Next, we spring over to the Book of Matthew to see how this former tax collector employed the messianic prophecy of Zechariah. We immediately detect the same issues we discovered in our previous investigation of Zechariah 9:9.
Did Jesus ride on one animal or two? Did He mount them separately or both simultaneously?
I like the common-sense approach to these questions that Louis A. Barbieri Jr. offers in the Bible Knowledge Commentary:
“Only Matthew mentioned a donkey along with the colt. A simple explanation of what some call a contradiction is that when Jesus rode the colt, the mother donkey naturally went along.” (Matthew 21:7 ESV) (Louis A. Barbieri Jr., Matthew, The Bible Knowledge Commentary, 1983, paragraph 21163).
Hence, Jesus entered the holy city with two donkeys, but He rode only one.
This explanation, offered by Louis A. Barbieri Jr., is full of practical wisdom. I’m ready to consider this dilemma solved. But life is never that simple.
It is unsurprising that, despite this straightforward explanation, Bible students want to argue other positions. In the rest of this section, we will indulge some of our contrarian friends.
Read more: The Donkey King Part 2Here are two abbreviated statements of the controversy we are investigating.
The one viewpoint that holds Yeshua entered Israel’s capital on ONE donkey, minus any mention of a second animal.
The opposing side maintains Jesus rode into Jerusalem on one donkey, accompanied by its mother, a SECOND animal. In this position, the colt’s mother merely escorted her foal. BUT Jesus ONLY rode on one animal.
It’s a fair question to ask, “What about the accompanying female donkey that Matthew mentions? Where did this disciple of Yeshua find a second donkey to insert into his account of the Triumphal Entry?”
The Issue of One or Two Donkeys Involved in Yeshua’s Journey into Jerusalem
Let’s examine these two positions that have some Bible expositors perplexed.
First, Jesus rode into Jerusalem on a young colt without mentioning a second animal
Three gospel writers reference the existence of one donkey. In these passages listed below, notice the repetition of the singular third-person pronoun pointing to the donkey as “it” instead of “them.”
1) “And they brought the colt to Jesus and threw their cloaks on it, and he sat on it” (Mark 11:7 ESV).
2) “And they brought it to Jesus, and throwing their cloaks on the colt, they set Jesus on it (Luke 19:35 ESV)
3) “And Jesus found a young donkey and sat on it” (John 12:14 ESV).
In John 12:15, the writer quotes from Zechariah and, in line with the synonymous parallelism, mentions only one colt in his abbreviated statement:
“Fear not, daughter of Zion; behold, your king is coming, sitting on a donkey’s colt! (John 12:15 ESV).
Three gospel writers record that Yeshua rode on only one donkey, not two. In fact, in Mark, Luke, and John, a second donkey is not even mentioned.
However, the Matthew account still raises the problem of the mother donkey and whether Yeshua rode both or just one donkey. The ESV renders Matthew 21:7, “and put on them their cloaks, and he sat on them.
The ESV translation is an exact word-for-word translation of Matthew’s Greek text: “[Jesus] sat on them.”
To resolve this dilemma, the New Living Translation renders Matthew 21:7 as follows: “They brought the donkey and the colt to him and threw their garments over the colt, and he sat on it” (Matthew 21:7 NLT-SE).
Any astute student of the Scriptures will pick up on the NLT’s translation of Matthew’s third-person plural pronoun, “αυτων” as “it” rather than the original text’s “them.” As opposed to grappling with this difficult passage, the NLT chooses to revise the text so that Jesus rides into town on one donkey.
To explain the absence of the second donkey or the mother donkey, some commentators believe Matthew misunderstood the parallelism that we’ve seen in Zechariah. Others would say Matthew was aware of parallelism in Zechariah, but he felt the prophet’s wording gave him freedom to tweak the text for his purposes.
Second, Jesus rode into Jerusalem on a young colt accompanied by a second donkey.
a. Matthew grasped Zechariah’s prophecy of one donkey but felt justified in adding another one.
R. T. France supports this standpoint, but adds his own unusual twist: “The gospel’s author was not ignorant of OT idiom, and would surely have recognized parallelism when he saw it. His mention of the second donkey is due rather to a typically Jewish interest in the form of the text so that even though he knew it referred only to one animal, its wording nonetheless lent itself to the mention of the other.” (R. T. France, The Gospel of Matthew, NICNT, Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 2007, 778-779).
According to France, Matthew took advantage of the open-ended wording of Zechariah 9:9, adapted it to the historical situation, and added another donkey.
With all respect to R. T. France, it is difficult to maintain that Matthew ignored or adapted the synonymous parallelism in the Zechariah text and added the second animal regardless.
To be sure, France states that Matthew felt the Zechariah text was ambiguous enough to give him freedom to include the mother of the young colt and stay within the confines of Zechariah 9:9.
In response to France, two observations are helpful:
•The Zechariah text shows no indication of ambiguity. Even though the Hebrew text of Zechariah includes “and” before “the foal of a donkey,” the prophet was not adding another animal; he was adding a further description of the one donkey. One could translate Zechariah 9:9 as “mounted on a donkey (chamor), and even on a colt (v’l yir), the foal of a donkey.”
There is scant evidence of ambiguity in Zechariah 9:9 to give Matthew room to add another animal. This author believes Matthew had other reasons to add a second donkey that are outside the realm of Zechariah’s mention of one donkey.
•The Matthew account rhymes well with the grammar of the Zechariah passage.
According to the SIL Exegetical Commentary on Matthew, the presence of “and” in the Greek of Matthew’s citation of Zechariah 9:9, substantiates what we’ve already seen, “It [and] is explicative, indicating that the second clause expands on or explains the first, such as with ‘that is’ or ‘even’ on a donkey, that is, on a donkey’s colt.” (David Abernathy, An Exegetical Summary of Matthew 17–28, Exegetical Summary Series (Dallas: SIL International, 2015), 90).
Little evidence supports the view that the gospel writer saw some “wiggle room” to add donkey #2 to fulfill Zechariah’s prophecy.
After purveying those commentators who seek to RECONCILE the prophecy of one donkey in Zechariah 9:9 with Jesus’ request for two donkeys, this author sees scant need for this effort.
FIRST, Yeshua rode into Jerusalem on one donkey following the fulfillment of Zechariah’s words. SECOND, the Lord added another donkey for the sake of its foal, which is not mentioned in the prophet’s prediction. Yet, the addition of the second donkey neither contradicts Zechariah’s prophecy nor burdens biblical scholars to attempt to fit the mother donkey into the prediction.
Consequently, Matthew added the colt’s mother not because he believed the Zechariah text was loose enough to allow him to include a second donkey. He had other reasons. In other words, the Zechariah 9:9 prophecy was fulfilled in all its details by Yeshua’s usage of the young colt.
This author sees four reasons for Matthew to include the colt’s mother:
- Matthew records that Jesus asked for the colt’s mother. “[Jesus] said to them, ‘Go into the village in front of you, and immediately you will find a donkey tied, and a colt with her’” (Matthew 21:2 ESV). Yeshua’s request for the young foal was not an afterthought. Instead, Yeshua’s demand for the colt’s mother was primary.
- Matthew’s depiction of Yeshua asking for the yearling completely fulfilled Zechariah’s prophecy without any leftover threads. Out of compassion for the younger offspring, the Messiah Jesus wanted the mother to accompany it. In no way did Yeshua’s request for the colt’s mother alter the Zechariah text.
- Matthew never states that the existence of two donkeys fulfills Zechariah 9:9.
- Matthew’s inclusion of the second donkey does not ignore nor contradict the synonymous parallelism of Zechariah 9:9.
b. Matthew’s account demonstrates that the inclusion of the mother donkey was fitting and necessary.
Our focus is on the fact “this colt never had a rider on its back’ (Mark 11:2; Luke 19:30). Hence, it would be comforting to this young colt to have its mother near on this momentous occasion.
For a further understanding of the young colt’s identity, we observe that Matthew describes the colt as a πωλος, põlos, or a “young animal (BDAG). Mark 11:2, 4, 5, 7 uses the same word pōlos all four times.
In Luke 19:30, 33 (twice) and in verse 35, pōlos is used again to describe the young donkey. In John 12:14, the Apostle describes the animal Yeshua mounted as a ὀνάριον or a “young donkey” (BDAG). The New Testament uses ὀνάριον ONLY in this passage.
Therefore, all four gospels support the fact that Jesus did not ride on the mother donkey or a horse or any other animal. He rode into Jerusalem on a young colt.
Jesus planned to ride the colt into Jerusalem amid a boisterous crowd. The waiting throng saw Yeshua, and some laid down palm branches, while others tossed their cloaks in His path. “Most of the crowd spread their cloaks on the road” (Matthew 21:8 ESV). The eager pack also shouted, “Hosanna! Blessed be He who comes in the name of the Lord.”
The presence of the palm branches, the clothing on the ground, and the shouting might frighten the newbie beast of burden.
Knowing this, according to Matthew’s account, Yeshua asked for a colt and its mother: “[Jesus] said to them, ‘Go into the village in front of you, and immediately you will find a donkey tied, and a colt with her. Untie them and bring them to me” (Matthew 21:2 ESV).
Matthew decided to mention the mother, while the other gospel writers focused only on the young colt. Still, the mother colt was present at Jesus’ entrance into Jerusalem. Matthew wanted us to see Yeshua as the compassionate messianic King of Israel.
Matthew was not confused about the synonymous parallelism. He knew the Zechariah prophecy only mentioned one donkey. However, historically, there were two beasts of burden. The mother was necessary to accompany her young colt.
In conclusion, the evidence is strong that Yeshua rode on one donkey, and the young colt was accompanied by its mother.
The Issue of Jesus Sitting Astride One Donkey or Two
Another question arises, “If there is a second donkey, did Yeshua mount only one, or did He climb up on both as He journeyed into Jerusalem?”
Some academics struggle with Matthew’s recording in 21:10, “They brought the donkey and the colt, and put their cloaks on them, and he sat on them” (Matthew 21:7 ESV). The Greek text clearly supports the reading, “[Jesus] sat on them.” “Them” is a translation of the third-person plural pronoun, “αυτων.”
Does “them” refer to Jesus sitting on the garments or the donkey? If Jesus sat on the garments, that would make the most sense. If Matthew states that Jesus sits on the “two donkeys,” then we would see Jesus performing quite a balancing act while astride two donkeys simultaneously.
There are two main viewpoints on this curious controversy.
First position: Jesus rode on the two donkeys simultaneously.. Not many commentators hold to this position. To believe Jesus rode on two donkeys at once raises questions about Matthew’s understanding of Jesus’ ride into Jerusalem. Why would Jesus pull such an unusual stunt? Why would He bring attention to Himself in this extraordinary way?
Leon Morris, in his commentary on Matthew is quick to point out how skeptical commentators ridicule the idea of Jesus sitting on two donkeys, “He sat on them means, of course, that he sat on the cloaks, not the animals; it is not easy to see why some commentators affirm so dogmatically that Matthew is speaking of the impossible situation of sitting on two animals (Morris, Leon, The Gospel According to Matthew (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1992, 522).
Second position: Jesus rode on one donkey but on several garments laid across both donkeys. This understanding aligns with the text in Matthew, “They brought the donkey and the colt and put on them their cloaks . . .” (Matthew 21:7 ESV).
From reading the text, we learn the disciples put their outer garments on top of the donkeys, i.e., “them.” Therefore, the two animals were cloaked. In addition, Yeshua sat on them. This understanding does the most justice to the text of Matthew. Unfortunately, we are still unsure what the text means by the wording, “Jesus sat on them.”
Here are additional facts that demonstrate the meaning of Matthew’s text:
a. The disciples draped the garments over the two animals.
According to Gundry, using research from E. F. Bishop, the disciples draped their garments over the two animals. The act of putting a garment over two animals follows a modern custom in Israel, where “both mother donkey and their unridden colt trotting after her have garments put across their backs” (see E. F. Bishop, Jesus of Palestine. London: Lutterworth, 1955, 212).
Since the garments were spread over both animals, the clothing on both animals created a throne-like saddle.
Gundry observes that this situation of “widening the throne to play up Jesus’ royal majesty appears to underlie Matthew’s importation of a second animal . . . (Robert H. Gundry, Matthew: A Commentary on His Handbook for a Mixed Church under Persecution(Grand Rapids: Wm. B. Eerdmans Publishing Co., 1994), 409.)
Thus, Yeshua sat on top of the garments, but we still need to determine what the word “them” refers to.
b. The Greek term “them” In Matthew 21:7 refers to the garments, not the donkeys.
Biblical scholar Charles Quarles astutely observes that αὐτῶν (“them”) refers to τὰ ἱμάτια (G 410) [the garments] and not the donkey and foal, per the law of the nearest referent (Charles L. Quarles, Matthew, Exegetical Guide to the Greek New Testament; Nashville: B&H Publishing Group, 2017, 244).
In Matthew’s sentence, “They brought the donkey and the colt and put on them their cloaks, and he sat on them” (Matthew 21:7 ESV), the nearest antecedent to the phrase “he sat on them” is the cloaks. To say that Jesus sat on the donkey, one would skip over the mention of the cloaks and awkwardly bring in the donkey and the colt.
Gundry brings some further clarity to the issue, “the addition of the prefix in Matthew’s account leads to a change of Mark’s ἐπ̓ αὐτόν, “on him,” to ἐπάνω αὐτῶν, “on top of them” (Gundry, Robert H., Matthew: A Commentary on His Handbook for a Mixed Church under Persecution Grand Rapids: Wm. B. Eerdmans Publishing Co., 1994, 409).
According to Gundry, Jesus sat “on top” of them, i.e., the garments, not the donkeys. Therefore, there is no need to place Jesus on two donkeys at once and try to dance around this unusual arrangement.
I started this article asking what the purpose of Yeshua’s ride into Jerusalem was. Was He offering Himself as a victorious king to Israel?
Why would a triumphant king ride into a nation’s capital on a donkey? Did the Jewish crowd assume Jesus was introducing Himself as the true King of Israel, poised to oust the Roman occupiers?
Israel’s greatest material need during the first century was for the Messiah to overthrow Rome. At least that is what the people of Israel believed. After all, the Jewish nation had been under the heavy heel of Rome since 63 B.C.
Several indicators suggest the crowd wanted Yeshua as the political conquering Messiah and nothing else. Was Yeshua complying with that need, or was He offering something different?
Jesus enters Jerusalem not to offer Himself as Israel’s Messianic King, but rather the nation’s Messianic Passover Lamb (Louis Lapides).
First, the Jerusalem crowd laid down palm branches in Jesus’ path. Laying down palm branches is associated in Jewish history with celebrating a king’s victory. The ultimate victory is the coming of the Messiah to defeat Israel’s enemies and set up the messianic kingdom.
During this time, all nations are required to observe the Feast of Tabernacles or Booths. Zechariah 14:16 connects the messianic kingdom with an international observance of the Feast of Booths: “Then everyone who survives of all the nations that have come against Jerusalem shall go up year after year to worship the King, the LORD of hosts, and to keep the Feast of Booths” (Zechariah 14:16 ESV). See also vvs. 18, 19.
Perhaps the people connected Yeshua’s procession into the holy city with their belief that the Messiah would bring in the earthly messianic kingdom. Consequently, they placed palm branches before Jesus to anticipate the Festival of Sukkot, a time when palm branches are waved before God.
Second, the laying down of the people’s cloaks reminds us of what Israel did before King Solomon. Robert H. Stein, in his excellent work on Mark notes, “The scene recalls 1 Kings 1:38-48, where Solomon rides to his coronation, but even more so 2 Kings 9:13, where cloaks are placed on the ground for Jehu when he is anointed as king” (Robert H. Stein, Mark, BECNT, Grand Rapids: Baker Academic, 2008, 506.)
Third, the Jewish greeters uttered a messianic blessing on Jesus when He entered Jerusalem. They said, “Blessed is He who comes in the name of the Lord.” The rabbis taught that these words are the official greeting to the Messiah when He arrives. These words come from a messianic psalm in the Hebrew Bible (Psalm 118:26).
This greeting is combined with the cry of “Hosanna,” which means “Save us now!” in Hebrew. The Jewish celebrants were crying for God or the Messiah King to save them from the Roman oppressors.
This messianic greeting was given on two other occasions in Jewish history (Arnold Fruchtenbaum, Yeshua: The Life of the Messiah from a Messianic Jewish Perspective, Abridged Edition, Ariel Ministries, 2022, 419-420).
The first instance took place in the 2nd century B.C.E. when Judah Maccabee entered Jerusalem:
Therefore, bearing ivy-wreathed wands and beautiful branches and also fronds of palm, they offered hymns of thanksgiving to him who had given success to the purifying of his own holy place (2 Macc. 10:7 RSV).
The Jews repeated this celebratory recognition of military success for Simon, the last of the Maccabees, when he entered Jerusalem:
On the twenty-third day of the second month, in the one hundred and seventy-first year, the Jews entered it [Jerusalem] with praise and palm branches, and with harps and cymbals and stringed instruments, and with hymns and songs, because a great enemy had been crushed and removed from Israel (1 Macc 13:51 RSV).
Upon the victories of Judah Maccabee (2 Macc. 10:7), his brother Simon Maccabee (1 Macc. 13:51), people used palm branches and offered praise and thanksgiving.
•Both of these cases followed a military victory over the Greek Syrians. In addition, the Maccabee brothers had both cleansed the Temple and expelled the gentile authorities who were Syrian Greeks.
•On these occasions, the Jewish people broke off palm branches in preparation for the arrival of a victorious Jewish military leader (Fructenbaum, 420).
We can make a strong case, based on Maccabean history, that the Jewish inhabitants of Jerusalem celebrated before Yeshua because they believed He was the one who would come to overthrow Rome.
Fourth, in contrast to the triumphant welcoming party, Yeshua arrives in the holy city on a donkey, a colt, accompanied by its mother. In comparison to the crowd yearning for the triumphant King, Matthew attaches Zechariah’s prophecy of the humble King Messiah entering Jerusalem. The particulars are as follows:
Finally, the event of Yeshua riding into Jerusalem on a donkey takes place on the 10th of Nisan, four days before Passover. On the 10th of Nisan, the Passover lamb undergoes an inspection in preparation for its sacrifice on Passover eve and day, Nissan 14. In the same way, Yeshua is interrogated by some of the High Priests in Jerusalem.
In his masterpiece on New Testament History, F. F. Bruce comments on this scene we are discussing, “. . . Jesus by his action was presenting himself to the people of Jerusalem as their Messiah, if only they would choose the way of peace in preference to the way of war, which would have been indicated had his mount been a war horse rather than a peaceful ass. But neither the pilgrims nor the people of Jerusalem were in a mood to appreciate such a fine distinction.” (F.F. Bruce, New Testament History, (Bath: F.F. Bruce Copyright International, Inc., 2018), 188).
Let us conclude by noting that Jesus enters Jerusalem not to offer Himself as Israel’s Messianic King, but rather the nation’s Messianic Passover Lamb. In John 1:29, we read, “The next day he saw Jesus coming toward him, and said, ‘Behold, the Lamb of God, who takes away the sin of the world!” (John 1:29 ESV).
Yeshua’s message to Israel was clear: Israel needed an eternal spiritual redemption more than a temporary political postponement of Rome’s oppression.
Four days after entering Jerusalem, Jesus, the innocent Lamb of God, offers Himself as the true Passover lamb to atone for Israel’s sins.
“But God shows His love for us in that while we were still sinners, the Messiah died for us” (Romans 5:8 ESV)
Was Jesus' entry into Jerusalem meant to dazzle the crowd waiting for a political deliverer?…
The Crusaders distorted the redemption message of the cross with militancy and antisemitism. Contemporary evangelicals…
Conservative news pundits are not all committed Christians who heed the teachings of New Testament…
Photo by Marcus P. on Unsplash Residents of Afghanistan are fleeing their war-torn country to escape a repressive…
Rather than become fossilized in our anger when we see the unfaithful prosper, we trust…
What is the bottom line of this effort to smear Israel as an apartheid state? Simple––to…