10
stovmato" nhpivwn kai; qhlazovntwn kathrtivsw ai\non
?" Countering their objection to the
children's Hosanna song, he quotes Psalm 8:3. By citing the Psalm, their unscriptural
indignation stands condemned all the more.
37
If God can speak through infants, how
much more the children; and if through children, how much more ought Israel's leaders
join the Hosanna-cry. This seems to follow the pattern of an enthymeme. The quotation
serves to enrich the already-strong Davidic Christology of the pericope.
38
Round one: By what authority? 21:23--22:14
When Jesus enters the Temple courts the next morning after parabolically cursing
the fig tree,
39
his very presence teaching in the courts constitutes an intolerable challenge
to the leadership's authority. The conflict in the narrative proceeds like an ad hoc trial
where both Jesus and his enemies seek, as the plaintiff, to prosecute the other and
neither is content to play the defendant. Keener commented:
The form Jesus' debate takes here follows what became a standard rabbinic
pattern, which probably reflects broader ancient rhetorical conventions as well: a
hostile question followed by a counterquestion, admission, and final rejoinder.
40
The chief priests' and elders' counter-challenge comes in the form of direct questions
center on the issue of jurisdiction. They ask, "
jEn poiva/ ejxousiva/ tau`ta poiei`"; kai; tiv" soi
36
Jesus did not make an explicit verbal claim of worth or assertion. Yet, as Neyrey explained, "Not
every report in Matthew of a negative challenge will contain explicitly all four steps [of challenge and riposte] . .
. [nor
does] every narrative of a negative challenge to Jesus begins with a crisp claim on his part" (20-21).
37
His skillful use of inartistic proof reveals a masterful touch in two more ways. First, Jesus' reply is
taken directly from the Septuagint. The LXX continues with
e{neka tw`n ejcqrw`n sou
, "for the sake of your
enemies." These words that Jesus likely had in mind would have made the text all the more relevant to the
situation. Second, Jesus employs the common topic (
koino;~ tovpo~
)
of arguing from lesser to greater with
the mention of
nhpivwn
(suckling infants) in relation to
tou;" pai`da"
(the children).
38
Carson observed, "Thoughtful persons, reflecting on the incident later (especially after the
Resurrection), perceive that Jesus was saying much more. The children's `Hossannas' are not directed to God
but to the Son of David, the Messiah. Jesus is therefore not only acknowledging his messiahship but justifying
the praise of the children by applying to himself a passage of Scripture applicable only to God" (443).
39
The cursing of the fig tree (21:18-22) must be taken as a symbolic action (an enacted parable). The
harshness of the curse and the immediacy of the result point as a prophetic sign to a far more heinous,
spiritual kind of barrenness. The gravity of a lack of fruit provides a key to understanding the application of this
prophetic act to Israel and her leaders. That the tree will be barren
eij" to;n aijw`na
(forever), points to the
divine wrath that would fall on Jerusalem, its leaders, and the Temple. The Disciples wonder if they have a
future place after such an incredible upheaval. Ironically, Jesus parabolically reveals that they will supplant
the place of leadership to be left vacant (Act 1:20) for shepherding Messiah's
ejkklhsiva
(Matt 23:34; Eph
2:20, 4:11; Rev 4:4), Israel that is `Israel' (Rom 9:9, Gal 6:16), in the post-resurrection, even post-AD 70, `new
age' and the new Temple will be God's new people (Eph 2:14-22, 1 Cor 6:19).