Mark 11 commentary

MARK 11 COMMENTARY
EDITED BY GLENN PEASE
Jesus Comes to Jerusalem as King
1 As they approached Jerusalem and came to
Bethphage and Bethany at the Mount of Olives,
Jesus sent two of his disciples,
CLARKE, "He sendeth - two of his disciples - This was done but a few days
before the passover. See our Lord’s entry into Jerusalem illustrated, on Matthew
21:1-17 (note).
GILL, "And when they came nigh to Jerusalem,.... The Syriac and Ethiopic
versions read, "when he came nigh"; that is, Jesus; though not without his disciples,
nor the multitude:
unto Bethphage and Bethany; two places so called, near Jerusalem: Bethphage
began where Bethany ended, and reached to the city itself. The Vulgate Latin only
makes mention of Bethany; See Gill on Mat_21:1.
At the Mount of Olives; near which, the above places were:
he sendeth forth two of his disciples; perhaps Peter and John.
HENRY, "We have here the story of the public entry Christ made into Jerusalem,
four or five days before his death. And he came into town thus remarkably, 1. To
show that he was not afraid of the power and malice of his enemies in Jerusalem. He
did not steal into the city incognito, as one that durst not show his face; no, they
needed not send spies to search for him, he comes in with observation. This would be
an encouragement to his disciples that were timorous, and cowed at the thought of
their enemies' power and rage; let them see how bravely their Master sets them all at
defiance. 2. To show that he was not cast down or disquieted at the thoughts of his
approaching sufferings. He came, not only publicly, but cheerfully, and with
acclamations of joy. Though he was now but taking the field, and girding on the
harness, yet, being fully assured of a complete victory, he thus triumphs as though he
had put it off.
JAMIESON, "Mar_11:1-11. Christ’s triumphal entry into Jerusalem, on the first
day of the week. ( = Mat_21:1-9; Luk_19:29-40; Joh_12:12, Joh_12:19).
1

See on Luk_19:29-40.
BARCLAY, "THE COMING OF THE KING (Mark 11:1-6)
11:1-6 When they were coming near to Jerusalem, to Bethphage and to Bethany,
Jesus despatched two of his disciples, and said to them, "Go into the village
opposite you, and as soon as you come into it, you will find tethered there a colt,
on which no man has ever yet sat. Loose it and bring it to me. And if anyone says
to you, 'Why are you doing this?' say, 'The Lord needs it,' and immediately he
will send it." And they went away and they found the colt tethered, outside a
door, on the open street, and they loosed it. And some of those who were
standing by said to them, "What are you doing loosing this colt?" They said to
them what Jesus had told them to say, and they let them go.
We have come to the last stage of the journey. There had been the time of
withdrawal around Caesarea Philippi in the far north. There had been the time
in Galilee. There had been the stay in the hill-country of Judaea and in the
regions beyond Jordan. There had been the road through Jericho. Now comes
Jerusalem.
We have to note something without which the story is almost unintelligible.
When we read the first three gospels we get the idea that this was actually Jesus'
first visit to Jerusalem. They are concerned to tell the story of Jesus' work in
Galilee. We must remember that the gospels are very short. Into their short
compass is crammed the work of three years, and the writers were bound to
select the things in which they were interested and of which they had special
knowledge. And when we read the fourth gospel we find Jesus frequently in
Jerusalem. (John 2:13, John 5:1, John 7:10.) We find in fact that he regularly
went up to Jerusalem for the great feasts.
There is no real contradiction here. The first three gospels are specially
interested in the Galilaean ministry, and the fourth in the Judaean. In fact,
moreover, even the first three have indications that Jesus was not infrequently in
Jerusalem. There is his close friendship with Martha and Mary and Lazarus at
Bethany, a friendship which speaks of many visits. There is the fact that Joseph
of Arimathaea was his secret friend. And above all there is Jesus' saying in
Matthew 23:37 that often he would have gathered together the people of
Jerusalem as a hen gathers her chickens under her wings but they were
unwilling. Jesus could not have said that unless there had previously been more
than one appeal which had met with a cold response.
This explains the incident of the colt. Jesus did not leave things until the last
moment. He knew what he was going to do and long ago he had made
arrangements with a friend. When he sent forward his disciples, he sent them
with a pass-word that had been pre-arranged--"The Lord needs it now." This
was not a sudden, reckless decision of Jesus. It was something to which all his life
had been budding up.
Bethphage and Bethany were villages near Jerusalem. Very probably Bethphage
means house of figs and Bethany means house of dates. They must have been
2

very close because we know from the Jewish law that Bethphage was one of the
circle of villages which marked the limit of a Sabbath day's journey, that is, less
than a mile, while Bethany was one of the recognized lodging--places for pilgrims
to the Passover when Jerusalem was full.
The prophets of Israel had always had a very distinctive method of getting their
message across. When words failed to move people they did something dramatic,
as if to say, "If you will not hear, you must be compelled to see." (compare
specially 1 Kings 11:30-32.) These dramatic actions were what we might call
acted warnings or dramatic sermons. That method was what Jesus was
employing here. His action was a deliberate dramatic claim to be Messiah.
But we must be careful to note just what he was doing. There was a saying of the
prophet Zechariah (Zechariah 9:9), "Rejoice greatly, O daughter of Zion. Shout
aloud, O daughter of Jerusalem. Lo, your king comes to you; triumphant and
victorious is he, and riding on an ass and upon a colt the foal of an ass." The
whole impact is that the King was coming in peace. In Palestine the ass was not a
despised beast, but a noble one. When a king went to war he rode on a horse,
when he came in peace he rode on an ass.
G. K. Chesterton has a poem in which he makes the modem donkey speak:
"When fishes flew ind forests walk'd
And figs grew upon thorn,
Some moment when the moon was blood
Then surely I was born.
"With monstrous head and sickening cry
And ears like errant wings,
The devil's walking parody
Of all four-footed things.
"The tatter'd outlaw of the earth
Of ancient crooked will;
Starve, scourge, deride me, I am dumb,
I keep my secret still.
"Fools! For I also had my hour,
One far fierce hour and sweet;
3

There was a shout about my ears,
And palms before my feet."
It is a wonderful poem. Nowadays the ass is a beast of amused contempt, but in
the time of Jesus it was the beast of kings. But we must note what kind of a king
Jesus was claiming to be. He came meek and lowly. He came in peace and for
peace. They greeted him as the Son of David, but they did not understand.
It was just at this time that the Hebrew poems, The Psalms of Solomon, were
written. They represent the kind of Son of David whom people expected. Here is
their description of him:
"Behold, O Lord, and raise up unto them their king, the son of
David,
At the time, in the which thou seest, O God, that he may
reign over Israel, thy servant.
And gird him with strength that he may shatter unrighteous rulers,
And that he may purge Jerusalem from nations that trample
her down to destruction.
Wisely, righteously he shall thrust out sinners from the
inheritance,
He shall destroy the pride of sinners as a potter's vessel.
With a rod of iron he shall break in pieces all their substance.
He shall destroy the godless nations with the word of his
mouth.
At his rebuke nations shall flee before him,
And he shall reprove sinners for the thoughts of their
hearts.
"All nations shall be in fear before him,
For he will smite the earth with the word of his mouth forever."
4

(Wis 17:21-25, 39.)
That was the kind of poem on which the people nourished their hearts. They
were looking for a king who would shatter and smash and break. Jesus knew it--
and he came meek and lowly, riding upon an ass.
When Jesus rode into Jerusalem that day, he claimed to be king, but he claimed
to be King of peace. His action was a contradiction of all that men hoped for and
expected.
COFFMAN, "The Gospel of Mark condensed a great detail of material into the
remaining six chapters, and not all of it is in strict chronological sequence.
However, in this eleventh chapter, there are three successive days designated
(Mark 11:11:11; Mark 11:11:12; Mark 11:11:20; and Mark 11:11:27). In the
designed brevity of the gospel, it was inevitable that some events would be
recorded with many details omitted and that some things would be omitted
altogether. The sections of this chapter are devoted to: the triumphal entry
(Mark 11:1-11), withering of the fig tree (Mark 11:12-14 and Mark 20:25), the
second cleansing of the temple (Mark 11:15-19), and the question concerning the
authority of Jesus (Mark 11:27-33).
THE TRIUMPHAL ENTRY
This event is recorded in all four of the gospels, a testimony of the great
importance attached to it. The four accounts are independent, historical, and
exceedingly significant, each in its own right. There is absolutely no ground
whatever for making any one of them the "original" in its relation to the others.
All are original in the sense of being founded on the event itself and bearing the
most convincing evidence of being truthful accounts of the facts related.
One grows weary of the knee-jerk repetition in so many of the commentaries, as,
for example, in these lines from Cranfield: "The Markan account provides
vividness of detail with the most notable restraint regarding Messianic
colour."[1] Cranfield said this with reference to the event of the triumphal entry,
despite the simple fact that Mark provided less "vividness of detail" than any of
the other sacred authors. Here are the details supplied from the other three
gospels which Mark omitted:
The mother of the colt was a necessary part of the whole event; the colt would
not have followed without her!
Both animals were brought to Jesus.
Garments were spread on both of them.
Jesus sat on both animals (his feet probably on the colt).
The colt was unbroken, unusable except in connection with its mother.
5

The dramatic descent from the Mount of Olives.
The hailing of Jesus as the King of Israel.
The request of the Pharisees that Jesus rebuke such exclamations.
The presence of two converging multitudes, one from the city coming out to meet
Jesus, the other following from Bethany.
The element of the resurrection of Lazarus stimulating the size of both
converging multitudes.
The stirring up of the whole city.
Christ's reply to the Pharisees that, if the multitudes should remain silent, the
very stones would cry out.
The frustration of the Pharisees who said, "Behold how ye prevail nothing; lo,
the world is gone after him."SIZE>
The astounding fact of the Gospel of Mark is not "vividness of detail," as so
monotonously alleged, but rather an astounding lack of detail as in the instance
before us. The significance of this is that the "vividness of detail" allegedly found
in Mark is the principal prop of the so-called Markan theory. This pattern of
Mark's omission of details supplied by the other gospels extends throughout the
gospel, the few instances in which he gave more details being utterly outweighed
by those in which, as here, he gave far less. Therefore, it may be dogmatically
affirmed that Mark's overwhelming superiority in the matter of "vivid details"
is a scholarly conceit void of all Scriptural support. The "greater vividness of
details" assertion is contradicted by the very size of the gospel itself, being by far
the shortest. Furthermore, there is the fact, already noted, that Mark's style is
somewhat verbose, using more words to convey fewer thoughts. Note the
following:
MARK 8:11
And the Pharisees came forth, began to question with him, asking of him a sign
from heaven, tempting him.
MATTHEW 16:1
And the Pharisees and Sadducees came, and tempting him, asked him to show
them a sign from heaven.
In the above, Matthew with one less word gives all of the facts recorded by
Mark, plus the added information that the Pharisees were accompanied by the
Sadducees. This is characteristic throughout the gospels.SIZE>
ENDNOTE:
6

[1] C. E. B. Cranfield, The Gospel according to St. Mark (Cambridge: The
University Press, 1966), p. 347.
And when they draw nigh unto Jerusalem, unto Bethphage and Bethany, at the
mount of Olives, he sendeth two of his disciples. (Mark 11:1)
Bethphage, meaning "place of figs." and Bethany, meaning "place of dates,"
were two villages almost adjacent to Jerusalem, being in fact nestled into the
Mount of Olives, a 2,600-foot elevation lying along the eastern boundary of
Jerusalem.
He sendeth two of his disciples ... It is not known who these were.
BURKITT, "The former part of this chapter acquaints us with our Saviour's
solemn and triumphant riding into the city of Jerusalem: he who in all his
journies travelled like a poor man on foot, without noise, and without train; now
he goes up to Jerusalem to die for sinners, he rides, to show his great
forwardness to lay down his life for us: the beast he rides on is an ass, as the
manner of kings and great persons anciently was, and to fulfil that prophecy,
Tell ye the daughter of Zion, Behold thy king cometh riding upon an ass
Zechariah 9:9. It was also an ass upon which never man sat before; signifying
thereby, that the most unruly and untamed creatures become obsequious to
Christ.
Grotius observes, that such animals as had not been employed in the use of man,
were wont to be chosen for sacred uses. Even heathens adjudged those things
most proper for the service of the gods, which had never been put to profane
uses. Thus in 1 Samuel 6:7. we read that the Philistines returned the ark in a new
cart, drawn by heifers never before put into the yoke; they thinking them
polluted by being put to profane work. Our Saviour here chooses an ass which
had never been backed before; and that the colt should so patiently suffer Christ
to ride upon him, was miraculous. And this was a borrowed ass, whereby our
Saviour right to all the creatures was manifested; and accordingly he bids his
disciples tell the owner that the Lord hath need of him.
Observe lastly, What a clear and full demonstration Christ gave of his divine
nature; of his omnisciency in foreseeing and foretelling the event; of his
omnipotency, in inclining the heart, and overruling the will, of the owner to let
the colt go; and of his sovereignty, as he was Lord of the creatures, to command
and call for their service when he needed them.
CONSTABLE, "The village opposite was evidently Bethphage, the one the
disciples would have encountered after leaving Bethany for Jerusalem. The colt
was a young donkey. The Mosaic Law specified that an animal devoted to a
sacred purpose had to be one that had not been used for ordinary purposes
(Numbers 19:2; Deuteronomy 21:3). Jesus told the disciples to bring both the colt
and its mother to Him (Matthew 21:2). The "Lord" is simply a respectful title
here referring to Jesus whom the owner evidently had met previously or knew
about. If the owner was a believer in Jesus, "Lord" may have had a deeper
7

meaning for him.
The colt was unbroken, and Jesus was able to ride on it comfortably. These facts
suggested that Jesus might be the sinless Man who was able to fulfill the Adamic
Covenant mandate to subdue the animals (Genesis 1:28; cf. Matthew 17:27), the
Second Adam.
BI 1-11, "And when they came nigh to Jerusalem, unto Bethphage and Bethany, at
the Mount of Olives.
The triumphal entry
I. The occasion of this homage.
II. The scene of this homage. Scene of-
1. His ministry.
2. His martyrdom.
III. The offerers of this homage.
IV. By what actions this homage was expressed.
V. The language in which this homage was uttered. (J. R. Thomson.)
Christ entering Jerusalem
I. The story presents to view Christ’s sovereignty over all men.
II. This story also exhibits Christ’s foreknowledge of all ordinary events. He tells the
disciples, as they set forth to do this errand, just what will happen.
III. Then again, this story discloses Christ’s power over all the brute creation (Luk_
19:35). No other instance of Jesus’ riding upon an animal of any sort has been
recorded in His history; and of all, this must have been a beast most difficult to
employ in a confused pageant.
IV. Once more: this story illustrates Christ’s majesty as the Messiah of God. Two of
the evangelists quote at this point the Old Testament prophecy concerning this
triumphal entry into Jerusalem (Zec_9:8-9). (C. S. Robinson, D. D.)
Christ entering Jerusalem
What is the meaning of the day? What was the purpose of the demonstration? The
suggestions that Jesus lost control of either Himself or of the people, so as to be
carried away by their enthusiasm, are unworthy of His former history and of His
subsequent teachings.
I. The day is memorable for its surprises and reversals of judgment. Jesus only
judged rightly; next to Him the children in the temple. The hopes and visions of the
people and disciples were wide of the mark and doomed to disappointment. This day
to them promised a throne, but hastened the cross and a tomb. The fears and hates of
the Pharisees and rulers were surprised and reversed. Jesus made no attempt at
temporal power and offered no resistance.
II. This day emphasizes spirituality as the only key to a right understanding of
persons and providences. Christ was revealed as a king, but not of this world. After
8

the gift of the Spirit the apostles clearly perceived the prediction of prophecy, the
prediction of providence, in the songs of praise.
III. What the day teaches of the child-like spirit should not escape.
IV. We shall not be too bold in pronouncing this day memorable as a prophecy. The
meaning of it was projected into the future. It is prophetic of the entrance into the
heavenly Jerusalem, when, indeed, souls shall give Him homage. That triumphal
entry into the city of David was followed by crucifixion. This triumphal entry into the
city of God shall be consummated in coronation. (J. R. Danford.)
“Who is this?”
I. Let us investigate the different feelings which gave birth to this inquiry.
1. With many it was a feeling of thoughtless wonder.
2. Angry jealousy prompted the question in some.
3. There was yet another class of questioners, whose state of mind may properly
be described as that of irresolute doubt.
II. The true answer to the question.
1. Go to the multitude by whom Jesus is surrounded, and ask, “Who is this?”
2. Go to the ancient prophets and ask, “Who is this?” (Zec_9:9).
3. Go to the apostles after they were enlightened by the Holy Spirit.
4. Go to the experienced believer. (J. Jowett, M. A.)
Honouring Christ
I. Consider the meaning of the incident itself, the spirit and truth which it expresses.
It was, in fact, an expressive illustration of His claims as the Messiah. It was a
spontaneous heart offering. It indicates Christ’s influence on His own age. The truth
does get honoured at times, even in its own time. The prophet is not without his
reward. A noble life will touch the hearts of the people.
II. Consider some of the lessons which are to be drawn from the conduct of the
multitude. The reputation of Christ was great. The multitude was lashed into
enthusiasm. But then came disappointment. He assumed no royal dignity. “Crucify
Him!” It was the fickle element that helps to constitute public opinion. We should,
therefore, consider the grounds and motives from which we honour Christ. He
demands more than our fickle, transient homage. He is not truly honoured by mere
emotions. Men get glimpses of Christ’s beauty and power. His sacrifice in its
incidents moves to tears; but the real spirit and significance of it all are missed.
Christ needs more than good resolutions under the influence of emotional
excitement. We have to honour Him by our perfect self-surrender and trust; and by
our actions amid the mire, and toil, and dust of daily traffic. Real honour must be
faithful and persistent, like that of the loving women who, when Peter meanly
shrank, stood at the last hour by His cross, and were, on the first dawn of Easter Day,
at His sepulchre. There will necessarily be variations in religious moods. But uplifting
moments should leave us higher when they pass. Christ asks more than public
honours. Professional respectabilities not enough. He wants individual honour and
homage. The true heart’s sacrifice more than the hosannas of the thoughtless hollow
9

crowd.
III. Consider the significance of this transaction in its relations to Christ Himself. It
reveals His true glory. He despised the earthly crown. Outward glory was not His
object. He manifested the internal, spiritual, eternal. The kind of triumph here
symbolized. That was one to be reached through sorrow, agony, death; a triumph of
self-sacrificing love. It was not the coronation of sorrow, but victory through death.
There is no real victory which does not partake of the qualities of the Lord’s.
Obedient, submissive, self-sacrificing love is in our appointed path to the upward
heights of glory. You may share Christ’s victory. Then honour Him in a kindred spirit
of sympathy and self-renunciation. My Lord and my God! Let every heart honour
Him! (E. H. Chaplin, D. D.)
2 saying to them, “Go to the village ahead of
you, and just as you enter it, you will find a colt
tied there, which no one has ever ridden. Untie
it and bring it here.
CLARKE, "Whereon never man sat - No animal was allowed to be employed
in sacred uses, even among the heathen, that had previously been used for any
domestic or agricultural purpose; and those which had never been yoked were
considered as sacred. See several proofs of this in the note on Num_19:2 (note), and
add this from Ovid: -
Bos tibi, Phoebus ait, solis occurret in arvis,
Nullum passa jugum curvique immunis aratri
Met. lib. iii. v. 10
The Delphic oracles this answer give: -
Behold among the fields a lonely cow,
Unworn with yokes, unbroken to the plough.
GILL, "And saith unto them, go your way into the village,.... Either of
Bethany or of Nob. The Ethiopic version renders it "the city", and so reads a copy of
Stephens's: some have thought the city of Jerusalem is intended, but without any
reason; See Gill on Mat_21:9;
over against you. The Syriac and Persic versions read, "over against us": the sense
is the same; for Christ and his disciples were together: this suits with either of the
above mentioned places:
and as soon as ye be entered into it; are come to the town's end, and to one of
the first houses in it,
10

ye shall find a colt tied: Matthew says, "an ass tied, and a colt with her", Mat_
21:2; both no doubt true:
whereon never man sat; which had never been backed and broke, and which
makes it the more wonderful, that Christ should choose to ride upon it, and that that
should quietly carry him:
loose him, and bring him; that is, away to me.
HENRY, "I. The outside of this triumph was very mean; he rode upon an ass's
colt, which being an ass, looked contemptible, and made no figure; and, being but a
colt, whereon never man sat, we may suppose, was rough and untrimmed, and not
only so, but rude and ungovernable, and would disturb and disgrace the solemnity.
This colt was borrowed too. Christ went upon the water in a borrowed boat, ate the
passover in a borrowed chamber, was buried in a borrowed sepulchre, and here rode
on a borrowed ass. Let not Christians scorn to be beholden one to another, and,
when need is, to go a borrowing, for our Master did not. He had no rich trappings;
they threw their clothes upon the colt, and so he sat upon him, Mar_11:7. The
persons that attended, were mean people; and all the show they could make, was, by
spreading their garments in the way (Mar_11:8), as they used to do at the feast of
tabernacles. All these were marks of his humiliation; even when he would be taken
notice of, he would be taken notice of for his meanness; and they are instructions to
us, not to mind high things, but to condescend to them of low estate. How ill doth it
become Christians to take state, when Christ was so far from affecting it!
II. The inside of this triumph was very great; not only as it was the fulfilling of the
scripture (which is not taken notice of here, as it as in Matthew), but as there were
several rays of Christ's glory shining forth in the midst of all this meanness. 1. Christ
showed his knowledge of things distant, and his power over the wills of men, when
he sent his disciples for the colt, Mar_11:1-3. By this it appears that he can do every
thing, and no thought can be withholden from him. 2. He showed his dominion over
the creatures in riding on a colt that was never backed. The subjection of the
inferior part of the creation to man is spoken of with application to Christ (Psa_8:5,
Psa_8:6, compared with Heb_2:8); for to him it is owing, and to his mediation, that
we have any remaining benefit by the grant God made to man, of a sovereignty in this
lower world, Gen_1:28. And perhaps Christ, in riding the ass's colt, would give a
shadow of his power over the spirit of man, who is born as the wild ass's colt, Job_
11:12. 3. The colt was brought from a place where two ways met (Mar_11:4), as if
Christ would show that he came to direct those into the right way, who had two ways
before them, and were in danger of taking the wrong. 4. Christ received the joyful
hosannas of the people; that is, both the welcome they gave him and their good
wishes to the prosperity of his kingdom, Mar_11:9. It was God that put it into the
hearts of these people to cry Hosanna, who were not by art and management brought
to it, as those were who afterward cried, Crucify, crucify. Christ reckons himself
honoured by the faith and praises of the multitude, and it is God that brings people
to do him this honour beyond their own intentions.
COFFMAN, "As to which village was meant, there is no certain way to
determine it; but Matthew's mention of their coming to Bethphage with no
mention of Bethany suggests that the latter was the "village over against" them.
Mark and Luke writing at a later date than Matthew threw in the name of the
village where they got the colt. This writer is aware that this contradicts the
notions regarding Mark's being the first gospel; but this is only one of a hundred
11

examples in the text itself suggesting the priority of Matthew, a position which
this writer accepts as far more likely to be true. The historical fact of Matthew's
being the first book in the New Testament is of immense weight.
A colt tied ... The mother would not depart from the colt if the latter was tied,
hence it was unnecessary to tie both animals. Tying the mother, on the other
hand, would not restrain the colt from wandering off. Both were tied.
MACLAREN, "A ROYAL PROGRESS
Two considerations help us to appreciate this remarkable incident of our Lord’s
triumphal entry into Jerusalem. The first of these is its date. It apparently occurred
on the Sunday of the Passion Week. The Friday saw the crosses on Calvary. The night
before, Jesus had sat at the modest feast that was prepared in Bethany, where
Lazarus was one of the guests, Martha was the busy servant, and Mary poured out
the lavish treasures of her love upon His feet. The resurrection of Lazarus had
created great popular excitement; and that excitement is the second consideration
which throws light upon this incident. The people had rallied round Christ, and,
consequently, the hatred of the official and ecclesiastical class had been raised to
boiling-point. It was at that time that our Lord deliberately presented Himself before
the nation as the Messiah, and stirred up still more this popular enthusiasm. Now, if
we keep these two things in view, I think we shall be at the right point from which to
consider the whole incident. To it, and not merely to the words which I have chosen
as our starting-point, I wish to draw attention now. I am mistaken if there are not in
it very important and practical lessons for ourselves.
I. First, note that deliberate assumption by Christ of royal authority.
I shall have a good deal to say presently about the main fact which bears upon that,
but in the meantime I would note, in passing, a subsidiary illustration of it, in the
errand on which He sent these messengers to the little ‘village over against’ them;
and in the words which He put into their mouths. They were to go, and, without a
word, to loose and bring away the colt fastened at a door, where it was evidently
waiting the convenience of its owner to mount it. If, as was natural, any objection or
question was raised, they were to answer exactly as servants of a king would do, if he
sent them to make requisition on the property of his subjects, ‘The Lord hath need of
him.’
I do not dwell on our Lord’s supernatural knowledge as coming out here; nor on the
fact that the owner of the colt was probably a partial disciple, perhaps a secret one-
ready to recognise the claim that was made. But I ask you to notice here the
assertion, in act and word, of absolute authority, to which all private convenience and
rights of possession are to give way unconditionally. The Sovereign’s need is a
sovereign reason. What He requires He has a right to take. Well for us, brethren, if
we yield as glad, as swift, and as unquestioning obedience to His claims upon us, and
upon our possessions, as that poor peasant of Bethphage gave in the incident before
us! But there is not only the assertion, here, of absolute authority, but note how, side
by side with this royal style, there goes the acknowledgment of poverty. Here is a
pauper King, who having nothing yet possesses all things. ‘The Lord’-that is a great
title-’hath need of him’-that is a strange verb to go with such a nominative. But this
little sentence, in its two halves of authority and of dependence, puts into four words
the whole blessed paradox of the life of Jesus Christ upon earth. ‘Though He was
rich, yet for our sakes He became poor’; and being Lord and Owner of all things, yet
owed His daily bread to ministering women, borrowed a boat to preach from, a house
12

wherein to lay His head, a shroud and a winding-sheet to enfold His corpse, a grave
in which to lie, and from which to rise, ‘the Lord of the dead and of the living.’
Not only so, but there is another thought suggested by these words. The accurate, or,
at least, the probable reading, of one part of the third verse is given in the Revised
Version, ‘Say ye that the Lord hath need of him, and straightway he will send him
back hither.’ That is to say, these last words are not Christ’s assurance to His two
messengers that their embassy would succeed, but part of the message which He
sends by them to the owner of the colt, telling him that it was only a loan which was
to be returned. Jesus Christ is debtor to no man. Anything given to Him comes back
again. Possessions yielded to that Lord are recompensed a hundredfold in this life, if
in nothing else in that there is a far greater sweetness in that which still remains.
‘What I gave I have,’ said the wise old epitaph. It is always true. Do you not think that
the owner of the patient beast, on which Christ placidly paced into Jerusalem on His
peaceful triumph, would be proud all his days of the use to which his animal had
been put, and would count it as a treasure for the rest of its life? If you and I will yield
our gifts to Him, and lay them upon His altar, be sure of this, that the altar will
ennoble and will sanctify all that is laid upon it. All that we have rendered to Him
gains fragrance from His touch, and comes back to us tenfold more precious because
He has condescended to use it.
So, brethren, He still moves amongst us, asking for our surrender of ourselves and of
our possessions to Him, and pledging Himself that we shall lose nothing by what we
give to Him, but shall be infinitely gainers by our surrender. He still needs us. Ah! if
He is ever to march in triumph through the world, and be hailed by the hosannas of
all the tribes of the earth, it is requisite for that triumph that His children should
surrender first themselves, and then all that they are, and all that they have, to Him.
To us there comes the message, ‘The Lord hath need of you.’ Let us see that we
answer as becomes us.
But then, more important is the other instance here of this assertion of royal
authority. I have already said that we shall not rightly understand it unless we take
into full account the state of popular feeling at the time. We find in John’s Gospel
great stress laid on the movement of curiosity and half-belief which followed on the
resurrection of Lazarus. He tells us that crowds came out from Jerusalem the night
before to gaze upon the Lifebringer and the quickened man. He also tells us that
another enthusiastic crowd flocked out of Jerusalem before Jesus sent for the colt to
the neighbouring village. We are to keep in mind, therefore, that what He did here
was done in the midst of a great outburst of popular enthusiasm. We are to keep in
mind, too, the season of Passover, when religion and patriotism, which were so
closely intertwined in the life of the Jews, were in full vigorous exercise. It was always
a time of anxiety to the Roman authorities, lest this fiery people should break out
into insurrection. Jerusalem at the Passover was like a great magazine of
combustibles, and into it Jesus flung a lighted brand amongst the inflammable
substances that were gathered there. We have to remember, too, that all His life long
He had gone exactly on the opposite tack. Remember how He betook Himself to the
mountain solitudes when they wanted to make Him a king. Remember how He was
always damping down Messianic enthusiasm. But here, all at once, He reverses His
whole conduct, and deliberately sets Himself to make the most public and the most
exciting possible demonstration that He was ‘King of Israel.’
For what was it that He did? Our Evangelist here does not quote the prophecy from
Zechariah, but two other Evangelists do. Our Lord then deliberately dressed Himself
by the mirror of prophecy, and assumed the very characteristics which the prophet
had given long ago as the mark of the coming King of Zion. If He had wanted to
13

excite a popular commotion, that is what He would have done.
Why did He act thus? He was under no illusion as to what would follow. For the night
before He had said: ‘She hath come beforehand to anoint My body for the burial.’ He
knew what was close before Him in the future. And, because He knew that the end
was at hand, He felt that, once at least, it was needful that He should present Himself
solemnly, publicly, I may almost say ostentatiously, before the gathered nation, as
being of a truth the Fulfiller and the fulfilment of all the prophecies and the hopes
built upon them that had burned in Israel, with a smoky flame indeed, but for so
many ages. He also wanted to bring the rulers to a point. I dare not say that He
precipitated His death, or provoked a conflict, but I do say that deliberately, and with
a clear understanding of what He was doing, He took a step which forced them to
show their hand. For after such a public avowal of who He was, and such public
hosannas surging round His meek feet as He rode into the city, there were but two
courses open for the official class: either to acknowledge Him, or to murder Him.
Therefore He reversed His usual action, and deliberately posed, by His own act, as
claiming to be the Messiah long prophesied and long expected.
Now, what do you think of the man that did that? If He did it, then either He is what
the rulers called Him, a ‘deceiver,’ swollen with inordinate vanity and unfit to be a
teacher, or else we must fall at His feet and say ‘Rabbi! Thou art the Son of God;
Thou art the King of Israel.’ I venture to believe that to extol Him and to deny the
validity of His claims is in flagrant contradiction to the facts of His life, and is an
unreasonable and untenable position.
II. Notice the revelation of a new kind of King and Kingdom.
Our Evangelist, from whom my text is taken, has nothing to say about Zechariah’s
prophecy which our Lord set Himself to fulfil. He only dwells on the pathetic poverty
of the pomp of the procession. But other Evangelists bring into view the deeper
meaning of the incident. The centre-point of the prophecy, and of Christ’s intentional
fulfilment of it, lies in the symbol of the meek and patient animal which He bestrode.
The ass was, indeed, used sometimes in old days by rulers and judges in Israel, but
the symbol was chosen by the prophet simply to bring out the peacefulness and the
gentleness inherent in the Kingdom, and the King who thus advanced into His city. If
you want to understand the meaning of the prophet’s emblem, you have only to
remember the sculptured slabs of Assyria and Babylon, or the paintings on the walls
of Egyptian temples and tombs, where Sennacherib or Rameses ride hurtling in
triumph in their chariots, over the bodies of prostrate foes; and then to set by the
side of these, ‘Rejoice! O daughter of Zion; thy King cometh unto thee riding upon an
ass, and upon a colt the foal of an ass.’ If we want to understand the significance of
this sweet emblem, we need only, further, remember the psalm that, with poetic
fervour, invokes the King: ‘Gird Thy sword upon Thy thigh, O Most Mighty, and in
Thy majesty ride prosperously . . . and Thy right hand shall teach thee terrible things.
Thine arrows are sharp in the heart of the King’s enemies; the people fall under
Thee.’ That is all that that ancient singer could conceive of the triumphant King of the
world, the Messiah; a conqueror, enthroned in His chariot, and the twanging
bowstring, drawn by His strong hand, impelling the arrow that lodged in the heart of
His foes. And here is the fulfilment. ‘Go ye into the village over against you, and ye
shall find a colt tied . . . And they set Him thereon.’ Christ’s kingdom, like its King,
has no power but gentleness and the omnipotence of patient love.
If ‘Christian’ nations, as they are called, and Churches had kept the significance of
that emblem in mind, do you think that their hosannas would have gone up so often
for conquerors on the battlefields; or that Christian communities would have been in
complicity with war and the glorifying thereof, as they have been? And, if Christian
14

churches had remembered and laid to heart the meaning of this triumphal entry, and
its demonstration of where the power of the Master lay, would they have struck up
such alliances with worldly powers and forms of force as, alas! have weakened and
corrupted the Church for hundreds of years? Surely, surely, there is no more
manifest condemnation of war and the warlike spirit, and of the spirit which finds
the strength of Christ’s Church in anything material and violent, than is that solitary
instance of His assumption of royal state when thus He entered into His city. I need
not say a word, brethren, about the nature of Christ’s kingdom as embodied in His
subjects, as represented in that shouting multitude that marched around Him. How
Caesar in his golden house in Rome would have sneered and smiled at the Jewish
peasant, on the colt, and surrounded by poor men, who had no banners but the leafy
branches from the trees, and no pomp to strew in his way but their own worn
garments! And yet these were stronger in their devotion, in their enthusiastic
conviction that He was the King of Israel and of the whole earth, than Caesar, with all
his treasures and with all his legions and their sharp swords. Christ accepts poor
homage because He looks for hearts; and whatever the heart renders is sweet to Him.
He passes on through the world, hailed by the acclamations of grateful hearts,
needing no bodyguard but those that love Him; and they need to bear no weapons in
their hands, but their mission is to proclaim with glad hearts hosannas to the King
that ‘cometh in the name of the Lord.’
There is one more point that I may note. Another of the Evangelists tells us that it
was when the humble cortège swept round the shoulder of Olivet, and caught sight of
the city gleaming in the sunshine, across the Kedron valley, that they broke into the
most rapturous of their hosannas, as if they would call to the city that came in view to
rejoice and welcome its King. And what was the King doing when that sight burst
upon Him, and while the acclamations eddied round Him? His thoughts were far
away. His eyes with divine prescience looked on to the impending end, and then they
dimmed, and filled with tears; and He wept over the city.
That is our King; a pauper King, a meek and patient King, a King that delights in the
reverent love of hearts, a King whose armies have no swords, a King whose eyes fill
with tears as He thinks of men’s woes and cries. Blessed be such a King!
III. Lastly, we have the Royal visitation of the Temple.
Our Evangelist has no word to speak about the march of the procession down into
the valley, and up on the other side, and through the gate, and into the narrow streets
of the city that was ‘moved’ as they passed through it. His language sounds as if he
considered that our Lord’s object in entering Jerusalem at all was principally to enter
the Temple. He ‘looked round on all things’ that were there. Can we fancy the keen
observance, the recognition of the hidden bad and good, the blazing indignation, and
yet dewy pity, in those eyes? His visitation of the Temple was its inspection by its
Lord. And it was an inspection in order to cleanse. To-day He looked; to-morrow He
wielded the whip of small cords. His chastisement is never precipitate. Perfect
knowledge wields His scourge, and pronounces condemnation.
Brethren, Jesus Christ comes to us as a congregation, to the church to which we
belong, and to us individually, with the same inspection. He whose eyes are a flame
of fire, says to His churches to-day, ‘I know thy works.’ What would He think if He
came to us and tested us?
In the incident of my text He was fulfilling another ancient prophecy, which says,
‘The Lord shall suddenly come to His Temple, and . . . sit as a refiner of silver . . . like
a refiner’s fire and as fuller’s soap . . . and He shall purify the sons of Levi. . .. Then
shall the offering of Jerusalem be pleasant, as in the days of old.’
15

We need nothing more, we should desire nothing more earnestly, than that He would
come to us: ‘Search me, O Christ, and know me. And see if there be any wicked way in
me, and lead me in the way everlasting.’ Jesus Christ is the King of England as truly
as of Zion; and He is your King and mine. He comes to each of us, patient, meek,
loving; ready to bless and to cleanse. Dear brother, do you open your heart to Him?
Do you acknowledge Him as your King? Do you count it your highest honour if He
will use you and your possessions, and condescend to say that He has need of such
poor creatures as we are? Do you cast your garments in the way, and say: ‘Ride on,
great Prince’? Do you submit yourself to His inspection, to His cleansing?
Remember, He came once on ‘a colt, the foal of an ass, meek, and having salvation.’
He will come ‘on the white horse, in righteousness to judge and to make war’ and
with power to destroy.
Oh! I beseech you, welcome Him as He comes in gentle love, that when He comes in
judicial majesty you may be among the ‘armies of heaven that follow after,’ and from
immortal tongues utter rapturous and undying hosannas.
3 If anyone asks you, ‘Why are you doing this?’
say, ‘The Lord needs it and will send it back
here shortly.’”
CLARKE, "And straightway he will send him hither - From the text, I
think it is exceedingly plain, that our Lord did not beg, but borrow, the colt; therefore
the latter clause of this verse should be understood as the promise of returning him.
Is not the proper translation the following? And if any one say to you, Why do ye
this? Say, the Lord hath need of him, and will speedily send him back hither - και
ευθεως αυτον αποστελλει ᆞδε. Some eminent critics take the same view of the passage.
GILL, "And if any man say unto you,.... As very likely they would, and it would
be strange if they should not say something to them, especially the owners of it:
why do ye this? Why do ye untie the ass, and attempt to carry it away, when it is
none of your own, and it belongs to another man?
Say ye that the Lord hath need of him; our Lord and yours, the Lord of heaven
and earth, and all things in it; it looks as if this title, "the Lord", was what Jesus was
well known by; see Joh_11:28; unless it can be thought, that the owners of the colt
were such, that believed in Christ, as is not improbable; and so would at once
understand by the language who it was for, and let it go:
and straightway he will send him, hither; as soon as ever he hears that the
Lord, by whom he would presently understand Jesus, wanted him for his present
purpose; he will send him with all readiness and cheerfulness, without the least
hesitation, or making any dispute about it.
16

COFFMAN, "The Lord hath need of him ... Jesus here referred to himself as
"Lord," a term that cannot, in context, be separated from a claim of divinity on
Jesus' part.
And straightway he will send him back hither ... The Greek word here rendered
"hither" is actually "here";[2] it is thus a reference to the place where Jesus was
standing when he gave this order. The word "back" is thus not a reference to
taking the animal back but to the coming "back" of the disciples with the colt.
Translators and commentators have a great difficulty with this rather unusual
mode of expression; but the meaning is absolutely clear in Matthew: "And
straightway he will send them" (Matthew 21:3), meaning the owner would
straightway send the requested colt (and its mother) to Jesus. The notion that
Jesus was here promising to send the animal back promptly is ridiculous, as if
the Lord would need to promise any such thing in order to procure an animal
which he already knew would be promptly given without any such promise. The
appearance of this event in all three synoptic gospels is proof enough that the
supernatural knowledge of the Lord regarding where the colt would be found,
the fact of its being tied and being with its mother: and the fact of the owner's
willingness to allow the Lord to use them that supernatural knowledge is the
main point of the narrative, along with the element of fulfilling prophecy.
ENDNOTE:
[2] Nestle Greek Text (Grand Rapids, Michigan: Zondervan Publishing House,
1972.
MACLAREN, "CHRIST'S NEED OF US AND OURS
You will remember that Jesus Christ sent two of His disciples into the village that
looked down on the road from Bethany to Jerusalem, with minute instructions and
information as to what they were to do and find there. The instructions may have one
of two explanations-they suggest either superhuman knowledge or a previous
arrangement. Perhaps, although it is less familiar to our thoughts, the latter is the
explanation. There is a remarkable resemblance, in that respect, to another incident
which lies close beside this one in time, when our Lord again sent two disciples to
make preparation for the Passover, and, with similar minuteness, told them that they
would find, at a certain point, a man bearing a pitcher of water. Him they were to
accost, and he would take them to the room that had been prepared. Now the old
explanation of both these incidents is that Jesus Christ knew what was going to
happen. Another possible explanation, and in my view more probable and quite as
instructive, is, that Jesus Christ had settled with the two owners what was to happen.
Clearly, the owner of the colt was a disciple, because at once he gave up his property
when the message was repeated, ‘the Lord hath need of him.’ Probably he had been
one of the guests at the modest festival that had been held the night before, in the
village close by, in Simon’s house, and had seen how Mary had expended her most
precious possession on the Lord, and, under the influence of the resurrection of
Lazarus, he, too, perhaps, was touched, and was glad to arrange with Jesus Christ to
have his colt waiting there at the cross-road for his Master’s convenience. But, be
that as it may, it seems to me that this incident, and especially these words that I
have read for a text, carry very striking and important lessons for us, whether we look
at them in connection with the incident itself, or whether we venture to give them a
17

somewhat wider application. Let me take these two points in turn.
I. Now, what strikes one about our Lord’s requisitioning the colt is this,
that here is a piece of conduct on His part singularly unlike all the rest of
His life.
All through it, up to this last moment, His one care was to damp down popular
enthusiasm, to put on the drag whenever there came to be the least symptom of it, to
discourage any reference to Him as the Messiah-King of Israel, to shrink back from
the coarse adulation of the crowd, and to glide quietly through the world, blessing
and doing good. But now, at the end, He flings off all disguise. He deliberately sets
Himself, at a time when popular enthusiasm ran highest and was most turbid and
difficult to manage, at the gathering of the nation for the Passover in Jerusalem, to
cast an effervescing element into the caldron. If He had planned to create a popular
rising, He could not have done anything more certain to bring it about than what He
did that morning when He made arrangements for a triumphal procession into the
city, amidst the excited crowds gathered from every quarter of the land. Why did He
do that? What was the meaning of it? Then there is another point in this
requisitioning of the colt. He not only deliberately set Himself to stir up popular
excitement, but He consciously did what would be an outward fulfilment of a great
Messianic prophecy. I hope you are wiser than to fancy that Zechariah’s prophecy of
the peaceful monarch who was to come to Zion, meek and victorious, and riding
upon a ‘colt the foal of an ass,’ was fulfilled by the outward fact of Christ being
mounted on this colt ‘whereon never man sat.’ That is only the shell, and if there had
been no such triumphal entry, our Lord would as completely have fulfilled
Zechariah’s prophecy. The fulfilment of it did not depend on the petty detail of the
animal upon which He sat when He entered the city, nor even on that entrance. The
meaning of the prophecy was that to Zion, wherever and whatever it is, there should
come that Messianic King, whose reign owed nothing to chariots and horses and
weapons of war for its establishment, but who, meek and patient, pacing upon the
humble animal used only for peaceful services, and not mounted on the prancing
steed of the warrior, should inaugurate the reign of majesty and of meekness. Our
Lord uses the external fact just as the prophet had used it, as of no value in itself, but
as a picturesque emblem of the very spirit of His kingdom. The literal fulfilment was
a kind of finger-post for inattentive onlookers, which might induce them to look
more closely, and so see that He was indeed the King Messiah, because of more
important correspondences with prophecy than His once riding on an ass. Do not so
degrade these Old Testament prophecies as to fancy that their literal fulfilment is of
chief importance. That is the shell: the kernel is the all-important thing, and Jesus
Christ would have fulfilled the r? that was sketched for Him by the prophets of old,
just as completely if there never had been this entrance into Jerusalem.
But, further, the fact that He had to borrow the colt was as significant as the choice of
it. For so we see blended two things, the blending of which makes the unique
peculiarity and sublimity of Christ’s life: absolute authority, and meekness of poverty
and lowliness. A King, and yet a pauper-King! A King claiming His dominion, and yet
obliged to borrow another man’s colt in order that He might do it! A strange kind of
monarch!-and yet that remarkable combination runs through all His life. He had to
be obliged to a couple of fishermen for a boat, but He sat in it, to speak words of
divine wisdom. He had to be obliged to a lad in the crowd for barley loaves and
fishes, but when He took them into His hands they were multiplied. He had to be
obliged for a grave, and yet He rose from the borrowed grave the Lord of life and
death. And so when He would pose as a King, He has to borrow the regalia, and to be
obliged to this anonymous friend for the colt which made the emphasis of His claim.
‘Who, though He was rich, yet for our sakes became poor, that we through His
18

poverty might be rich.’
II. And now turn for a moment to the wider application of these words.
‘The Lord hath need of him.’ That opens the door to thoughts, that I cannot crowd
into the few minutes that I have at my disposal, as to that great and wonderful truth
that Christ cannot assume His kingdom in this world without your help, and that of
the other people whose hearts are touched by His love. ‘The Lord hath need’ of them.
Though upon that Cross of Calvary He did all that was necessary for the redemption
of the world and the salvation of humanity as a whole, yet for the bearing of that
blessing into individual hearts, and for the application of the full powers that are
stored in the Gospel and in Jesus, to their work in the world, the missing link is man.
We ‘are fellow-labourers with God.’ We are Christ’s tools. The instruments by which
He builds His kingdom are the souls that have already accepted His authority. ‘The
Lord hath need of him,’ though, as the psalmist sings, ‘If I were hungry I would not
tell thee, for all the beasts of the forest are Mine.’ Yes, and when the Word was made
flesh, He had need of one of the humblest of the beasts. The Christ that redeemed the
world needs us, to carry out and to bring into effect His redemption. ‘God mend all,’
said one, and the answer was, ‘We must help Him to mend it.’
Notice again the authoritative demand, which does not contemplate the possibility of
reluctance or refusal. ‘The Lord hath need of him.’ That is all. There is no explanation
or motive alleged to induce surrender to the demand. This is a royal style of speech.
It is the way in which, in despotic countries, kings lay their demands upon a poor
man’s whole plenishing and possession, and sweep away all.
Jesus Christ comes to us in like fashion, and brushes aside all our convenience and
everything else, and says, ‘I want you, and that is enough.’ Is it not enough? Should it
not be enough? If He demands, He has the right to demand. For we are His, ‘bought
with a price.’ All the slave’s possessions are his owner’s property. The slave is given a
little patch of garden ground, and perhaps allowed to keep a fowl or two, but the
master can come and say, ‘Now I want them,’ and the slave has nothing for it but to
give them up.
‘The Lord hath need of him’ is in the autocratic tone of One who has absolute power
over us and ours. And that power, where does it come from? It comes from His
absolute surrender of Himself to us, and because He has wholly given Himself for us.
He does not expect us to say one contrary word when He sends and says, ‘I have need
of you, or of yours.’
Here, again, we have an instance of glad surrender. The last words of my text are
susceptible of a double meaning. ‘Straightway he will send him hither’-who is ‘he’? It
is usually understood to be the owner of the colt, and the clause is supposed to be
Christ’s assurance to the two messengers of the success of their errand. So
understood, the words suggest the great truth that Love loosens the hand that grasps
possessions, and unlocks our treasure-houses. There is nothing more blessed than to
give in response to the requirement of love. And so, to Christ’s authoritative demand,
the only proper answer is obedience swift and glad, because it is loving. Many
possibilities of joy and blessing are lost by us through not yielding on the instant to
Christ’s demands. Hesitation and delay are dangerous. In ‘straightway’ complying are
security and joy. If the owner had begun to say to himself that he very much needed
the colt, or that he saw no reason why some one else’s beast should not have been
taken, or that he would send the animal very soon, but must have the use of him for
an hour or two first, he would probably never have sent him at all, and so would have
missed the greatest honour of his life. As soon as I know what Christ wants from me,
without delay let me do it; for if I begin with delaying I shall probably end with
declining. The Psalmist was wise when he laid emphasis on the swiftness of his
19

obedience, and said, ‘I made haste and delayed not, but made haste to keep Thy
commandments.’
But another view of the words makes them part of the message to the owner of the
colt, and not of the assurance to the disciples. ‘Say ye that the Lord hath need of him,
and that straightway (when He has done with him) He will send him back again.’
That is a possible rendering, and I am disposed to think it is the proper one. By it the
owner is told that he is not parting with his property for good and all, that Jesus only
wishes to borrow the animal for the morning, and that it will be returned in the
afternoon. What does that view of the words suggest to us? Do you not think that that
colt, when it did come back-for of course it came back some time or other,-was a
great deal more precious to its owner than it ever had been before, or ever could have
been if it had not been lent to Christ, and Christ had not made His royal entry upon
it? Can you not fancy that the man, if he was, as he evidently was, a disciple and lover
of the Lord, would look at it, especially after the Crucifixion and the Ascension, and
think, ‘What an honour to me, that I provided the mount for that triumphal entry!’?
It is always so. If you wish anything to become precious, lend it to Jesus Christ, and
when it comes back again, as it will come back, there will be a fragrance about it, a
touch of His fingers will be left upon it, a memory that He has used it. If you desire to
own yourselves, and to make yourselves worth owning, give yourselves to Christ. If
you wish to get the greatest possible blessing and good out of possessions, lay them
at His feet. If you wish love to be hallowed, joy to be calmed, perpetuated, and
deepened, carry it to Him. ‘If the house be worthy, your peace shall rest upon it; if
not,’ like the dove to the ark when it could find no footing in the turbid and drowned
world, ‘it shall come back to you again. Straightway He will ‘send him back again,’
and that which I give to Jesus He will return enhanced, and it will be more truly and
more blessedly mine, because I have laid it in His hands. This ‘altar’ sanctifies the
giver and the gift.
4 They went and found a colt outside in the
street, tied at a doorway. As they untied it,
BARNES, "Two ways met - A crossroads. A public place, probably near the
center of the village.
GILL, "And they went their way,.... The two disciples went to the village, where
Christ sent them, without objecting any difficulties that might present, in the
execution of these orders:
and found the colt tied by the door without; in the street, fastened to the door
of the owner's house, at the town's end:
in a place where two ways met; to go into and out of the village; at the corner
house, where two ways met; so that the place was very public, and such an affair
could not be transacted, without being seen:
20

and they loose him; as soon as ever they came to the place, they immediately
began to untie the colt, and were going away with him.
COFFMAN, "It should be noted that the disciples found the colt exactly where
Jesus said they would find it, that it was tied, and that they encountered exactly
the same questioning of what they were doing that Jesus had anticipated. No
wonder such an event persisted in the memory of all and found its way into all
three synoptics. Who but God could have exhibited such foreknowledge as this?
Commentators who suppose that Jesus must have set this up in advance, or that
the owner was in Jesus' company on that occasion, are not interpreting anything
in the Bible but expressing their own unbelief. Significantly, it appears that the
people questioning the disciples were merely bystanders, and not the owner; and
it would have been impossible to have set up such a thing in advance.
5 some people standing there asked, “What are
you doing, untying that colt?”
BARNES, "What do ye, loosing the colt? - Or, why do ye do this? What
authority have you for doing it?
See this passage illustrated in the notes at Mat. 21:1-16.
GILL, "And certain of them that stood there,.... The Ethiopic version reads,
who walked there; who were either standing hard by, or walking about the place,
being inhabitants of it; and either the owners of the colt, or their servants, or both:
said unto them, what do ye loosing the colt? What do ye mean by it? do you
intend to take the colt away? what business have you with it? what right have you to
do so? and what is your end in it?
6 They answered as Jesus had told them to, and
the people let them go.
CLARKE, "And they let them go - Having a full assurance that the beast
should be safely and speedily restored.
GILL, "And they said unto them,.... The very express words,
21

even as Jesus had commanded: not that these were the words they said, but "the
Lord hath need of him": upon which they said no more, were satisfied and contented,
that they should untie the colt, and take it with them:
and they let them go; and the colt with them, very freely; See Gill on Mat_21:6.
7 When they brought the colt to Jesus and
threw their cloaks over it, he sat on it.
GILL, "And they brought the colt to Jesus,.... Where he was,
and cast their garments on him; their clothes to be instead of a saddle, for
Christ to sit upon:
and he sat upon him; or "Jesus rode on him", as the Syriac version renders it. The
Ethiopic version reads, "they made him to mount him"; that is, the disciples assisted
him in getting upon it, and having mounted it, he sat on it without any trouble,
though it had never been backed before, and rode on his way to Jerusalem; See Gill
on Mat_21:7.
BARCLAY, "HE THAT COMETH (Mark 11:7-10)
11:7-10 They brought the colt to Jesus, and they put their garments on it, and
mounted him on it. Many of them spread their garments on the road. Others cut
branches from the fields and spread them on the road. And those who were
going before and those who were following kept shouting, "Save now! Blessed is
the coming kingdom of our father David! Send thy salvation from the heights of
heaven!"
The colt they brought had never been ridden upon. That was fitting, for a beast
to be used for a sacred purpose must never have been used for any other
purpose. It was so with the red heifer whose ashes cleansed from pollution
(Numbers 19:2, Deuteronomy 21:3).
The whole picture is of a populace who misunderstood. It shows us a crowd of
people thinking of kingship in the terms of conquest in which they had thought
of it for so long. It is oddly reminiscent of how Simon Maccabaeus entered
Jerusalem a hundred and fifty years before, after he had blasted Israel's enemies
in battle. "And he entered into it the three and twentieth day of the seventh
month, in the hundred, seventy and first year, with thanksgiving and branches of
palm trees, and with harps, and cymbals, and viols, and hymns and songs,
because there was destroyed a great enemy out of Israel." (1 Maccabees 13:51.)
It was a conqueror's welcome they sought to give to Jesus, but they never
22

dreamed of the kind of conqueror he wished to be.
The very shouts which the crowd raised to Jesus showed how their thoughts
were running. When they spread their garments on the ground before him, they
did exactly what the crowd did when that man of blood Jehu was anointed king.
(2 Kings 9:13.) They shouted, "Blessed is he who comes in the name of the
Lord!" That is a quotation from Psalms 118:26, and should really read a little
differently, "Blessed in the name of the Lord is he who comes!"
There are three things to note about that shout.
(i) It was the regular greeting with which pilgrims were addressed when they
reached the Temple on the occasion of the great feasts.
(ii) "He who comes" was another name for the Messiah. When the Jews spoke
about the Messiah, they talked of him as the One who is Coming.
(iii) But it is the whole origin of the Psalm from which the words come that
makes them supremely suggestive. In 167 B.C. there had arisen an extraordinary
king in Syria called Antiocheius. He had conceived it his duty to be a missionary
of Hellenism and to introduce Greek ways of life, Greek thought and Greek
religion wherever he could, even, if necessary, by force. He tried to do so in
Palestine.
For a time he conquered Palestine. To possess a copy of the law or to circumcise
a child were crimes punishable by death. He desecrated the Temple courts. He
actually instituted the worship of Zeus where Jehovah had been worshipped.
With deliberate insult he offered swine's flesh on the great altar of the burnt-
offering. He made the chambers round the Temple courts into brothels. He did
everything he could to wipe out the Jewish faith.
It was then that Judas Maccabaeus arose, and after an amazing career of
conquest, in 163 B.C. he drove Antiocheius out and re-purified and re-
consecrated the temple, an event which the Feast of the Dedication, or the Feast
of Hanukah, still commemorates. And in all probability Psalms 118:1-29 was
written to commemorate that great day of purification and the battle which
Judas Maccabaeus won. It is a conqueror's psalm.
Again and again we see the same thing happening in this incident. Jesus had
claimed to be the Messiah, but in such a way as to try to show that the popular
ideas of the Messiah were misguided. But the people did not see it. Their
welcome was one which befitted, not the King of love, but the conqueror who
would shatter the enemies of Israel.
In Mark 11:9-10 there is the word Hosanna. The word is consistently
misunderstood. It is quoted and used as if it meant Praise; but it is a simple
transliteration of the Hebrew for Save now! it occurs in exactly the same form in
2 Samuel 14:4 and 2 Kings 6:26, where it is used by people seeking for help and
protection at the hands of the king. When the people shouted Hosanna it was not
23

a cry of praise to Jesus, which it often sounds like when we quote it. It was a cry
to God to break in and save his people now that the Messiah had come.
No incident so shows the sheer courage of Jesus as this does. In the
circumstances one might have expected him to enter Jerusalem secretly and to
keep hidden from the authorities who were out to destroy him. Instead he
entered in such a way that the attention of every eye was focussed upon him. One
of the most dangerous things a man can do is to go to people and tell them that
all their accepted ideas are wrong. Any man who tries to tear up by the roots a
people's nationalistic dreams is in for trouble. But that is what Jesus deliberately
was doing. Here we see Jesus making the last appeal of love and making it with a
courage that is heroic.
BURKITT, "Observe here, The obedience of his disciples. First, They did as
Jesus had commanded, they do not dispute their Lord's commands, nor raise
objections, nor are afraid of dangers: when our call is clear, our obedience must
be speedy; what Christ commands we are not to dispute, but to obey.
Observe, 2. The actions of the multitude in acknowledging Christ to be their
King; they cast their garments on the ground for him to ride upon, according to
the custom of princes when they ride in state; and do not only disrobe their
backs, but expend their breath in joyful acclamations, and loud hosannas,
wishing all manner of prosperity to their meek but mighty King. In this princely,
yet poor and despicable pomp, doth our Saviour enter the famous city of
Jerusalem.
O how far was our holy Lord from affecting worldly greatness and grandeur! He
despised that glory which worldly hearts fondly admire; yet because he was a
King, he would be proclaimed such, and have his kingdom confessed, applauded,
and blessed. But that it might appear that his kingdom was not of this world, he
abandons all worldly magnificence. O glorious, yet homely pomp! O meek, but
mighty Prince!
CONSTABLE, "The disciples made a saddle for Jesus from their outer
garments. Jesus' decision to enter Jerusalem this way fulfilled the messianic
prophecy in Zechariah 9:9. It also indicated that He entered as a servant ruler,
not as a political conqueror. When Israel's rulers wanted to present themselves
as servants of the people, they rode donkeys (e.g., Judges 10:4; Judges 12:14).
When they acted as military leaders, they rode horses. Normally pilgrims to
Jerusalem entered the city on foot. [Note: Ibid., p. 393.] Placing one's garment on
the ground before someone was a sign of royal homage (cf. 2 Kings 9:12-13; 1
Maccabees 13:51).
8 Many people spread their cloaks on the road,
while others spread branches they had cut in the
24

fields.
GILL, "And many spread their garments in the way,.... Instead of carpets to
ride on, and in honour to him as a king:
and others cut down branches off the trees, and strawed them in the way;
in token of joy, as at the feast of tabernacles; See Gill on Mat_21:8.
COFFMAN, "Cranfield's allegation says this "demonstration was quite a small
affair."[3] Such a comment is shocking, not because of any possible truth in it,
but because it is almost incredible that an intelligent man would make it. As
these lines are being written, President Richard M. Nixon has just enjoyed a
triumphal reception in Egypt where over two million people enthusiastically
hailed him; but does anyone suppose for a moment that nineteen centuries
afterward people will be studying that entry into Egypt by an American
president? This entry of Jesus Christ into Jerusalem is still hailed by millions
some two thousand years after the fact. It was immortalized by four historical
records, hated to be sure, but still true, still standing as fact, still received as the
word of God to mankind, still loved, honored, and revered by people of all
nations. That such results could have flowed out of some "very small affair" is
utterly impossible of belief. On this day, the palm branch became forever
afterward a symbol of victory, which, as Dummelow said, was a thing unknown
to the Jews.[4] Some "small affair"!
This great outpouring of Jerusalem to welcome Jesus our Lord was a vast
spontaneous demonstration in which the great masses of the people participated
with Hosannas and praises and the casting of their clothes in the street before the
Lord (they didn't even do that for Nixon). The King had indeed come to his
people, and they hailed him as "the King of Israel" and as "the Son of David."
The priests were furious, saying, "Lo, the world has gone after him" (John
12:19). As a matter of fact, it had!
[3] C. E. B. Cranfield, op. cit., p. 353.
[4] J. R. Dummelow, Commentary on the Whole Bible (New York: The
Macmillan Company, 1937), p. 694.
9 Those who went ahead and those who followed
shouted,
“Hosanna![a]”
25

“Blessed is he who comes in the name of the
Lord!”[b]
GILL, "And they that went before, and they that followed,.... They that came
from Jerusalem to meet him, and they that followed him from Jericho and other
parts; which two bodies, the one went before him, and the other followed after him:
and
cried, saying, Hosanna, blessed is he that cometh in the name of the
Lord; See Gill on Mat_21:9.
HENRY, "They welcomed his person (Mar_11:9); Blessed is he that cometh, the
ho erchomenos, he that should come, so often promised, so long expected; he comes in
the name of the Lord, as God's Ambassador to the world; Blessed be he: let him have
our applauses, and best affections; he is a blessed Saviour, and brings blessings to us,
and blessed be he that sent him. Let him be blessed in the name of the Lord, and let
all nations and ages call him Blessed, and think and speak highly and honourably of
him.
COFFMAN, "They that went before, and they that followed ... Here are the two
great multitudes, one following Jesus from Bethany, many of them being
eyewitnesses of the raising of Lazarus and all of them shouting that fact as they
followed, and another coming out from Jerusalem, having heard that the man
who raised Lazarus was coming, and hastening out to greet him. Thus, Mark's
brief words here give the basic fact of those two great masses of people
converging upon Jesus.
The balance of these two verses are rich with messianic implications, the mention
of David, so long dead and buried, having no other possible meaning except as a
reference to the Son of David, Israel's long-expected Messiah.
For comment upon the fulfillment of Zechariah 9:9, and with regard to many of
the spiritual overtones of this wonderful entry, see my Commentary on Matthew,
Matthew 21:1-11. No triumphal entry ever known at any time or place could be
compared with that of the world's true Light on the last Sunday preceding his
resurrection from the dead; and the truly wonderful thing about Jesus' triumph
is that it is still going on!
The exclamations of the multitudes hailing Jesus' entry into the city are variously
reported by the four gospels: Matthew has "Hosanna to the Son of David;
blessed is he that cometh in the name of the Lord: Hosanna in the highest"
(Matthew 21:9); Mark has "Blessed is the kingdom that cometh, the kingdom of
our father David: Hosanna in the highest" (Mark 11:9,10); Luke has "Blessed is
the King that cometh in the name of the Lord; Hosanna in the highest" Luke
19:38); and John has "Hosanna: Blessed is he that cometh in the name of the
Lord, even the King of Israel" (John 12:13). Such accounts are exactly what one
26

should have expected in view of the undeniable truth that such multitudes would
have shouted MANY THINGS. The four samplings which have come down to us
outline quite clearly the nature and intent of their exclamations. Critics who
select the least extensive of these four records and then shout that "this is all that
was said by those multitudes" betray not merely their lack of knowing the
Scriptures but also their phenomenal ignorance of crowds such as that which
hailed the Lord.
CONSTABLE, "The people hoped Jesus would be their Messiah. "Hosanna" is
the transliteration of a Greek word that transliterated the Hebrew hosi ah na (lit.
"O save us now," Psalms 118:25 a). It was an exclamation of praise calling for
deliverance.
"Blessed is he who comes in the name of the Lord" is a quotation from Psalms
118:26 that was part of the liturgy the Jews used during the Passover. This was a
common greeting for visitors to Jerusalem. [Note: Wessel, p. 725.] However on
this occasion it took on new meaning (cf. Genesis 49:10).
The peoples' reference to the coming Davidic kingdom shows that they hoped for
its establishment soon (2 Samuel 7:16; Amos 9:11-12). Some in the crowd
acknowledged Jesus as the Son of David (Matthew 21:9).
"Hosanna in the highest" meant "O, you who lives in heaven, save us now." This
was a call to God to deliver His people. The chiastic structure of the peoples'
words shows that they were chanting antiphonally, as was customary at
Passover.
Someone who knew nothing about Jesus might have concluded from witnessing
this procession that it was just a part of the traditional Passover celebration.
Often when pilgrims caught sight of the temple for the first time, coming from
the east over the Mount of Olives, they burst out in jubilant praise. [Note: Lane,
p. 397.] It did not provoke action from the Roman soldiers.
10 “Blessed is the coming kingdom of our father
David!”
“Hosanna in the highest heaven!”
CLARKE, "In the name of the Lord - Omitted by BCDLU, some others, and
several versions. Griesbach leaves it out.
Hosanna in the highest! - See on Mat_21:9 (note).
27

GILL, "Blessed be the kingdom of our father David,.... It was more usual
with the Jews to call Abraham their father; but, because the Messiah was David's son,
therefore, with respect to him, they here call him their father: and their meaning is,
let the kingdom promised to our father David, and to his seed for ever,
that cometh in the name of the Lord; which is now coming, and appears in the
auspicious reign and government of his son, the Messiah, who is clothed with
majesty and authority; be prosperous and successful and be established, and endure
for ever; to the glory and happiness of him as king, and of all the subjects of it. Unless
the words should be rendered, as by their situation they may be, thus, "blessed be the
kingdom that cometh in the name of the Lord, of our father David"; and the sense be,
let the kingdom of the Messiah, which is now come, and is set up in his name, who,
as God, is David s Lord, greatly flourish, and long continue; may its king be blessed,
and all its subjects happy. The Vulgate Latin, Syriac, Arabic, and Persic versions,
leave out the clause, "in the name of the Lord"; it is also left out in Beza's ancient
copy, and in another; but the Ethiopic version retains it, reading it "in the name of
God". It is added,
Hosanna in the highest: See Gill on Mat_21:9.
HENRY, " They wished well to his intent, Mar_11:10. They believed that, mean a
figure as he made, he had a kingdom, which should shortly be set up in the world,
that it was the kingdom of their father David (that father of his country), the
kingdom promised to him and his seed for ever; a kingdom that came in the name of
the Lord, supported by a divine authority. Blessed be this kingdom; let it take place,
let it get ground, let it come in the power of it, and let all opposing rule, principality,
and power, be put down; let it go on conquering, and to conquer. Hosanna to this
kingdom; prosperity be to it; all happiness attend it. The proper signification of
hosanna is that which we find, Rev_7:10. Salvation to our God, that sitteth on the
throne, and to the Lamb; success to religion, both natural and revealed, Hosanna in
the highest. Praises be to our God, who is in the highest heavens over all, God
blessed for ever; or, Let him be praised by his angels, that are in the highest heavens,
let our hosannas be an echo to theirs.
11 Jesus entered Jerusalem and went into the
temple courts. He looked around at everything,
but since it was already late, he went out to
Bethany with the Twelve.
BARNES, "Into the temple - Not into the edifice properly called “the temple,”
but into the “courts” which surrounded the principal edifice. Our Saviour, not being
of the tribe of Levi, was not permitted to enter into the holy or most holy place; and
when, therefore, it is said that he went into the “temple,” it is always to be
28

understood of the “courts” surrounding the temple. See the notes at Mat_21:12.
And when he had looked round about upon all things - Having seen or
examined everything. He saw the abominations and abuses which he afterward
corrected. It may be a matter of wonder that he did not “at once” correct them,
instead of waiting to another day; but it may be observed that God is slow to anger;
that he does not “at once” smite the guilty, but waits patiently before he rebukes and
chastises.
The eventide - The evening; the time after three o’clock p. m. It is very probable
that this was before sunset. The religious services of the temple closed at the offering
of the evening sacrifice, at three o’clock, and Jesus probably soon left the city.
CLARKE, "When he had looked round about upon all things - He
examined every thing - to see if the matters pertaining to the Divine worship were
properly conducted; to see that nothing was wanting - nothing superfluous.
And now the eventide was come - The time in which he usually left Jerusalem,
to go to Bethany.
GILL, "And Jesus entered into Jerusalem,.... this public manner, riding upon
an ass, with the multitude attending hin, some going before, and others after, crying,
"Hosanna" to him:
and into the temple; which he rode up directly to; the Vulgate Latin, Syriac,
Persic, and Ethiopic versions, leave out the copulative "and"; his great concern being
there; and having dismounted, and dismissed the colt, and sent it by proper persons
to the owner of it, he went into the temple, into the court of the Gentiles; where he
found and overturned the tables of the money changers, and the seats of them that
sold doves, and healed the lame and the blind:
and when he had looked round about upon all things; that is, in the temple,
as the Lord and proprietor of it; and made a thorough visitation of it, and search into
it, and corrected what was amiss in it:
and now the eventide was come, he went out unto Bethany with the
twelve; having spent great part of the day in reforming abuses in the temple, in
healing diseases, and disputing with the chief priests and Scribes: the evening being
come, he did not think fit, for some reasons, to stay in the city; but went out to
Bethany, which was near two miles off, and lodged there; See Gill on Mat_21:17.
HENRY, "Christ, thus attended, thus applauded, came into the city, and went
directly to the temple. Here was no banquet of wine prepared for his entertainment,
nor the least refreshment; but he immediately applied himself to his work, for that
was his meat and drink. He went to the temple, that the scripture might be fulfilled;
“The Lord whom ye seek, shall suddenly come to his temple, without sending any
immediate notice before him; he shall surprise you with a day of visitation, for he
shall be like a refiner's fire, and like fuller's soap,” Mal_3:1-3. He came to the
temple, and took a view of the present state of it, Mar_11:11. He looked round about
upon all things, but as yet said nothing. He saw many disorders there, but kept
silence, Psa_50:21. Though he intended to suppress them, he would not go about the
doing of it all on a sudden, lest he should seem to have done it rashly; he let things
be as they were for this night, intending the next morning to apply himself to the
necessary reformation, and to take the day before him. We may be confident that
God sees all the wickedness that is in the world, though he do not presently reckon
29

for it, nor cast it out. Christ, having make his remarks upon what he saw in the
temple, retired in the evening to a friend's house at Bethany, because there he would
be more out of the noise of the town, and out of the way of being suspected, a
designing to head a faction.
JAMIESON, "JAMIESON, "Mar_11:11-26. The barren fig tree cursed with
lessons from it - Second cleansing of the Temple, on the second and third days of the
week. ( = Mat_21:12-22; Luk_19:45-48).
And Jesus entered into Jerusalem, and into the temple: and when he
had looked round about upon — surveyed.
all things, and now the eventide was come, he went out into Bethany
with the twelve — Thus briefly does our Evangelist dispose of this His first day in
Jerusalem, after the triumphal entry. Nor do the Third and Fourth Gospels give us
more light. But from Matthew (Mat_21:10, Mat_21:11, Mat_21:14-16) we learn some
additional and precious particulars, for which see on Luk_19:45-48. It was not now
safe for the Lord to sleep in the city, nor, from the day of His Triumphal Entry, did
He pass one night in it, save the last fatal one.
CALVIN, "There is a difference between Matthew and Mark in their narrative
of the withering of the fig tree; for Matthew says that it was on the day after that
Christ made a public appearance as King, while Mark appears to throw it back
to the following day. (9) But the solution is easy; for they agree in this respect,
that Christ, on the day after that he made his solemn entrance into the city,
cursed the tree; only Mark states what Matthew had omitted, that the
occurrence was observed by the disciples on the following day., So then, though
Mark has stated more distinctly the order of time, he makes no contradiction.
He appears to differ more openly both from Matthew and from Luke in the
narrative of chastising the traders; (10) for while both of them declare that
Christ, as soon as he entered into the city and temple, drove out those who sold
and bought, Mark simply says that he looked around on all things, but has
thrown back the driving of them out till another day. (11) But I reconcile them in
this way, that Mark, not having spoken about the purifying of the temple,
afterwards inserts it, though not in its proper place. He relates that, on the first
day, Christ came into the temple, and there looked round on all things. (12) Now
why did he look so earnestly, except for the purpose of correcting something that
was wrong? For, having been formerly accustomed to pay frequent visits to the
temple, it was not the novelty of the sight that affected him. Now as Mark ought
immediately to have added, that those who sold and bought in the temple were
driven out of it, he says that Christ went out of the city; but, having omitted what
was worthy of being related, he inserts it afterwards.
But perhaps some will be more inclined to believe that, in this narrative also,
Mark observed the order of time, which the other two Evangelists had
disregarded; for though they appear to indicate an uninterrupted succession of
events, yet as they do not name a particular day, there would be no impropriety
in dividing what we find to be connected in their writings. For my own part,
however, I prefer the conjecture which I stated first; for it is probable that this
demonstration of his power was made by Christ in presence of a large multitude.
30

But any one who will consider how little care the Evangelists bestowed on
pointing out dates will not stumble at this diversity in the narrative.
COFFMAN, "Luke recorded that Jesus went "every night" to the mount of
Olives (Luke 12:37), but, of course, Bethany was on the mount of Olives. All such
variations are due to the independence of the narratives.
THE WITHERING OF THE FIG TREE
This is one of the most interesting of Jesus' great wonders, exceedingly rich with
moral significance, and, in context, a miracle of great mercy and power. Like a
bat in a cave at night, however, the unbeliever sees nothing at all in such an event
as this. First, we shall note a few "objections" which have been offered.
Jesus is accused of "blasting fruit trees simply because they did not have fruit
ready for him at the moment."[5] Such a canard as this, like Satan's lie in Eden,
is merely a denial of what the sacred text SAYS. He did not wither the tree for
fruitlessness but for FALSENESS, exhibiting leaves (which appeared AFTER
the fruit, normally) yet having no fruit and being also an out-of-season freak.
Another is "the unfavorable light in which it seems to put the judgment or
common sense of Jesus."[6] To the contrary, nineteen centuries of the history of
Israel (the actual object of this miracle) have confirmed and vindicated the
Lord's perfect judgment and prophetic insight into the consequences of their
rejection of the Messiah.
Manson called this miracle "a tale of miraculous power wasted in the service of
and quipped that such power would have "been more usefully expended in
forcing a crop of figs out of season."[7] If Manson had ever read the account of
Jesus' temptation, he should have known that Jesus never performed a miracle
purely for the benefit of himself. Such objections as these just cited are not to be
taken seriously. They ignore the sacred records themselves, have no
understanding of Jesus' purpose in performing this wonder, and are actually
only spiteful reactions against hated truth.
The antagonism of some against this miracle is actually directed against it
because it contradicts the popular, stereotyped image of Jesus which views our
Lord as loving everything and everybody, a view which is true enough in the
highest sense, but which in the perverted application of it makes Jesus a namby-
pamby weakling willing to accept anything that evil men may do and yet giving
them eternal life no matter what deeds of blood and shame mar their lives.
Cranfield commented on the question of whether "this miracle of destruction"
should be viewed "as inconsistent with the rest of what we know of Jesus."[8]
The view here is that Jesus did this wonder for the very purpose of correcting the
false view that might have prevailed if no destructive miracle had ever been
wrought. That God will not destroy is a false view. Ask Sodom and Gomorrah,
Babylon and Nineveh, Tyre and Sidon. Ask Israel. All of the great writers of the
New Testament were fully conscious of the ultimate judgment against sin which
God will bring upon the world, as, for example, in the words of Paul in 2
31

Thessalonians 1:7-10. In the last analysis, it is sinful man's rebellion against any
such judgment that underlies the cavil directed against this miracle of withering
the fig tree.
Inherently, the miracle is one of gracious mercy and forbearance. The rejection
of Jesus Christ was dramatically associated with this wonder by the manner of
Mark's placement of the second cleansing of the temple right in the middle of it;
which, of course, is the exact chronological. sequence of its occurrence; Israel
was in the process of rejecting the Lord Jesus Christ, but they yet might have
repented and accepted Christ after the resurrection. In view of that hope, which
was indeed seized by many of them, their long-deserved judgment would be
deferred until a whole generation after the resurrection; but it was absolutely
necessary that Israel be made aware that eventually the judgment would fall.
This miracle made that clear; for the leafy, barren fig tree could not possibly
stand for anything else in heaven or upon earth except self-righteous Israel,
pretending a fruit they did not have, and out of season (for the Messiah had not
come; the sacrifice which alone could save men had not been offered),
prematurely professing a righteousness that was not even possible under the law.
But note: Instead of striking the Pharisees blind, instead of destroying the whole
nation, as the vast majority of them deserved, instead of blasting the hypocrites
in the Sanhedrin with the total destruction they so richly deserved - rather than
this, Jesus pronounced their doom, promised that God would send his armies
and destroy their temple and their city, and put them to death, and showed
symbolically the certainty of that judgment by what was here done to a fig tree,
which by some freak of nature (or providence) was the exact paradigm of that
wicked nation. How full of mercy was the warning! Making the judgment to fall
upon an inanimate object still permitted those being judged the opportunity of
repentance and salvation. To emphasize the mercy and restraint of such a deed,
we recall the words of an old preacher who said that when he was a boy and first
read of the mockery of Jesus in the court of Israel's high priest, he threw the
Bible down and said, "Why did not God strike the place with lightning?" That
would have been the human thing to do; the miracle of the fig tree was the
heavenly thing to do, and Jesus did it.
[5] Branscomb, as quoted in The Interpreter's Bible (New York: Abingdon
Press, 1951), Vol. VII, p. 828.
[6] Ibid.
[7] Manson, as quoted by Cranfield, op. cit., p. 356.
[8] C. E. B. Cranfield, op. cit., p. 354.
BARCLAY, "THE QUIET BEFORE THE STORM (Mark 11:11)
11:11 And he came into Jerusalem into the Temple. After he had looked round
everything, when it was now late, he went out to Bethany with the Twelve.
This simple verse shows us two things about Jesus which were typical of him.
32

(i) It shows us Jesus deliberately summing up his task. The whole atmosphere of
the last days was one of deliberation. Jesus was not recklessly plunging into
unknown dangers. He was doing everything with his eyes wide open. When he
looked round everything, he was like a commander summing up the strength of
the opposition and his own resources preparatory to the decisive battle.
(ii) It shows us where Jesus got his strength. He went back to the peace of
Bethany. Before he joined battle with men he sought the presence of God. It was
only because each day he faced God that he could face men with such courage.
This brief passage also shows us something about the Twelve. They were still
with him. By this time it must have been quite plain to them that Jesus was
committing suicide, as it seemed to them. Sometimes we criticize them for their
lack of loyalty in the last days, but it says something for them, that, little as they
understood what was happening, they still stood by him.
THE FRUITLESS FIG-TREE (Mark 11:12-14; Mark 11:20-21)
11:12-14,20-21 When, on the next day, they were coming out from Bethany,
Jesus was hungry. From a distance he saw a fig-tree in leaf, and he went to it to
see if he would find anything on it. When he came to it he found nothing except
leaves, for it was not yet the season of figs. He said to it, "Let no one eat fruit
from you for ever." And the disciples heard him say it.... When they were going
along the road early in the morning, they saw the fig-tree withered from the
roots. Peter remembered what Jesus had said the day before and said, "Teacher!
Look! The fig-tree which you cursed has withered away!"
Although the story of the fig-tree is in Mark's gospel divided into two we take it
as one. The first part of the story happened on the morning of one day, and the
second part on the morning of the next day, and, chronologically, the cleansing
of the Temple came in between. But, when we are trying to see the meaning of
the story, we are better to take it as one.
There can be no doubt that this, without exception, is the most difficult story in
the gospel narrative. To take it as literal history presents difficulties which are
well-nigh insuperable.
(i) The story does not ring true. To be frank, the whole incident does not seem
worthy of Jesus. There seems a certain petulance in it. it is just the kind of story
that is told of other wonder-workers but never of Jesus. Further, we have this
basic difficulty. Jesus had always refused to use his miraculous powers for his
own sake. He would not turn the stones into bread to satisfy his own hunger. He
would not use his miraculous powers to escape from his enemies. He never used
his power for his own sake. And yet here he uses his power to blast a tree which
had disappointed him when he was hungry.
(ii) Worse, the whole action was unreasonable. This was the Passover Season,
that is, the middle of April. The fig-tree in a sheltered spot may bear leaves as
early as March, but never did a fig-tree bear figs until late May or June. Mark
says that it was not the season for figs. Why blast the tree for failing to do what it
33

was not possible for it to do? It was both unreasonable and unjust. Some
commentators, to save the situation, say that what Jesus was looking for was
green figs, half-ripe figs in their early stages, but such unripe fruit was
unpleasant and was never eaten.
The whole story does not seem to fit Jesus at all. What are we to say about it?
If we are to take this as the story of something which actually happened, we must
take it as an enacted parable. We must in fact take it as one of those prophetic,
symbolic, dramatic actions. If we take it that way, it may be interpreted as the
condemnation of two things.
(i) It is the condemnation of promise without fulfillment. The leaves on the tree
might be taken as the promise of fruit, but there was no fruit there. It is the
condemnation especially of the people of Israel. All their history was a
preparation for the coming of God's Chosen One. The whole promise of their
national record was that when the Chosen One came they would be eager to
receive him. But when he did come, that promise was tragically unfulfilled.
Charles Lamb tells of a certain man called Samuel le Grice. In his life there were
three stages. When he was young, people said of him, "He will do something." As
he grew older and did nothing, they said of him, "He could do something if he
tried." Towards the end they said of him, "He might have done something if he
had tried." His life was the tale of a promise that was never fulfilled. If this
incident is an enacted parable it is the condemnation of unfulfilled promise.
(ii) It is the condemnation of profession without practice. It might be taken that
the tree with its leaves professed to offer something and did not. The whole cry of
the New Testament is that a man can be known only by the fruits of his life.
"You will know them by their fruits." (Matthew 7:16.) "Bear fruits that befit
repentance." (Luke 3:8.) It is not the man who piously says, "Lord, Lord," who
will enter into the Kingdom but the man who does God's will. (Matthew 7:21.)
Unless a man's religion makes him a better and more useful man, makes his
home happier, makes life better and easier for those with whom he is brought
into contact, it is not religion at all. No man can claim to be a follower of Jesus
Christ and remain entirely unlike the Master whom he professes to love.
If this incident is to be taken literally and is an enacted parable, that must be the
meaning. But, relevant as these lessons may be, it seems difficult to extract them
from the incident, because it was quite unreasonable to expect the fig-tree to bear
figs when the time for figs was still six weeks away.
What then are we to say? Luke does not relate this incident at all, but he has the
parable of the fruitless fig-tree (Luke 13:6-9). Now that parable ends
indecisively. The master of the vineyard wished to root up the tree. The gardener
pled for another chance. The last chance was given; and it was agreed that if the
tree bore fruit it should be spared, and if not it should be destroyed. May it not
be that this incident is a kind of continuation of that parable? The people of
Israel had had their chance. They had failed to bear fruit. And now was the time
34

Mark 11 commentary

Recommended

Recommended

More Related Content

What's hot

What's hot (20)

Viewers also liked

Viewers also liked (19)

Similar to Mark 11 commentary

Similar to Mark 11 commentary (20)

More from GLENN PEASE

More from GLENN PEASE (20)

Recently uploaded

Recently uploaded (20)

Mark 11 commentary