belong to God alone (21:33-45). Christian leaders must beware lest we fall prey to the same temptation (24:48-51).


Faith to Accomplish the Impossible (21:17-22)
Here Jesus provides an acted parable for his disciples, symbolizing another prophetic act of judgment. Matthew's audience, probably native to Syro-Palestine, are likely aware of what Mark states explicitly: it was not yet the season for figs (Mk 11:13). At Passover season in late March or early April, fig trees are often in leaf on the eastern side of the Mount of Olives. At this time of year the trees contain only green figs (Arabs call them taqsh); they ripen around June but often fall off before that time, leaving only leaves on the tree. Because of their unpalatable taste, these early figs rarely were eaten; but someone too hungry to care about taste would eat them anyway, as some do today. A leafy tree lacking early figs, however, would bear no figs at all that year (F. Bruce 1980:73-74; Witherington 1990:173).
Although Matthew retains Mark's emphasis from the context-judgment on the temple (compare fruitless trees in 3:10; 12:44-45; compare also 24:32; Jer 24)-his arrangement of the material lays primary stress on Jesus' lesson of faith. "Moving mountains" was a Jewish metaphor for accomplishing what was difficult or virtually impossible (as in ARN 6A; 12, 29B). Like the prophets of old, Jesus' disciples could do whatever God called them to do (compare 7:7-11; 10:8; 17:20). Faith, of course, implies obedience to God's wishes, not simply acting on our own. Given the surrounding context of conflict, Jesus' model of faith includes facing death bravely in obedience to God's call-and trusting his power over death itself.






The Source of Jesus' Authority (21:23-27)
The reader who has witnessed in the text of Matthew miracles such as the cursing of the fig tree understands that Jesus' authority is from God (vv. 21-22); the reader who has seen the fate of John the Baptist, an earlier representative of God, also recognizes what Jesus will face (compare 21:32, 38-39). The political leaders here are not, however, privy to the information Matthew's audience shares. Like many contemporary politicians-and the rest of us-Jesus' adversaries were more interested in making their opponent, in this case Jesus, look bad than in uncovering further truth about his claims. Undoubtedly they view Jesus as a "populist" (see Rhoads and Michie 1982:82), the sort of demagogue aristocrats normally despised (as in Isoc. Nic. 48 and Or. 2).

Matthew 21


The Parable of the Two Sons

²⁸"What do you think? There was a man who had two sons. He went to the first and said, 'Son, go and work today in the vineyard.'
²⁹" 'I will not,' he answered, but later he changed his mind and went.
³⁰"Then the father went to the other son and said the same thing. He answered, 'I will, sir,' but he did not go.
³¹"Which of the two did what his father wanted?"
"The first," they answered.
³²Jesus said to them, "I tell you the truth, the tax collectors and the prostitutes are entering the kingdom of God ahead of you. For John came to you to show you the way of righteousness, and you did not believe him, but the tax collectors and the prostitutes did. And even after you saw this, you did not repent and believe him.

The Parable of the Tenants

³³"Listen to another parable: There was a landowner who planted a vineyard. He put a wall around it, dug a winepress in it and built a watchtower. Then he rented the vineyard to some farmers and went away on a journey. ³⁴When the harvest time approached, he sent his servants to the tenants to collect his fruit.
³⁵"The tenants seized his servants; they beat one, killed another, and stoned a third. ³⁶Then he sent other servants to them, more than the first time, and the tenants treated them the same way. ³⁷Last of all, he sent his son to them. 'They will respect my son,' he said.
³⁸"But when the tenants saw the son, they said to each other, 'This is the heir. Come, let's kill him and take his inheritance.' ³⁹So they took him and threw him out of the vineyard and killed him.
⁴⁰"Therefore, when the owner of the vineyard comes, what will he do to those tenants?"
⁴¹"He will bring those wretches to a wretched end," they replied, "and he will rent the vineyard to other tenants, who will give him his share of the crop at harvest time."
⁴²Jesus said to them, "Have you never read in the Scriptures:
   " 'The stone the builders rejected
       has become the capstone;
   the Lord has done this,
       and it is marvelous in our eyes'?
⁴³"Therefore I tell you that the kingdom of God will be taken away from you and given to a people who will produce its fruit. ⁴⁴He who falls on this stone will be broken to pieces, but he on whom it falls will be crushed."
⁴⁵When the chief priests and the Pharisees heard Jesus' parables, they knew he was talking about them. ⁴⁶They looked for a way to arrest him, but they were afraid of the crowd because the people held that he was a prophet.

Matthew 21:28-46

Explanation:

 Pretend Obedience Versus Delayed Obedience (21:28-32)
The three parables in 21:28-22:14 together respond to the Jewish leaders, critiquing them harshly (compare van Tilborg 1972:47-52). Ancient Mediterranean culture demanded that sons honor and obey their parents, especially when they still lived on the father's estate (see Keener 1991:98, 197). The parable's point is obvious enough in Matthew's context: the repentant (3:2) son does the father's will (7:21; 12:50); the unrepentant son is unfruitful (3:8), claiming to do but not doing (23:3). Thus the latter stands for Israel's religious leaders, in contrast to the humble who heed John and Jesus. The issue is not that the tax collectors and the prostitutes were good (compare 9:9; 18:17; cf. 19:17); it is that the religious and political elite were worse, being treasonous (22:5-10). Jesus provides a question after a parable (as in Is 5:3-4; Mt 21:40).
The interpretation of this parable follows naturally after 21:23-27: Jesus and John represent the same source of moral authority, and those who rejected John's way of righteousness showed the hypocrisy of their own claims to be God's servants. The repentance of more openly sinful people did not provoke them to jealousy for their own spiritual status (compare Rom 11:14).







The Murderous Tenants (21:33-44)
As one expects from Jesus' rural parables, this one is true to life. The viticulture is accurate enough (although most of these details stem from Isaiah allusions): fences (often a wall of loosely fitted stones) protected vineyards from animals (Ps 80:12-14; N. Lewis 1983:125), and watchmen used the tower (2 Chron 26:10; Is 1:8), often "a hut of leaf-covered wood or possibly of stone which served both as a look-out . . . and as a shelter for the vinedressers at harvest time" (Anderson 1976:272).
The religious leaders were wicked. Because the vineyard probably refers to Israel (Is 5:2; compare 3:14; Ezek 17:6; Hos 9:10; Jeremias 1972:70, 76-77), the farmers stand for the nation's religious leaders (Mt 21:45). Thus while Jesus borrows the imagery of Isaiah, he adapts it so that the primary evildoers represent not Israel but its leaders. Neither Jesus nor Matthew contends for God's rejection of Israel as a people, but for his rejection of the religious leaders (23:13-36; compare Kee 1977:113; pace Ladd 1974b:114). Israel was unprepared for its Master because Israel's leaders failed in their stewardship to acknowledge the true Lord; when the cat is gone, the mice will play, but a day of reckoning is coming (compare Prov 7:19, 22-27). This threat from Jesus' day also provides a warning for Christian leaders in Matthew's day and our own (24:45-51). The church and many of its leaders have repeated Israel's disobedience enough in history and to a great extent continue to do so today. Many ministers regard the church as "our" field of ministry rather than keeping in mind who our Lord is.

Although small holders may have predominated in Palestine, Galilee had many tenant farmers. Tenant farmers worked the land for its owners, often absentee landlords, and paid them as much as half the resulting produce. While peasants did not enjoy their economic situation, they would not have identified with the foolish tenants in this story; everyone regarded as treacherous the killing of unarmed messengers. The rejected messengers symbolize the biblical prophets (23:29-38; compare 5:12); Jewish tradition not only acknowledged but amplified their sufferings.

God is incomprehensibly kind to his enemies. The landowner here is too nice; whether aristocrats, artisans or peasants, no one would recognize in this figure the benevolence of any patron they knew. But even had hearers not recognized the image of God and his prophets here, no one would expect the benevolent landowner to remain benevolent indefinitely; indeed, the worse landlords sometimes even had their own hit squads to take out troublesome tenant farmers. Everyone also knew that the state would always side with the landlord (even if he was a bad one); in a case of obvious wrong like this one, the murderers of his servants would be executed or enslaved.

The landowner has no reason to continue his benevolence. At the very least, he must know that the tenants hate him; in antiquity the way people treated a messenger was the way they would treat the sender (compare 10:40-42; t. Ta`anit 3:2). By continuing to appeal to their sense of honor, the landowner has made himself appear a fool; to maintain any vestige of honor, he must retaliate against their repeating shaming of him (B. Scott 1989:250).

Quite in contrast to expectations, however, the landowner acts with such benevolence that ancient hearers could have regarded his action merely as utter folly: he believes that the murderous tenants will at least respect his son as his own representative. Jesus tells us about the death of the landowner's son, the tenants' ultimate act of treachery. Casting him outside the vineyard (compare Heb 13:13), they kill him.

Even God's patience eventually comes to an end. As benevolent as the landowner is, no one will be surprised that he finally retaliates. No law would have actually granted the vineyard to tenants who had murdered the owner's son. As if asking for a legal ruling, Jesus questions the religious leaders what this patient landowner will finally do to the murderers. The answer is obvious. The evil tenant farmers, no match for the landlord's power, were utter fools to doubt that they would die.

It may be no coincidence (compare 21:13; 24:2) that Jesus' contemporaries understood Isaiah's parable of the vineyard (Is 5:1-7) on which this parable draws as referring to the temple's destruction. Jesus concludes by again challenging their knowledge of the Scriptures (which should have made the object of his parable obvious to begin with), as in 12:3, 19:4, 21:16 and 22:31.

Here Jesus cites Psalm 118:22 from the Hallel (Ps 113-18, recited during Passover season), only a few verses away from the praise recently uttered by the children (Ps 118:25-26 in Mt 21:15; compare 21:9). All his hearers would recognize the source of the quotation, and probably its context. (By contrast, many of us today sing "This is the day the Lord has made" [Ps 118:24] out of the context of the day and event the psalmist was celebrating.) In context, the cornerstone or capstone to which Jesus refers is probably part of the architecture of the temple. Hearers might have recognized that he was comparing the covenant community to a temple; some others in his day made that comparison (for example, 1QS 8.5, 8-9; 9.6; CD 2.10, 13; G rtner 1965:16-46). Most clearly they would recognize that he was challenging the builders, here the temple authorities.

Jesus adds a clarifying comment that expands the reproof to all Israel with no vestige of subtlety (v. 43). Thus, he says, these leaders will no longer administer God's reign among his people as God's stewards (compare 23:13; 16:19). Henceforth the holy nation of the new exodus (Ex 19:5-6) will bring forth their fruit-the landowner's rightful portion of the vintage-for God (3:10; Hos 14:4-8; Lk 13:6-9; Jn 15:1-8).

Using the Jewish interpretation method called gezerah sawah, which links verses on the basis of key terms they share, this passage develops the cornerstone idea (compare 1 Pet 2:6-8). Crushed probably reflects Daniel 2:44; falls on this stone, the stumbling stone of Isaiah 8:15 and 28:16. Neither alternative is intended to be pleasant; the Greek term for but here is the weaker one, in this case probably meaning virtually "and."

Finally understanding that he is addressing them, the religious leaders look for a way to seize him (compare Mt 26:5, 50). Because the Jewish crowds believe that Jesus was a prophet, however (21:11), the leaders must bide their time; they are cowardly politicians (21:45-46).






The Cowardly Politicians (21:45-46)
This character of Jesus' opponents fits their later actions. Concerned about the populace's response, they both choose a more advantageous time to seize Jesus (26:4-5, 55; compare Lk 22:53) and allow Pilate and the Romans to carry out a death sentence. Without a degree of favor from the people whom they had to keep quiet as well as from the Romans, the household of Caiaphas could not have stayed in power so long.