DID CHRIST MAKE TWO TRIUMPHAL ENTRIES INTO JERUSALEM?
I doubt that there is anyone who admires Dr. E.W.Bullinger more that I do for his love of the Living and written Word, and his knowledge of each. But I believe that Dr. Bullinger would rather we search the scriptures to "see if these things be true", then to merely accept his teachings without being good Bereans. Even though I disagree with Dr. Bullinger on this issue, I believe that I am honoring him and his approach to the Word of God by presenting this study.
In Appendix 153 of the Companion Bible Dr, Bullinger wrote, "....one entry (Matt. 21:1-9) takes place before the other, which is recorded in Mark 11:1-10, Luke 19:30-34 and John 12:12-15". In the Appendix 156 Dr. Bullinger explains further that the entry into Jerusalem as recorded in Matthew occurred on the sixth day before Passover and that the supposed second entry into Jerusalem, as recorded in Mark, occurred on the fourth day before Passover.
I believe that there was just one entry into Jerusalem in the last week before the crucifixion of Christ. The reason for that belief is based primarily on the events of the day after Christ's entry into Jerusalem. That is to say, if Christ entered Jerusalem two times in the last week before His death that would mean that the events that occurred on the day after His entry occurred twice. As we consider the Gospels that tell of the day after Christ's entry into Jerusalem in that week, we will see that those events include Christ cursing the fig tree, His overturning the tables in the temple, and His being questioned as to His authority. If Christ entered Jerusalem two times, then the events that occurred the next day also happened two times. Let me put that another way for clarity.
Let's assume for the moment that, as Dr. Bullinger suggests, Matthew recorded Christ's first entry into Jerusalem the sixth day before Passover. Matthew also tells us what happened the day after the entry, i.e. the fifth day before Passover. On that day Christ cursed the fig tree, He overturned the tables in the temple and was questioned as to His authority. And let's also assume for the moment that Mark tells of Christ's second entrance into Jerusalem in that week, the fourth day before Passover. Mark also tells us what occurred the day after that entry, the third day before Passover. Those events include the exact same events as had occurred on the fifth day before Passover. That means that those events occurred twice, i.e. on the fifth day before Passover and on the third day before Passover. I do not think that is a likely conclusion, in fact I don't think that is at all likely.
If one is to accept Dr. Bullinger's suggestion that there were two entries into Jerusalem the week before Passover, the only way to avoid the conclusion that Christ cursed two fig trees, turned over the tables in the temple two times, and was questioned as to His authority two times, is that Matthew skipped two days in his telling of the events. That is to say, if Matthew told of Christ's entrance into Jerusalem on the sixth day before Passover and then skipped from that day to two days later, i.e. the third day before Passover then there wouldn't be two cursed fig trees etc. . Let us look at Matthew's account.
We read in Matt. 21:17 of the end of the day Christ entered Jerusalem, "And He left them, and went out of the city into Bethany; and He lodged there". The next verse (vs. 18) reads, "Now in the morning as He returned into the city.....".
The reader will see as we go on in this study, that Matthew does not tell of the events of the two days under discussion in perfect chronological order. That is proved by the fact that Matthew's account would contradict Mark's if one takes Matthew's account in chronological order. The point is, however, that even with the knowledge that Matthew does take one event out of chronological order, there is no scriptural reason to conclude that Matthew skips two days between verses 17 and 18.
We are left then to conclude that if there were two entries into Jerusalem the week before Passover, there were also two fig trees cursed, the tables in the temple were overturned two times and Christ was questioned as to His authority two times.
We will consider the following in our attempt at arriving at what the Word of God teaches in this matter:
THE SEQUENCE OF EVENTS RECORDED IN MARK'S GOSPEL
THE SEQUENCE OF EVENTS RECORDED IN MATTHEW'S GOSPEL
A COMPARISON OF THE TWO ACCOUNTS
A CONSIDERATION OF THE REASONS FOR THE CONCLUSION THAT THERE WERE TWO ENTRIES
THE SEQUENCE OF EVENTS RECORDED IN MARK'S GOSPEL
Our study will center primarily on the day after Christ's entry into Jerusalem. Because Mark's Gospel gives us more detail about that day, we will begin with a study of Mark 11:1-27.
Verses 1-10 of Mark 11 describe the entry of Christ into Jerusalem. Dr. Bullinger's view is that this occurred the fourth day before Passover, that would have been in his view, Christ's second entry into Jerusalem.
Verse 11 tells us that "Jesus entered the temple". This occurred the same day as the entry into Jerusalem.
Verses 12-19 tell us of events that occurred the next day. How do we know that it was the next day, i.e. the day after the entrance? We read in verses 11-12, ".....now the eventide was come, He went out unto Bethany with the twelve. And on the morrow....'. That would make it, according to Dr. Bullinger the third day before Passover. Included in the events of this day as described in verses 12-19 is the cursing of the fig tree (vs.12), the overturning of the tables in the temple (vs. 15-17).
We come now to verse 20, "And in the morning, as they passed by, they saw the fig tree dried up from the roots". This verse seems to say that it was the following morning, i.e. second day after Christ's entrance into Jerusalem, and, according to Dr. Bullinger, the second day before Passover. However, the note in the Companion Bible on the phrase of verse 20, "And in the morning" reads. "Verses 20-26 are a Divine supplement of details here". I believe that Dr. Bullinger is correct here, i.e. that verses 20-26 are a "Divine supplement" of the event that occurred one day, not two, after the entry into the city. In other words, it goes back to later that same morning that Christ cursed the fig tree. Let us "search the scriptures" to see if this suggestion is correct.
Mark tells us of the questioning of Christ's authority in verses 27-33. If verse 20 (i.e. seven verses before that questioning) refers to the second day after Christ's entrance into Jerusalem that would make the questioning of His authority on that day, i.e. the second day after His entrance. As we compare Matt. 21:23 we see that the questioning of Christ as to His authority was one day after the entry, not the second day. Therefore, in order to avoid the contradiction with Matt. 21:23, we must conclude that, as Dr. Bullinger suggests, verses 20-26 are a "Divine supplement" of the events that happened earlier that same day, i.e. one day after the entrance into Jerusalem. That would make Mark 11:27-33 therefore, a "Divine supplement".
But we must, in order to be thorough in our study, consider verse 21 which reads, "And Peter calling to remembrance saith unto Him, 'Master, behold the fig tree which Thou cursedst is withered". If verse 20 tells us of the exact same time as when Christ cursed the tree, Mark could not have written that Peter remembered it, as it would have just happened.
But all is clear as we consider the travels of that day. The travel schedule of Christ and His disciple on the day after Christ's entry into Jerusalem was as follows:
1) They went into the city (vs.12) and Christ cursed the fig tree as they entered. (The fig tree was in Jerusalem, see Matt. 21:17-18.)
2) They left the city (vs. 19)
3) They came back again (vs. 27) that same morning. It was the second trip into the city that day where Peter saw the withered fig tree and remembered it being cursed earlier that same morning. This second trip into the city is entirely plausible when one considers that Bethany was only two miles from Jerusalem, (see Jn. 11:18, NASB).
Having established that verses 20-26 record events that occurred later in the morning of one day after the entry into the city, we may conclude with confidence that verses 27-33 which tell us of Christ being questioned as to His authority occurred when Matthew wrote that it did, one day after Christ's entry into Jerusalem.
Let us review the facts that are most pertinent to this study. According to Mark's account, on the day after Christ's entry into Jerusalem He:
1) cursed the fig tree.
2) overturned the tables in the temple.
3) and was questioned as His authority.
THE SEQUENCE OF EVENTS AS RECORDED IN MATTHEW'S GOSPEL
We are now read to study Matthew's account of the day of Christ's entrance into Jerusalem and the day after.
Verses 1-11 of Matt. 21 describe the entry of Christ into Jerusalem. That would be, according to Dr. Bullinger, the sixth day before Passover.
Verses 12-16 describe Christ's overturning the tables at the temple. We must interrupt this time table of events in order to account for the apparent contradiction between Matthew's account and Mark's. The reader will note that Matt. 21:12 has Christ overturning the tables in the temple the same day as His entry into Jerusalem. But Mark 11:15-17 has Christ overturning the tables the day after Christ's entry. There are, of course no contradictions in the Word of God so I suggest we address this seeming contradiction.
The reader will note that Mark 11:11 tells us that Christ entered the temple the same day as His entry into Jerusalem, but according to verses 15-17 overturned the tables the next day ("On the morrow", verse 12). In other words, Mark tells us that Christ entered the temple twice, once on the same day as His entry, and a second time the next day. It was during the second visit to the temple that Christ overturned the tables.
Because there are no contradictions in the Word of God, I believe that Matthew simply takes the event of the overturning of the tables out of chronological order. That is to say, we read in Mark 11:11 that Christ had entered the temple the same day as His entry into Jerusalem and left without incident. I believe that Matthew simply recorded the event (i.e. the overturning of the tables) of the next day out of chronological order, and put the event of the next day in the place of Christ's first visit to the temple on the previous day.
We are now ready to continue with our time line of events of the day of and the day after Christ's entry into Jerusalem.
Verse 17, still speaking of the day of Christ's entry into Jerusalem, tells us that Christ left the temple and lodged in Bethany.
Verse 18 reads, "Now in the morning....". Given that we are told in verse 17 that Christ lodged in Bethany, we may conclude that verse 18 speaks of the next morning, i.e. the morning after His entry into Jerusalem. Therefore, verse 18 to the end of the chapter and into the next chapter records events that occurred the day after the entry into Jerusalem, i.e. according to Dr. Bullinger, the fifth day before Passover.
According to Matthew's account, on the day after Christ's entry into Jerusalem He:
1) cursed the fig tree.
2) overturned the tables in the temple.
3) and was questioned as His authority.
A COMPARISON OF THE TWO ACCOUNTS
We are now ready to compare Matthew's account with Mark's in order to determine how many times Christ entered Jerusalem in the week before His death.
According to Dr. Bullinger's view, Mark tells us that Christ entered Jerusalem on the fourth day before Passover and on the following day Christ cursed the fig tree, overturned the tables in the temple, and was questioned as to His authority. According to Dr. Bullinger's view Mark tells us that Christ did these things on the third day before Passover.
According to Dr. Bullinger's view, Matthew tells us that Christ entered Jerusalem on the sixth day before Passover and on the following day Christ cursed the fig tree, overturned the tables and was questioned as to His authority. According to Dr. Bullinger's view, Matthew tells us that these things occurred on the fifth day before Passover.
In short, Dr. Bullinger's view has the same disciple performing the same acts on two different days. That is to say, Dr. Bullinger's view has the events that are recorded as having taken place the day after the supposed two entries occurred on both the fifth and the third days before Passover. I believe the reader will agree that this is a very unlikely scenario and that is why I do not agree with it.
A CONSIDERATION OF THE REASONS FOR THE CONCLUSION THAT THERE WERE TWO ENTRIES
This study would not be complete if we did not consider the reasons Dr. Bullinger gave for his view that there were two entries into Jerusalem. Those reasons are given in the Appendix 153 of the Companion Bible which I will quote and then comment on.
"1) In Matthew the Lord had actually arrived at Bethphage. In Luke He was 'come nigh' (engisen); in Mark 'they are approaching' (engizousin)."
Let us examine the two accounts as recorded in Matth. 21:1 and Mark 11:1 which Dr. Bullinger sees as contradicting each other. We read in Matt. 21:1, "And when they drew nigh unto Jerusalem, and were come to Bethphage.....". The note in the Companion Bible on the phrase, "were come" reads, "had arrived". That tells us that Christ and His disciples had arrived at Bethpage which was near Jerusalem.
Mark 11:1 reads, "And when they came nigh to Jerusalem, unto Bethphage and Bethany.....". The Greek preposition translated "unto" ("they came unto Bethphage....") is "eis". The definition given in the Ap. 104 of the Companion Bible of "eis" reads, "....it denotes motion to or unto an object....". This implies that Christ and His disciples had not quite reached Bethphage and Bethany.
In my opinion, given that the events of the day following the entrance into Jerusalem were, in all likelihood, not repeated, I believe that there is a different explanation for the fact that Matthew wrote that they had arrived and Mark wrote that they were coming to their destination.
Note that both Mark and Luke (Luke 19:29) wrote that they were coming to "Bethphage and Bethany". In my opinion the fact that the cites are twice mentioned together, tells us that the two cities were close enough together to be thought of much like the so-called "twin cities" of Minneapolis/St. Paul in Minnesota. That would mean that Matthew wrote that they had arrived at Bethphage, but Mark tells us that they were still approaching the other city, Bethany.
When Christ and His disciples left Jerusalem at the end of the day of His entry into Jerusalem they went to Bethany, which we may assume was closer than was Bethphage. In other words, as Christ and the disciples approached Jerusalem they came first to Bethphage so Matthew could write that they had arrived at Bethphage. But Bethany was in the same area but a bit further on. So Mark just coming to Bethany would write that they had approached Bethphage and Bethany.
2) In Matthew the village lay just off the road (apenanti); in Luke and Mark it was below them, and opposite (katenanti).
Let us first read the two verses that are said to contradict each other. Mark 11:2 reads, "And saith unto them 'Go your way into the village over against you....". Matt. 21:2 reads, "Saying unto them, 'Go into the village over against you". There doesn't seem to be a contradiction, but the Greek word translated "over against" needs to be considered.
The note in the Companion Bible in Matt. 21:2 on the Greek word "apenanti" (translated "over against") reads, "apenanti= facing you". But the Greek word translated "over against" in Mark 11:2 is "katenanti, which, according to the note in the Companion Bible, means "below and opposite".
The question is then, which word did Christ use, was it "apenanti" or was it "katenanti"? The NIV Interlinear has the same Greek word ("katenanti") for both Matth. 21:2 and Mark 11:2. But Dr. Bullinger wrote in the note on Matt. 21:2, "In Mark and Luke katenanti=opposite and below, preferred, here by all the texts. But the text may have been altered to make Matt. agree with Mark and Luke".
In other words, a case cannot be made either way for what Greek word was used in Matt. 21:2. The NIV Interlinear indicates that it is the same in Matthew as it is in Mark and Luke. Dr. Bullinger on the other hand, believes that the texts in Matthew may have been made to agree with Mark and Luke. In my opinion, it is best to not make this an argument either way. That is to say, since there seems to be some controversy as to what word the Lord did use, we cannot make this word proof of one or two entries into Jerusalem.
3) In the former, two animals were sent for and used; in the latter, only one." Let us look at Matthew's and Mark's account of Christ sending for the animals.
In Matt. 21:2, "....Go into the village over against you, and straightway ye shall find an ass tied, and a colt with her: loose them, and bring them unto me".
Mark 11:2 reads, ".....Go your way into the village over against you: and as soon as ye be entered into it, ye shall find a colt tied, whereon never man sat; loose him, and bring him."
Mark tells us that Christ mentioned only a colt that they should bring to Him. But that does not mean that Christ didn't mention two animals, it means only that Mark did not record Christ mentioning two animals. In other words, there is no contradiction here that requires the conclusion that there were two entries.
But let us look at another difference in these two accounts. In Matthew's account we read our Lord telling His disciples of an ass that was tied and a colt with her. But Mark tells us that Christ told them that no one had ever sat on the colt. The point is that Matthew's account and Mark's account complete each other. So Matthew tells us that they were to bring two animals but not that the colt had never been sat upon. Mark's account, on the other hand, does not mention the ass, but does tell us more about the colt.
This practice of each Gospel completing the others is a standard one. Let us, for example compare the account of John the Baptist's ministry in each of the four Gospels. Matt. 3:7-10 tells us of John's preaching to the Pharisees and Sadducees. Mark does not mention that sermon. Luke is the only Gospel writer to includes the quote from Is. 40, "All flesh shall see the salvation of God". John quotes less from Is. 40 than the other Gospel writers, but does tell us that John the Baptist denied that he was the Christ.
In short, the fact that in Matthew's Gospel Christ asked for two animals while in Mark he mentions only the colt, does not mean that one contradicts the other to the point that we must conclude that they refer to two different occasions. They simply complete one another.
4) In the former, the prophecy of Zech. 9:9, which required the two animals, is said to have been fulfilled; in the latter, the prophecy was not said to be fulfilled and only so much of it is quoted (Jn. 12:15) as agrees with it.
In point of fact, Mark does not even mention the prophecy of Zech. 9:9. Is there sufficient evidence to conclude that that proves a different event than was recorded in Matthew? In my opinion, this is not sufficient evidence in light of the fact that it demands the conclusion that Christ cursed two fig tree, overturned the tables in the temple two times and was questioned as to His authority twice.
5) The former seems to have been unexpected, for 'all the city was moved, saying, 'Who is this?' (Matt. 21:10-11), while, if there was only one entry, the two accounts are inexplicable, seeing that the later and subsequent entry was prepared for: much people in the city 'heard that He was coming;, and 'went forth to meet Him' Jn. 12:12-13).
The latter, therefore, was the great formal entry of the Lord, called 'the triumphal entry', which took place on what is called' Palm Sunday' ".
Let us look once again at Matthew's account to determine if the Lord's entry into Jerusalem was "unexpected". We read in Matt. 21:8-11, "And a very great multitude spread their garments in the way; others cut down branches from the trees, and strawed them in the way. And the multitudes that went before, and that followed, cried saying, 'Hosanna to the Son of David: Blessed is He that cometh in the name of the Lord; Hosanna in the highest'. And when He was come into Jerusalem, all the city was moved saying, 'Who is This?' and the multitude said, 'This is Jesus the Prophet of Nazareth of Galilee'".
I do not believe that the question "Who is this?" implies that He was not expected. I believe that He was not known by some in the city itself. Let's not forget that even at this time there were Jews in dispersion. Many who were in Jerusalem had come from areas of the world to which Christ had not ministered in order to celebrate Passover in the city of Jerusalem, according to the law (see Deut. 16:6). These may not have even heard of Christ.
In short there is, in my opinion, no reason to assume that the question "Who is this?" implies anything but the most obvious, i.e. as Christ made His triumphal entry into Jerusalem some did not know Who Christ was.
This paper was written by Joyce Pollard. If you would like to respond please e-mail me at: janjoyce@aol.com