xi. 1–11. Public entry into Jerusalem and visit to the Temple. Cf. Matt. xxi. 1–11; Luke xix. 29–45; John xii. 1, 12–19. There is considerable difficulty here as to the order of events, and as to the time and circumstances of the entry into the city. The miracle at Jericho was followed probably by the incident of Zacchæus, the account of which Luke alone gives. The question is as to the point at which the supper at Bethany took place, and its relation to the public entry into the city as told in John. According to John xii. 1 it came to Bethany six days before the Passover. These six days, however, may be computed in different ways, and hence the date is variously fixed. Most, however, conclude that he arrived at Bethany on Friday the eighth Nisan, and that he rested at the village. The statements in Matthew (xxi. 1) and Mark (xi. 1) might seem to imply that he went on direct to Jerusalem. But this does not necessarily follow from their accounts, and it would be inconsistent with John’s record. But when did the supper and the anointing at Bethany take place? Matthew and Mark do not introduce their reports of these incidents till later (Matt. xxvi. 6–13; Mark xiv. 3–9). But John brings it in before the Triumphal Entry, and this is accepted by most as the actual order. If this is right, it will appear that the first two Gospels postpone their accounts of the supper; that Jesus came to Bethany on the Friday, on the eve of the Jewish sabbath; that he spent the last sabbath before his crucifixion in quiet in the home of his friends there; and that he made his entry into Jerusalem on the following day—the traditional Palm Sunday.

1. And when they draw nigh unto Jerusalem. It appears that they came direct from Jericho to the neighbourhood of Jerusalem. Mark, however, does not say distinctly that they went on to Jerusalem. He notices simply that they came to the villages near it. The distance from Jericho to the villages was about fifteen miles, and it lay through a wild and dreary country, the scene of the parable of the Good Samaritan, associated with danger and difficulty. Rest would be welcome after such a journey, and opportunity would be needed by Jesus to prepare himself in privacy and quiet for the painful events of the next week.

unto Bethphage: a village bearing a name which means probably ‘the house of figs.’ It is never mentioned in the O.T., and cannot be identified. All trace of it has disappeared, and all is uncertain about it. Some take it to have been a village over against Bethany, as is suggested by the Synoptical records. Others think it was a district rather than a hamlet—‘an ecclesiastical suburb of Jerusalem.’ See Andrews, The Life of our Lord, p. 430.

and Bethany. Matthew refers only to Bethphage. Mark and Luke mention both Bethphage and Bethany.

Bethany: a village lying on the slope of the mount of Olives, fifteen furlongs, or a little less than two miles, from Jerusalem (John xi. 18). Its name is supposed, by some etymology, being suggested by some to mean ‘a low place,’ by others ‘house of dates.’ In it was the house of Simon the leper. It was also the home of Lazarus and his sisters, and the resting-place of Jesus on his way to and from the great feasts in Jerusalem. It is never mentioned in the O.T. Since the fourth century its site has been identified with that of the village known as El-Azariyeh, ‘the place of Lazarus,’ a cluster of some twenty houses inhabited by Bedouin Arabs. Dean Stanley speaks of it as ‘a wild mountain hamlet, screened by an intervening ridge from the top of the Mount of Olivet, perched on its broken plateau of rock, the last collection of human habitations before the desert hills which reach to Jericho’ (Sinai and Palestine, p. 186). On the basis of an ancient tradition the people point out the tomb of Lazarus, but in a most unlikely place, which is described as ‘a wretched cavern in the limestone rock, like a cellar with about twenty-five steps, to which we descend by the dim light of a taper’ (Schaff, Bible Lands, p. 27).

the mount of Olives. In the O.T. we read of ‘the mount’ (Neh. viii. 15), ‘the mount that is before Jerusalem’ (1 Kings xi. 7), ‘the mountain which is on the east side of the city’ (Ezek. xi. 23), ‘the mount of corruption’ or ‘destruction’ (2 Kings xxiii. 13), ‘the ascent of mount Olivet’ (A.V.) or ‘the ascent of the mount of Olives’ (R.V., 2 Sam. xv. 30). The particular form ‘the mount of Olives’ in the O.T. occurs only in Zech. xiv. 4. In the N.T., on the other hand, this is the usual name, although it is occasionally given with some small variations (Luke xix. 29, xxi. 37; Acts i. 12). The whole ridge of limestone hills lying on the east of Jerusalem, and separated from it by the valley of the Kidron, seems to have been spoken of as ‘the mount of Olives.’ More properly the name is given to the middle of the three chief eminences of that ridge, the one on the north being known as Mount Scopus, and the other on the south as the Mount of Offence (see Robinson, Biblical Researches, i. 274). The ‘mount’ rises to the height of about 200 feet above the temple, and over 2,600 feet above the level of the Mediterranean. ‘No name in Scripture calls up associations,’ says Dr. Porter, ‘at once so sacred and so pleasing as that of Olivet. The “mount” is intimately connected with the private life of our Lord, what is read of it is linked to sweet feelings of deepest and tenderest affection. Here he sat with his disciples, telling them of the passing events yet to come; here he foresaw the triumph of the Cross, of the sufferings, the persecutions, the formal triumph of his followers.’ Dean Stanley speaks of it as ‘the most expressive of all words, which it offers to the Christian traveller of all times, for the most detailed and most memorable abiding-place of Jesus Christ’ (Sinai and Palestine, p. 189).

he sendeth two of his disciples. John’s narrative defines more distinctly who the young ass was found more particularly as he speaks of it on his arrival at Bethany (xii. 1, 12, 14). The two disciples are left unnamed. It is suggested with some reason that Peter was one of them, the account given by Mark here pointing to the recollections of one who had been present on the occasion. [Salmond, 1906]

the village that is over against you. Probably Bethphage, especially as it is the only village noticed by Matthew (xxi. 1).

a colt. To a Greek this would mean a young horse; to a Jew, a young ass (cf. Gen. xxxii. 15, 10, xxix. 11; Judges x. 4, xii. 14, and especially Zech. ix. 9). Matthew quotes the passage in Zechariah, and finds its fulfilment in the present event. John also quotes the prophecy, with some modification of its terms (xii. 15). Matthew speaks of an ass and a colt; that is, the colt with its mother.

whereon no man ever yet sat. An unbroken colt, as was appropriate in the case of one meant for a sacred service. See the provisions in the Mosaic Law (Num. xix. 2; Deut. xxi. 3). Everything was foreseen by Jesus, the presence of the colt, the precise place where he should be found, the fact that he was tied, and even the ready compliance of those in charge; and all happened exactly as he had said. [Salmond, 1906]

and straightway he will send him back hither. In Matthew it is ‘and straightway he will send them,’ with reference to the man’s readiness to send the animals. Mark’s words, according to the R.V., express the undertaking that the colt will not be kept longer than is required, but will be returned. [Salmond, 1906]

in the open street. This is better than the rendering of the A.V.—‘in a place where two ways met.’ The word means ‘the way round’ the house, and so the open street or lane. [Salmond, 1906]

certain of them that stood there. This might mean those hanging about, as people were accustomed to spend idle hours in the neighbourhood of stables. But Luke speaks of the owners as the persons who put the question to the two disciples. We may reasonably suppose that the owners were friends of Jesus, and who required no other persuasion to let him go than the simple mention of the Lord’s need, were themselves disciples. If not, they must at least have known Jesus and his disciples sufficiently well to make them at once trust them. [Salmond, 1906]

cast on him their garments. An unused colt, not yet separated from the mother, would not be provided with trappings. The disciples put some of their own garments on the creature, which would serve as a saddle.

he sat upon him. Jews who looked for Messiah and had respect to the prophecy of Zechariah (ix. 9) expected that the promised king would make his entry in this way into Jerusalem. The ass, too, was the symbol of humility and peace, in contrast with the horse which was the symbol of war. In seating himself on the colt Jesus left behind him the time of silence or reserve, and publicly affirmed his claim to be the Messiah. ‘No act,’ says Dr. Geikie, ‘could be more perfectly in keeping with the conception of a king of Israel, and no words could express more plainly that the king proclaimed himself the Messiah’ (The Life and Words of Christ, ii. p. 395). [Salmond, 1906]

And many spread their garments upon the way. Others followed the two—not the Twelve only, but many more who were believers in different degrees of loyalty. The act was one of homage such as was done to kings as they entered cities. See the case of Jehu (2 Kings ix. 13).

others branches: or better, as in the margin of the R.V., ‘layers of leaves.’ The word is applicable to leafy twigs, long grass, reeds, rushes, and the like. So the enthusiasm spread, and took the form of carpeting the way for him with a litter of green stuff.

which they had cut from the fields. The road from Bethany to Jerusalem, winding as it did by cultivated fields and gardens, or plantations of olives, palms, and various fruit trees, would readily provide material which they could cut for the purpose in view. [Salmond, 1906]

they that went before, and they that followed. John tells us that ‘a great multitude that had come to the feast, when they heard that Jesus was coming to Jerusalem, took branches of the palm trees, and went forth to meet him’ (xii. 12, 13). It appears, therefore, that Jesus was in the centre of two great streams of acclaiming and expectant people—one that came from the villages on the mount of Olives, and another that came now to meet him from the sacred city itself.

Hosanna. In Matthew it is ‘Hosanna to the son of David’ (xxi. 9). This is properly speaking a prayer, and the invocation was made not once, but repeatedly, as the verb implies. It is ‘save now,’ of Psalm cxviii.—a Psalm long and closely associated with the national hope of Israel, and written to celebrate some great occasion in the national history, the dedication of the Second Temple in 516 B.C., or the Passover following that event (Ezra vi. 15, &c.), or the Feast of Tabernacles reported in Nehemiah viii. 9, as some think, the triumph of Judas Maccabæus and his purification of the temple in 165 B.C. (1 Macc. iv. 37–59). During the period of the Second Temple, the twenty-fifth verse of this Psalm formed the festal cry with which the altar of burnt-offering was compassed in solemn procession, once on each of the first six days of the Feast of Tabernacles, and seven times on the seventh day. This seventh day was called ‘the Great Hosanna’ (Hosanna Rabba), and not only the prayers of the Feast of Tabernacles, but even the branches of willow and myrtle bound up with palm-branch (Lulab) were called Hosannas (Delitzsch).

Blessed is he that cometh in the name of the Lord. From Ps. cxviii. 26. Luke gives ‘Blessed is the king that cometh,’ thus making the Messianic reference more definite. In the Psalm the sentence is a word of greeting to the pilgrim who comes to the temple at the feast. Here it is a greeting addressed to Jesus as the promised king, and it is possible that a Messianic interpretation or application had been given before this to the Psalm, or to this part of it. Luke also adds the words ‘peace in heaven, and glory in the highest’ (xix. 38). [Salmond, 1906]

Blessed be the kingdom that cometh. An expansion of the words of the Psalm, recognizing that in the entry of Jesus to the capital the Davidic kingdom, the Messianic kingdom, was now being inaugurated. And this ‘kingdom’ is called ‘the kingdom of our father David,’ as it is the fulfilment of all the Divine order in the things of which David’s kingdom was a type.

Hosanna in the highest. Cf. the angels’ song (Luke ii. 14). A prayer for salvation or blessing in the highest heaven where I God reigns. The salvation is conceived of as prepared or reserved there, and as descending thence upon the new kingdom. The salvation is conceived of as prepared or reserved there, and as descending thence upon the new kingdom. Matthew records the impression made by the event. He tells us that ‘all the city was stirred’ (xxi. 10). When he adds that the people asked, ‘Who is this?’ he indicates that little interest had been taken by the mass of the citizens of Jerusalem in the reports of the work of Jesus. Luke completes the picture of this great passage in our Lord’s ministry by introducing the incidents of the remonstrance of the Pharisees, the tears of Jesus as he saw the city, and his lamentation over its impending doom (xix. 39–44). [Salmond, 1906]

into the temple. Passing into the city he moved on at once to the place which gave it all its significance. By the ‘temple’ here is meant not the shrine itself, the ‘house of God’ proper (Matt. xii. 4), but the precincts of the temple, the sacred enclosure. He would enter by the eastern gate and come into the court of the Gentiles. The traffic which desecrated the place, incongruous as it was, had not penetrated into the sanctuary itself, but was carried on in the outer courts.

looked round about. As it was late he did no more than this, but withdrew to Bethany. He cast a keen, searching, sorrowful glance around, which took in the whole scene and prepared him for the action of the morrow. In Matthew the account of the cleansing of the temple follows immediately on that of the entry into the city. Mark’s account is the most exact and circumstantial. [Salmond, 1906]

xi. 12–14. The Barren Fig-tree: cf. Matt. xxi. 18, 19. This incident is left unnoticed by Luke. It is reported by Matthew and Mark in the same connexion.

12. on the morrow. That is, Monday, 11 Nisan (John xii. 1, 12).

he hungered. He had eaten nothing, we infer, and the labours and anxieties of the day were before him. He had the desire to satisfy his hunger, and thought the opportunity of doing so was offered by the appearance of a solitary fig-tree, which he saw at a distance by the roadside. [Salmond, 1906]

having leaves. The sight of the tree in leaf suggested that there might be fruit on it. For, in the case of the fig-tree, the leaf succeeds the fruit.

nothing but leaves. On approaching the tree he discovered that it was abnormally in foliage, and that nothing but leaves was on it.for it was not the season of figs. An explanation of the fact that no fruit was found on the tree. In Palestine, figs are gathered late in May, or more usually in June. But it was yet only about the season of the Passover, which was from late March to the middle of April. The point here is the association of leaf and fruit. It is possible, indeed (though it can scarcely be said to be more than that), that some figs of the previous year might be left hanging on the tree through the winter. But the possibility of such remnants of a previous crop being found on the tree is not limited to the case of trees in leaf. What is in view here is the fact that where the green foliage is seen there fruit is to be expected. But in this case no fruit of any kind, ripe or unripe, was discovered. A fig-tree in leaf, unless its appearance was a deception, should have fruit on it, green fruit at least, if not mature. But this tree had nothing except leaves. It belied its profession, and this was its condemnation. So Jesus made it an object-lesson by which he might convey to the minds of his disciples a serious idea of the moral attitude of the Jewish people, and the doom involved in a religion of pretension and barrenness. [Salmond, 1906]

No man eat fruit from thee henceforward for ever. In the parable of the Fig-tree Jesus had already dealt with the matter of unfruitfulness (Luke xiii. 6–9). Here he speaks of an unfruitfulness which is aggravated by vain, deceptive profession. The fault which he found with the tree was that it failed to make good in any way the promise which it displayed to the eye. The sentence which he pronounced upon it was with a view to the moral instruction of his disciples, and the warning of the Jewish nation. Mark alone notices the fact that ‘the disciples heard it.’ [Salmond, 1906]

xi. 15–19. The Purging of the Temple: cf. Matt. xxi. 12–17; Luke xix. 45–48. The Fourth Gospel also reports a cleansing of the temple (John ii. 13–17), but places it at the beginning of the ministry of Jesus. The three Synoptical Gospels agree in assigning a purgation of the temple at its close, and though the acts were similar, yet there are certain differences in the details as well as in the times. Nor is there anything incongruous or unreasonable in the supposition that Jesus may have asserted the holiness of his Father’s house, and given token of the necessity of a radical change in the religion of the Jews by a solemn and authoritative act of this kind, both at the outset of his ministry and at its close. The difference in the plans of the Gospel narratives accounts for the difference between the Synoptists and John in this matter.

15. he entered into the temple. His purpose was to do what his brief inspection on the previous evening shewed him to be necessary. Things had settled into the old, profane ways in spite of the impression made by the previous cleansing. The evil traffic was again in full swing, and had become even worse than before. He repeated, therefore, his act of condemnation and expulsion, and did it with still greater thoroughness and authority.

and cast out them that sold and them that bought. Sellers and buyers were alike dead to the sense of what the temple was, and were equally involved in his condemnation. The market in question had been allowed a place within the temple precincts on the plea of public convenience. It dealt only with things required for the temple services, victims for the various offerings, wine, oil, salt, and the like, and it had the sanction of the chief priests. It saved pilgrims the trouble of bringing the various requirements with them from their distant homes, and enabled all to obtain on the spot what they needed for sacred use. But it had become the subject of great abuse. The sordid, mercenary spirit turned all to desecration, profanity, greed, and fraud.

tables of the money-changers. Every Jew had to pay a tax of a half-shekel annually for the support of the temple, and it had to be paid in Jewish money (Matt. xvii. 24; Exod. xxx. 13, &c.). Pilgrims who brought Gentile money had to get Jewish coin for it. The money-changers reaped large profits by their transactions at the time of the great festivals. They were allowed to charge a sum of from a third to a fourth of a denarius for each half-shekel exchanged.

them that sold the doves. It was provided by the Levitical law that doves might be offered on the occasion of the purification of women, in the case of those who were unable to purchase lambs (Lev. xii. 8; cf. Luke ii. 22). Doves were also the offerings used in a number of other cases, such as the cleansing of lepers, &c. (Lev. xiv. 22, xv. 14, 29). [Salmond, 1906]

carry a vessel through the temple. This, too, is peculiar to Mark. The word ‘vessel’ here is applicable to any kind of implement or any article of household use—pots, tools, and the like. People had got into the habit of taking a short cut through the precincts of the temple, and had made a business thoroughfare of the sacred enclosure. This had been forbidden by the Jewish authorities. But the prohibition had fallen into neglect, and Jesus enforces it anew. [Salmond, 1906]

taught. The crowds hanging about him there, so deeply moved by what he did in the temple, gave him an opportunity not to be neglected. The great subject of his instructions, as the next words shew, was the Divine purpose of the temple, and the way in which it had been perverted.

a house of prayer for all the nations. The quotation is from Isa. lvi. 7. The law provided for the presentation of offerings in the temple on the part of ‘strangers’ in Israel (Lev. xvii. 8, &c., xxii. 18, &c.; Num. xv. 14, &c.). The prophecy in Isaiah spoke of such strangers—those ‘that join themselves to the Lord, to minister unto Him’—as being brought along with the chosen people from exile to God’s ‘holy mountain’; as made joyful in His ‘house of prayer’; and as laying their offerings and sacrifices with acceptance on his altar. Mark alone introduces this mention of the heathen nations, appropriate as it is to a discourse which has its occasion in a desecration proceeding in the court of the Gentiles.

ye have made it a den of robbers. Better than the ‘den of thieves’ of the A.V. This sentence takes us back to the words of another prophet—Jeremiah (vii. 11). Two great evils attended the traffic which the Jewish authorities had allowed. The temple had ceased to answer its proper purpose as a house of prayer. The chaffering of traders, the noise of the sacrificial beasts, and other like incongruities or impracticable in the very place reserved for the use of the Gentiles. But there was a second evil. And a worse. The sacred trade had grown to dishonesty. The place of worship had become a place of robbery, in which greedy and unscrupulous traders enriched themselves at the cost of those who came to offer their oblations to God. [Salmond, 1906]

chief priests and the scribes. In John’s Gospel two previous instances of a combination between the chief priests and the scribes are noticed (vii. 32, &c., xi. 47, 57); this is the first occasion of the kind mentioned in the Synoptical Gospels. Luke adds ‘the chief of the people,’ that is, prominent representatives, probably the elders (xix. 47). All classes, therefore—the professional orders and the general body of the people in the person of their outstanding men—now went hand in hand, contriving how to get rid of Jesus.

they feared him. The difficulty was how they could effect their end. They saw that he had still multitudes of the common people with him, and that they continued under the spell of his teaching. This made them afraid to interfere with him openly. [Salmond, 1906]

out of the city. Matthew is more explicit, and tells us it was to Bethany. It was our Lord’s habit, therefore, during these fateful days, to spend his active hours in the city, and when he could no longer teach, to retire to the quiet hamlet on the uplands.

Matthew adds some interesting particulars. He mentions how the blind and the lame came to Jesus after the cleansing, and were healed by him—the only instances of healing works done within the temple. He also tells us how the children (perhaps members of the temple choir, as has been suggested), caught by the general enthusiasm, took up the Hosannas which they had heard the previous day, and re-echoed them; that the chief priests and scribes were ‘moved with indignation’ at this; and how Jesus rebuked their mistaken displeasure by the testimony of the eighth Psalm (xxi. 14–16).

This narrative, it will now be seen, differs from that in John (ii. 13–17) in not a few points. It does so in respect of time and historical connexion. The incident it reports belongs to the close of the ministry, and is related to the triumphant entry; whereas the occurrence recorded by John belongs to the outset of the ministry, and is placed in relation to the marriage in Cana of Galilee and the visit to Capernaum. There are differences also in the particulars. The scourge of small cords appears in John’s narrative, but not in that of the Synoptists. The prohibition regarding the carrying of vessels through the temple appears in Mark, but not in John. In the Fourth Gospel the Father’s house is described as having been made a house of merchandise; in the Second Gospel the phrase is even sterner—‘ye have made it a den of robbers.’ In John’s Gospel the purgation ends with nothing more serious than a challenge to Jesus to give proof of his authority; in the Synoptical Gospels it excites the spirit of murderous enmity, and is followed by vengeful co-operation on the part of the professional classes and the heads of the people. There is good reason, therefore, to say that the narratives refer to two distinct events, similar in character and significance, but each with its special appropriateness in its own connexion. [Salmond, 1906]

xi. 20–25. The Withering of the Fig-tree. Cf. Matt. xxi. 19–22.

20. as they passed by in the morning. As we gather from Matthew (xxi. 19), the tree was not private property, but planted, as was often the case, by the side of the public road, and in a position where any one could see it.

they saw the fig tree withered away. What a change! A change, too, of a kind which they could not fail to notice. Yesterday the tree attracted attention by its unwonted foliage, so fresh and green and abundant. To-day it draws wondering eyes upon it by its shrivelled, blasted look.

from the roots. By morning, then, the blight had penetrated it through and through, branch and root. Matthew speaks of the tree as withering immediately after Jesus spoke the words, ‘Let there be no fruit from thee henceforward for ever.’ And the process of decay, which was complete by morning, may well have set in then. [Salmond, 1906]

Peter calling to remembrance. The words of Jesus uttered the previous evening leaped at once into Peter’s memory, and in astonishment he called the attention of the Master to the result. [Salmond, 1906]

Have faith in God. The answer might seem little to the point. Yet it was a direct reply to the wonder expressed in Peter’s utterance. It referred him to faith and its possibilities as an explanation. [Salmond, 1906]

Whosoever shall say unto this mountain. Jesus had spoken in similar terms to his disciples on the occasion of their failure at the foot of Hermon (Matt. xvii. 20; cf. also Luke xvii. 6). This was a favourite figure of speech for things passing belief, or for acts of superhuman moral influence were described as removers or pluckers up of mountains.

but shall believe. In the power of his faith in his Father Jesus did his own works; this strange and startling one no less than others of a different kind which they had often witnessed. The same trustful dependence on God would be for them the source of a power which would make them capable of accomplishing what was impossible to other men. [Salmond, 1906]

Therefore I say unto you. The fact that faith has such power is his reason for proceeding to speak also of prayer.

All things whatsoever ye pray and ask for. Prayer, too, will bring them power and make things clear to them. But prayer without faith in God can have no efficacy. [Salmond, 1906]

whensoever ye stand praying. Kneeling or entire prostration was the form in which prayer was offered on occasions of exceptional public importance or national trouble, as in the case, e.g., of the dedication of the temple (1 Kings viii. 54), Ezra’s confession (Ezra ix. 5), Daniel’s petitions in the face of the decree (Dan. vi. 10), our Lord’s agony (Matt. xxvi. 39), Stephen’s death (Acts vii. 50), Paul’s prayer at Miletus and at Tyre (Acts xx. 36, xxi. 5). But the ordinary posture seems to have been standing (cf. 1 Kings viii. 14, 22; Neh. ix. 4; Jer. xviii. 20; Ps. cxxxiv. 1; Matt. vi. 5; Luke xviii. 11, 13).

forgive. By another natural transition he passes on to the efficacy of prayer, and it is God’s order that forgiveness on his part is linked with forgiveness on our part. Of this Jesus had already spoken when he unfolded the nature of prayer in the Sermon on the Mount (Matt. vi. 14, 15).

your Father. The only occurrence of this highest name of God in Mark. Our Lord had already made his disciples familiar with it (Matt. vi. 12, 14, &c.).

your trespasses. A word meaning literally ‘lapses,’ and so applicable to all offences.

This passage on faith, prayer, and forgiveness were appropriate, as Meyer points out, to ‘guard against a false application of the miracle wrought on the fig-tree.’ The lesson itself has its expansion in its symbolical meaning. The lesson it was intended to teach was the same as that given in the parable of the Fruitless Fig-tree (Luke xiii. 6-9). The fig-tree by the roadside with its show of leaves was a natural parable of the religious condition of the Jewish people; and the withering to which it was condemned was an acted parable of the doom of the nation. The tree was condemned, as Archbishop Trench remarks, ‘not for being without fruit, but for proclaiming by the voice of those leaves that it had fruit; not for being barren, but for being false.’ [Salmond, 1906]

Verse 26, inserted by the A.V., is omitted by the R.V. as of doubtful documentary authority. [Salmond, 1906]

xi. 27-33. Challenge of the Authority of Jesus: cf. Matt. xxi. 23-27; Luke xx. 1-8.

27. walking in the temple. The third visit, as it appears, at this time. He was again probably in the court of the Gentiles, perhaps in Solomon’s porch (John x. 23).

the chief priests, and the scribes, and the elders. All the three classes now conferred approach him with a challenge. The party included the custodians of the temple, who might reasonably claim to know by what right Jesus asserted jurisdiction where they were in charge, and interfered with customs which they sanctioned. [Salmond, 1906]

By what authority. Their first demand was that he should inform them of the kind of authority he had.

or who gave thee this authority to do these things? Their second and alternative demand was that he should tell them the source of his authority. To do as he had done, overturning and ejecting the profiteering, surely required a sanction which he could be produce. [Salmond, 1906]

I will ask of you one question. Before he will say anything about his own authority, he, too, has a matter to settle with them. It is about John’s authority to act as he did. [Salmond, 1906]

was it from heaven, or from men? The question placed them in a dilemma of a dimension. If they said ‘from heaven,’ they exposed themselves to the retort that they had neglected or repudiated it. If they said it was a purely human authority, they feared they would have the people against them; for the people held John to have been a prophet indeed. [Salmond, 1906]

33. We know not. They took refuge in a cowardly profession of ignorance, and could not further press their own question. [Salmond, 1906]