Listening to Jesus’ Donkey (Matthew 21:1-3)

On which animal did Jesus ride into the city of Jerusalem? A donkey [The foal of an ass, KJV]

In contrast to is his usual low key mode of operating, all four canonical gospels depict Jesus’ final entry into Jerusalem as occurring before a substantial and enthusiastic crowd (Matthew 21:1-11; Mark 11:1-11; Luke 19:28-44; John 12:12-19). In short, Jesus makes an entrance. Jesus’ approach to the Holy City marks a major turning point in Matthew’s gospel and in many ways begins the Passion narrative. Often referred to as the “Triumphal Entry”, the church commemorates the event annually on Palm Sunday.

In preparation for his entry, Jesus’s gives very explicit instructions to his followers on where to secure his ride: Jesus will enter Jerusalem atop a donkey. .

When they had approached Jerusalem and had come to Bethphage, at the Mount of Olives, then Jesus sent two disciples, saying to them, “Go into the village opposite you, and immediately you will find a donkey tied there and a colt with her; untie them and bring them to Me. If anyone says anything to you, you shall say, ‘The Lord has need of them,’ and immediately he will send them.” (Matthew 21:1-3 NASB)

Donald Senior (b. 1940) summarizes:

Jesus prepares for his entry into Jerusalem by sending two disciples into the village to procure a donkey and a colt (Matthew 21:2-3). The whole tone emphasizes Jesus’ messianic authority—he commands the disciples; they do exactly what he says; and everything is as “the Lord” predicts. (Senior, Matthew (Abingdon New Testament Commentaries), 230)

The city where the disciples procure the donkey is undetermined as Jesus refers only to the “village opposite” (Matthew 21:2). Grant R. Osborne (b. 1942) contemplates:

It is difficult to know whether Jesus sent the two disciples to Bethphage (D.A. Carson [b. 1946]) or Bethany (Donald A. Hagner [b. 1936], David L. Turner [b. 1949]). The text could point to either. It is also difficult to know whether Jesus had made prior arrangements or knew supernaturally that the donkeys would be there. Either way, he deliberately plans the event as a messianic fulfillment, possibly connected with three passages: Zechariah 14:4, which prophesied Yahweh would stand on the Mount of Olives on the day of the Lord...the lion of Judah (Genesis 49:10-11, a messianic figure within Judaism) who “tethers his donkey...[and] colt” (so John Nolland [b. 1947]), and David’s return to Jerusalem (after his son Absalom...forced him to flee) on a donkey in II Samuel 15:30-31, 16:1-2 (so R.T. France [1938-2012], Stanley Hauerwas [b. 1940]). (Osborne, Matthew (Zondervan Exegetical Commentary on the New Testament), 753-54)

W.F. Albright (1891-1971) and C.S. Mann (b. 1917) explain the vagueness:

At first sight, this little incident is full of mystery. This account is one of many in the gospels in which the relevant circumstances were still so well known to the people when the oral tradition became fixed that they were not included. This can be very baffling for the reader in search of exact biographical detail. The high incidence of background information which is assumed or omitted as taken for granted is eloquent proof of the immediacy of the New Testament material—the transmitters of the oral tradition were not concerned beyond the immediate accuracy of transmission. (Albright and Mann, Matthew: A New Translation with Introduction and Commentary (The Anchor Bible), 251)

Whatever city the disciples frequent, their mission is to secure an ónos, a “donkey” (CEV, ESV, HCSB, MSG, NASB, NIV, NKJV, NLT, NRSV) which some translations render with the more antiquated “ass” (ASV, KJV, RSV) and its colt, polos (Matthew 21:2). In this era, the donkey was bred as a beast of burden and was a prominent means of distributing goods (Matthew 21:2, 5, 7; Luke 13:15; John 12:15).

W. D. Davies (1911-2001) and Dale C. Allison, Jr. (b. 1950) define:

ὄνος (most often for hamôr in the LXX) means ‘donkey’ (male of female; here the latter.) πωλος (cf. ‘ayir, ‘he ass’) according to Walter Bauer [1877-1960] means ‘horse’ or, when used in conjunction with another animal, ‘young animal’. But Heinz-Wolfgang Kuhn [b. 1934]...and Otto Michel [1903-1993]...have established that the word standing by itself, can mean ‘ass’...Rabbinic literature makes the ass a messianic animal. Zechariah 9:9 was the key text in this development. It in turn arose out of the use of the ass in the ancient Near Eastern royal ceremony. I Kings 1:33 (cf. I Kings 1:38) supplies an Old Testament example: Solomon rode on David’s ass to Gihon to be anointed king (cf. II Samuel 18:9, 19:26). For the mules of nobility see Judges 5:10, 10:4, 12:13-14; II Samuel 13:29. Riding on a mule for ceremonial entry into a city is already an established act of kingship in ARM 6.76, a text from the royal archives of Mari; ANET 1, pp. 44-7, translates a Sumerian text (‘Gilgamesh and Agga’) in which those ‘who are raised with the sons of the kings’ are referred to as those who ride donkeys. (Davies and Allison, Matthew 19-28 (International Critical Commentary), 116-17)

John Nolland (b. 1947) adds:

In Mark there is a single animal.: ‘a πωλον tied up [masculine form] on which no one has ever sat’. In Matthew there is a ‘donkey tethered [female form], and a πωλον with her. πωλον is capable of a range of meanings. In secular Greek it often means ‘horse’, but it means ‘donkey’ in the Septuagint and documents showing Septuagint influence. Originally it had meant the young of an animal, and it still did in appropriate contexts. The reference to a female donkey and the quotation to come in Matthew 21:5 make clear that for Matthew πωλον means a young male donkey. (Nolland, The Gospel of Matthew (New International Greek Testament Commentary, 833)

David E. Garland (b. 1947) interprets:

It is...a royal entry. The heir of David who was to be anointed as king rode a donkey to his coronation. When Absalom’s hair got caught in the branches of a large terebinth, he was riding a donkey, which was symbolic of his claim to kingship (II Samuel 18:8). Mephibosheth rode a donkey as a symbol of his royal claim that he would make for the old house of Saul had the insurrection of Absalom succeeded (II Samuel 19:27). David, anxious to secure Solomon’s claim to the throne over that of Adonijah’s, instructs his comrades to mount Solomon on his donkey to ride to his anointing as king (I Kings 1:32-40; see also II Kings 9:13). Jesus’ approach to the city from the east, from the Mount of Olives, is also suggestive, since some expected that the messiah would come from the east, from the Jordan valley (see Josephus [37-100], Antiquities 20.8.6 § 169; Jewish War 2.13.5 § 261; Genesis Rabba 98:9; Qoheleth Rabba 1:9; Babylonian Talmud Sanhedrin 98a; 99a; and Zechariah 14:1-5). (Garland, Reading Matthew: A Literary and Theological Commentary, 213)

From this passage, some Christians have applauded the often neglected donkey. Howard Clarke (b. 1929) relays:

In the Middle Ages these biblical associations made the donkey the transportation of choice for wandering preachers. G.K. Chesteron [1874-1936] honored this humble animal in his poem “The Donkey.” After three stanzas describing how the donkey has always been ridiculed and mistreated he concludes: “Fools! For also had my hour:/One far fierce hour and sweet:/There was a shout about my ears,/And palms before my feet.” (Clarke, The Gospel of Matthew and Its Readers: A Historical Introduction to the First Gospel, 174)

Regardless of its symbolism, to its owners the more important fact is that the donkey has monetary value. Craig S. Keener (b. 1960) assesses the ass:

A donkey could cost between two months’ and two years’ wages, depending on its age and condition, but most peasants who could save enough would buy one, as they were extremely important even in small-scale farming. If a farmer had two, however, he sometimes rented one out (Naphtali Lewis [1911-2005] 1983: 130). (Keener, The Gospel of Matthew: A Socio-Rhetorical Commentary, 490)

Commentators often play for humor the fact that Matthew actually implies that Jesus rides both animals simultaneously (Matthew 21:2, 5, 7). This fact has also been referenced by critics. One such skeptic was John William Gott (1866–1922), the last person in Britain to be sent to prison for blasphemy. In 1921, he was arrested and tried publicly at the Old Bailey. In response to his appeal, Lord Chief Justice Alfred Lawrence (1843-1936) wrote, “It does not require a person of strong religious feelings to be outraged by a description of Jesus Christ entering Jerusalem ‘like a circus clown on the back of two donkeys’.”

Eduard Schweizer (1913-2006) explains the purported discrepancy:

Taken literally, it speaks of a donkey and (the “and” appears only in the Septuagint) a colt (Genesis 49:11 likewise), but only because Hebrew writers often use hendiadys (cf. for example Psalms 2:1-5, 33:10-12; also Numbers 21:28; Deuteronomy 32:2; I Samuel 2:6-7; Isaiah 47:1). Matthew has thus made the Markan reference to the prophetic passage explicit and at the same time emphasized its literal fulfillment...Something similar has taken place in Matthew 27:34...and John 19:23-24. (Schewizer, The Good News according to Matthew, 404)

Many have seen the reference to Jesus riding both animals as Matthew misinterpreting Zechariah’s prophecy (Zechariah 9:9). John P. Meier (b. 1942) has even suggested that this is evidence that, contrary to tradition, the author of Matthew’s gospel is not Jewish.

Donald Senior (b. 1940) summarizes:

Meier...thinks this...shows that Matthew misunderstands the Hebrew parallelism of Zechariah 9:9 where the reference to a donkey and a colt is not to two animals, but to one. Meier contends that only someone unfamiliar with Hebrew poetic forms, and, therefore, not a Jew, would be this literal on such an insignificant detail. Therefore, Matthew was not a Jew who became a Christian but a Gentile Christian who became well versed in the Hebrew scriptures and things Jewish. (Senior, What Are They Saying About Matthew? A Revised & Expanded Edition, 16)

Others have explained the alleged discrepancy by comparing Matthew to Mark’s parallel account which notes that “no one yet has ever sat” on the animal (Mark 11:2 NASB), a detail not recorded in Matthew.

Robert H. Gundry (b. 1932) sees the two gospels as saying the same thing in different ways:

Matthew inserts ὄνον, “a donkey”, to correspond with ὄνον in his coming quotation of Zechariah 9:9 (Matthew 21:5) and to substitute for Mark’s clause “on which no man [literally ‘no one of men’] has ever sat.” As it turns out, this donkey was a mother and had been ridden. That her colt accompanied her eliminates any need to describe him as unbroken, for after being broken a colt would be taken from the mother. (Gundry, Matthew: A Commentary on His Handbook for a Mixed Church under Persecution, 407)

Craig L. Blomberg (b. 1955) concurs:

Only Matthew mentions two animals. He is often accused of misinterpreting what in the Old Testament was intended to be synonymous parallelism. But irrespective of the correct reading of Zechariah 9:9, it would be natural for the mother to come along if her colt had never previously been ridden (Mark 11:2). Matthew 21:5 can easily be taken as implying that Jesus rode only on the young donkey, appropriate symbolism for his purity and holiness. (Blomberg, Matthew (New American Commentary), 312)

Bruce B. Barton (b. 1943) further defends:

Matthew highlighted the prophetic fulfillment by noting a second donkey, the colt’s mother. Jesus didn’t ride her, nor is she essential to the story. But she provides a detail of fact. Her calming presence also explains the handling of an unbroken colt. (Barton, Matthew (Life Application Bible Commentary), 406)

Robert H. Smith (1932-2006) sees the imagery as intentional:

Has Matthew misunderstood poetic parallelism? Hardly. Playfully, insistently he portrays Jesus as the pluperfect fulfillment of prophecy. And he pictures Jesus the way ancient oriental gods and kings are frequently depicted: enthroned above a pair of animals. He comes meek but royal nonetheless. (Smith, Matthew (Augsburg Commentary on the New Testament), 61)

The disciples are instructed to take the animal and, if confronted, respond with a cryptic line befitting a cloak and dagger caper: “The Lord has need of them.” (Matthew 21:3 NASB). The implication is that this answer will be sufficient and there will no questions asked. Jesus’ word is sufficient.

The intended meaning of “the Lord” is replete with potential interpretations. Some have even viewed it as a codeword. Leon Morris (1914-2006) details:

“Lord” is patient of more than one meaning. It could mean the owner of the animals, but against this is the fact that, though Luke has the same expression at this point, a little later he says that the owners (“lords”) questioned the disciples when they came for the animal; there was more than one owner, and the owners were with the donkey, not where the donkey was to go. It could mean God, for the animal was to be used in God’s service, but it is not easy to see how those standing near the donkey could have understood this. Another possibility is that “Lord” means himself...if this is the way of it, we should notice that he says “the” Lord, not simply “our” Lord; it is the Lord of all that is in mind. This cannot be ruled out, but Jesus did not usually apply this word to himself. All in all it seems better to understand the words as a prearranged password. This means that Jesus had somehow made arrangement with the owners of the animals. None of the Evangelists gives any indication who the owners were or how the arrangement was made. But that it was made shows clearly that Jesus has had more dealing in and around Jerusalem tan Matthew has so far indicated. (Morris, The Gospel according to Matthew (Pillar New Testament Commentary), 519-20)

John Proctor (b. 1952) adds:

The fetching of the donkey has the feel of a royal command, as of the king commandeers any animal he needs. But it much more likely reflects an agreement with a sympathetic local contact. Even so, there is a curiously cryptic feel to the matter—almost like something out of a spy novel—and it may be that Jesus was even now being careful and how and where he attracted attention. (Proctor, Matthew (Daily Bible Commentary: A Guide for Reflection and Prayer), 170)

As Jesus asks his followers to take property they do not own, the legality of Jesus’ request has been addressed. Craig S. Keener (b. 1960) reflects:

The response testifies first of all to the man’s respect for Jesus: rulers (as Jesus is here) and officials could impress animals (Sallust [86-25 BCE], Jugurthine War. 75.4; Richard A. Burridge [b. 1955] 1994: 54); Jewish teachers (as the man presumably regards Jesus) could also borrow animals among those who respected the, (J. Duncan M. Derrett [b. 1922] 1971). (Keener, The Gospel of Matthew: A Socio-Rhetorical Commentary, 490)

Robert H. Gundry (b. 1932) reminds that a king may commandeer a donkey any time he pleases:

“And if anyone should say anything to you” is indefinite and ambiguous both as to possibility and content, and the succeeding verses will say nothing about anyone’s saying anything to the two disciples when they untie the animals. So the entire stress lies on Jesus’ telling the disciples to call him the animals’ “owner” in saying he needs them. “Owner” translates the word otherwise translated “Lord” and therefore alludes to Jesus’ lordship. As Lord, his ownership of the animals obliterates anyone else’s owning them and gives him the right to use them. Matthew includes nothing about Jesus’ returning the animals. So the stress stays on his divine ownership of them (contrast Mark 11:3). And their being sent to Jesus by the possible “anyone.” underlined with “immediately,” caps the stress on his owning them. (Gundry, Commentary on Matthew)

Jesus’ memorable procession into Jerusalem has historical precedent, many with similarities to Christ’s. Craig A. Evans (b. 1952) chronicles:

Jesus’ celebrated entry is one of as many as twelve similar entries, as recorded in I and II Maccabees and in Josephus [37-100]. These entries follow a more or less fixed pattern. Entries involving major figures include Alexander [356-323 BE], who enters Jerusalem, is greeted with ceremony, and is escorted into the city, where he participates in cultic activity (Antiquities 11.325-39); Apollonius, who enters Jerusalem accompanied by torches and shouts (II Maccabees 4:21-22); Judas Maccabeus, who returns home from a military victory and is greeted with hymns and “praising God” (I Maccabees 4:19-25; Josephus, Antiquities 12.312); Judas Maccabeus again, this time returning from battle and entering Jerusalem amidst singing and merrymaking, followed by sacrifice (I Maccabees 5:45-54; Antiquities 12.348-49); Jonathan, brother of Judas Maccabeus, who is greeted by the men of Askalon “with great pomp” (I Maccabees 10:86); Simon, brother of Judas Maccabeus, who enters Gaza, expels idolatrous inhabitants, cleanses idolatrous houses, and enters the city with “hymns and praise” (I Maccabees 13:43-48); Simon, brother of Judas Maccabeus, again, ths time entering Jerusalem, where he is met by crowds “with praise and palm branches, and with harps and cymbals and stringed instruments and with hymns and songs” (I Maccabees 13:49-41); Antigonus [382-301 BCE], who with pomp enters Jerusalem and then the temple precincts, but with so much pomp and self-importance he is criticized by some for imagining that he himself was “king” (Jewish Wars 1.73-74; Antiquities 13.304-6); Marcus Agrippa [64-12 BCE], who enters Jerusalem, is met by Herod, and is welcomed by the people with acclamations (Antiquities 16.12-15); and Archelaus, [23 BCE-18 CE] who, hoping to confirm his kingship, journeys to enters Jerusalem amidst acclamation and his procession (Antiquities 17.194-239). (Evans, Matthew (New Cambridge Bible Commentary), 357-58)

In light of this history, for once Jesus does something that might be expected of the long awaited Messiah. And as usual, he will turn this expectation on its head. And one way he does this is with his ride of choice: the donkey.

Entering riding a donkey is unique and Jesus is undeniably intentional about its selection. D.A. Carson (b. 1946) comments:

The distinguishing feature of the synoptic accounts, as opposed to John 12, is that Jesus arranged for the ride. The applause and the crowds were not manipulated; they would have occurred in any case. But the ride on a colt, because it was planned, could only be an acted parable, a deliberate act of symbolic self-disclosure for those with eyes to see or, after the resurrection, with memories by which to remember and integrate the events of the preceding weeks and years. Secrecy was being lifted. (Tremper Longman III [b. 1952] and David E. Garland [b. 1947], Matthew and Mark (The Expositor’s Bible Commentary), 493-94)

R.T. France (1938-2012) accedes:

Jesus’ ride was a matter of deliberate choice, and indeed probably of careful planning, rather than a matter of necessity. Among a crowd of pilgrims on foot the rider on the donkey intended to be noticed and expected his supporters to draw the appropriate conclusion. He can not have been surprised or displeased when they did. Such a deliberately provocative approach to the city is also consistent with the equally public and provocative action which Jesus was to take on his arrival in the temple area (Matthew 21:12-13). Among the Passover crowds coming into the city it would have been impossible for Jesus and his disciples to arrive without drawing attention to themselves, but Jesus has not come to slip quietly into Jerusalem. (France, The Gospel of Matthew (New International Commentary on the New Testament), 774)

If riding this donkey was so important to Jesus, why does he not secure it himself? Why does Jesus choose to enter Jerusalem riding a donkey? What do you associate with this animal? What would you have named the donkey? When have you wanted to make a grand entrance? What is the best entrance you have ever witnessed? Who would you lend something valuable to, no questions asked? When have you gone to great lengths to create the proper ambiance for an event? Does Jesus stage anything elsewhere in his ministry? Why now? Why is this event so important? What message is he attempting to convey?

Larry Chouinard (b. 1948) surmises:

It is doubtful...that Jesus’ instructions for obtaining a donkey were simply to secure transportation for the final two miles of his journey. Rather, it appears that Jesus intends to deliberately stage the manner of his entrance into Jerusalem in terms of the prophetic expectations of Zechariah 9:9. Thereby, his entrance becomes a prophetic act which implicitly makes a Christological statement. The focus of the account is upon the Lord’s foreknowledge and sovereign awareness of his conformity to God’s will as expressed in Old Testament prophecies (Chouinard, Matthew (The College Press NIV Commentary), 366)

Thomas G. Long (b. 1946) agrees:

Matthew is conveying a theological truth here, and he risks the somewhat improbable picture of Jesus straddling two beasts in order to make his point: King Jesus’ humble entrance into Jerusalem was, in the deepest sense, a fulfillment of God’s intent to save humanity as declared in Scripture. (Long, Matthew (Westminster Bible Companion), 235)

A large factor in Jesus’ rationale for riding a donkey is its consistency with Zechariah 9:9. Douglas R.A. Hare (b. 1929) deciphers:

It may very well have been an “acted parable” in which Jesus consciously acted out the prophecy of Zechariah by riding into the holy city on a donkey. While it was customary for pilgrims to arrive by foot, his action would have seemed only slightly unusual to outsiders. According to John 12:16, not even the disciples perceived the event as the fulfillment of prophecy until after the resurrection... In Matthew’s account the underlying prophecy is not only explicitly quoted but is placed before the event to emphasize that Jesus actively fulfills the messianic prophecy. (Hare, Matthew (Interpretation: A Bible Commentary for Teaching and Preaching), 237-38)

Matthew stresses the prophetic association by inserting a fulfillment citation (Matthew 21:4-5); John’s gospel makes a similar reference (John 12:14-15). Matthew introduces the verse with the usual prefixed formula for Old Testament testimony. Though it captures the verse’s meaning well, the gospel’s rendering of Zechariah 9:9 is neither an exact match of the Hebrew or the Greek and it is conflated with introductory words from Isaiah 62:11.

Robert H. Mounce (b. 1921) acknowledges:

Matthew identifies this event as a fulfillment of a prophecy by Zechariah that Israel’s king will come gentle and riding on a donkey. The first line of the quotation (which Matthew says was spoken through the prophet, singular) comes from Isaiah 62:11 and the rest from Zechariah 9:9. Eduard Schweizer [1913-2006] says this is “constant with rabbinic hermeneutics, in which a passage containing the same word as another serves to interpret the latter”...Of interest is the omission from Zechariah of the descriptive phrase “righteous and having salvation.” It appears that Matthew was interested mainly in emphasizing the humility of the Messiah. (Mounce, Matthew New International Biblical Commentary)

Stuart K. Weber (b. 1945) provides an overview of Zechariah’s original context:

Zechariah 9 begins an oracle predicting the destruction of all Israel’s enemies and the ensuing peace in Jerusalem. All of Israel’s chariots, war horses, and battle instruments would be taken away (Zechariah 9:10), and Jerusalem’s king would enter peacefully, “righteous and having salvation” (Zechariah 9:9). The king would be gentle, since there was no longer any need for war, and he would arrive by the humble means of a donkey. (Weber, Matthew (Holman New Testament Commentary), 362)

Stanley D. Toussaint (b. 1928) analyzes:

Rather than use the first clauses of Zechariah 9:9, Matthew introduces the Zechariah passage with a phrase from Isaiah 62:11, “Say to the daughter of Zion.” The Zechariah passage actually has, “Rejoice greatly, O daughter of Zion; shout in triumph, O daughter of Jerusalem.” But this would not fit into Matthew’s argument since Jerusalem failed to recognize its King. Jerusalem had to have its King pointed out; therefore the Evangelist substitutes the words of Isaiah to give the passage more meaning. “The substitution is interpretive.” (Toussaint, Behold the King: A Study of Matthew, 238)

Brendan Byrne (b. 1939) concurs:

The text quoted from Zechariah 9:9 omits the epithets “triumphant and victorious is he,” so as to focus all attention on “humble” (Greek praus) and on the mode of transport. (Byrne, Lifting the Burden: Reading Matthew’s Gospel in the Church Today, 158)

This stress on humility is well represented in eastern iconogaphy which depicts Jesus riding the donkey side saddle, a style associated with a woman not a warrior (pictured).

R.T. France (1938-2012) asserts that the original audience would have gleaned Jesus’ meaning:

Even without an explicit quotation of that prophecy in the text, any Jewish reader of the story could hardly fail to be reminded of it and of the royal ideology which underlies it. Zechariah’s prophecy of a humble and peaceful king coming to Jerusalem “vindicated and saved” is based on the story of David’s return to the city after the defeat of Absalom’s rebellion, when he came in triumph as king, and yet humbly and in peace (II Samuel 19:1-20:22). When the Son of David chose to ride down to the city from the Mount of Olives on a donkey, the acted allusion was unmistakable...Zechariah’s prophecy pictures David retracing his outward route over the Mount of Olives (II Samuel 15:30) and riding on the donkey which has been provided for him in II Samuel 16:1-2. A donkey is a suitable mount for a king, but only for a king in time of peace. (France, The Gospel of Matthew (New International Commentary on the New Testament), 773-74)

Stanley P. Saunders (b. 1953) sees many layers to Jesus’ insistence on the donkey:

This image is sometimes regarded as Matthew’s clumsy, literalistic misreading of the Hebrew parallelism in Zechariah 9:9. It is, rather, a deliberate literary device–the kind that works best in oral presentations. It signals: (a) Jesus’ royal, messianic identity as Son of David (the donkey is associated with coronations of kings, cf. I Kings 1:33-48); (b) Jesus’ identification with what is meek or humble (Matthew 21:5; cf. Matthew 5:5,11:29)...(c) Matthew’s identification of Jesus with Moses (Moses rides a donkey in Exodus 4:19-20; cf. Matthew 2:19-21); and (d) a strong affirmation of Jesus’ fulfillment of the messianic vision of Zechariah 9-14 (cf. Matthew 21:12-13, 26:15-16, 26:26-29, 26:30-35, 27:3-10, 27:51-53), where the messiah not only restores Israel and shatters her enemies, but brings peace to the nations and sets prisoners free (Zechariah 9:9-11). (Saunders, Preaching the Gospel of Matthew: Proclaiming God’s Presence, 208)

Riding the donkey sends the message not only that Jesus is a king but also conveys the type of king he is. Stanley Hauerwas (b. 1940) determines:

Jesus identifies himself as Lord, but one that will ride on ass, a creature not normally associated with what it means to be a king. Victors in battle do not tide into their capital cities on asses, but rather they ride on fearsome horses. But this king does not and will not triumph through force of arms. (Hauerwas, Matthew (Brazos Theological Commentary on the Bible), 181)

Jesus presents himself as a new type of conquering hero, a nonviolent one. George Martin (b. 1939) details:

Pilgrims normally entered Jerusalem on foot, but Jesus will ride into Jerusalem like the king in Zechariah’s prophecy to indicate that he is not a warrior messiah bent on establishing an earthly kingdom. Jesus is “meek and humble of heart” (Matthew 11:29), not a man of violence (Matthew 12:19-20); he forbids his disciples from following the way of violence (Matthew 5:38-39, 26:51-52). (Martin, Bringing the Gospel of Matthew To Life: Insight & Inspiration, 437)

Myron S. Augsburger (b. 1929) notes:

Jesus entered Jerusalem not on a white charger, but on a lowly beast of burden, not on a horse as a symbol of power, but on a colt of an ass as a symbol of humility. He is the peaceful King of the people of God, not a revolutionary with political interest (Isaiah 11:1-2). Note the care with which Matthew stresses identity: the identity of the location, the identity of a colt rather than a white charger, the identity with Old Testament prophecy (Matthew 21:4-5), the identity in the cry of the crowd (Psalm 118:26), and the identity as the prophet from Nazareth (Matthew 21:11). (Augsburger, Matthew (The Preacher’s Commentary), 227)

All together Jesus uses the donkey to make a grand statement. Frederick Dale Bruner (b. 1932) asserts:

There are two closely related and yet contrasting points here. (1) In this story...Jesus, as it were, “comes out of the closet” and publicly acknowledges his Messiahship. (2) Yet by choosing a donkey for this “confession,” Jesus perfectly illustrates his modest Messiahship. Thus was have another text in which the two great truths about Jesus are illumined — what early theologians called the doctrine of the two natures (Jesus’ true identity and true humanity) or what modern exegesis calls the authority and lowliness of Jesus. (Bruner, The Churchbook: Matthew 13-28,353)

The donkey provides a striking image and serves to parody the expected regal processions. As usual, Jesus flips the script. Mike Graves and David M. May (b. 1958) conclude:

If we choose to retain the “Triumphal Entry” title, we must do so with the greatest sense of irony. This entry by Jesus into Jerusalem is unlike any other triumphant processional familiar to first-century people. If it is triumph, then we need to accept Matthew’s definition of triumph. It is not an imperial Roman grand propaganda parade heaping accolades on a king/warrior for the successful incorporation of another province into the empire that was Rome. It was a parade, certainly, but not that type of parade. The sad-eyed man riding into Jerusalem on a donkey that day was leading a funeral parade—his own. (Graves and May, Preaching Matthew: Interpretation and Proclamation , 76)

Warren Carter (b. 1955) adds:

Jesus’ meekness consisting of compassion and service challenges such a power structure. His act of entering the city employs some features of the entrance processions and triumphs in order to contrast or reframe them, to parody them with a very different vision of human interaction. Jesus rides a donkey, not an intimidating warhorse representative of strategies to dominate and exploit, an everyday common beast and one that was often a symbol used by Gentiles to deride and scorn Jews (Josephus [37-100], Contra Apion 2.80-88, 112-20; Tacitus [56-117], Histories 5.3-4). He is not welcomed by the city’s leadership with escort speeches, only by his followers. And he is a very different sort of king, meek not triumphant, a compassionate servant not a powerful imperial official. (Carter, Matthew and Empire: Initial Explorations, 129)

Most Christians would prefer the Jesus who rides in on a white horse as seen in the Bible’s final book (Revelation 19:11). But Jesus enters Jerusalem as the Prince of Peace (Isaiah 9:6), not to abolish Rome. And he conveys this sentiment through his ride. In this way, Jesus’ donkey speaks more than Balaam’s famed talking donkey without ever saying a word (Numbers 22:28).

If you had to make a grand entrance on a major thoroughfare and had any vehicle at your disposal, what transportation would you choose? How would Jesus enter Jerusalem in our time? Did the original audience grasp Jesus’ intent? Do we?

“There were only a few shepherds at the first Bethlehem. The ox and the donkey understood more of the first Christmas than the high priests in Jerusalem. And it is the same today.” - Thomas Merton (1913-1968)

Putting Jesus in His Place (Revelation 14:1)

Which chapter begins “Then I looked and lo, on Mount Zion stood the Lamb”? Revelation 14

Revelation 13 paints a bleak picture of enemies aligning against God in the final cosmic battle between Satan and God. The great red dragon (Revelation 12:3, 13:1) enlists two beasts in the war against God, one from the sea (Revelation 13:1) the other from the earth (Revelation 13:11). The beast appears to have an advantage as many have taken the notorious mark of the beast (Revelation 13:16-18). Then the scene shifts.

To the relief of the reader, Revelation 14 moves from war to peace (Revelation 14:1-5). The Lamb, last seen seven chapters earlier (Revelation 7:17), is reintroduced. Despite his extended absence, no introduction is necessary. The reader knows the Lamb to be Jesus, the lone figure worthy to unloose the seals of the scroll (Revelation 5:11-14) and receive the adulation of the multitude (Revelation 7:10). Amid the apparent chaos, the Lamb stands triumphantly with 144,000 of his followers (Revelation 14:1-5).

Then I looked, and behold, the Lamb was standing on Mount Zion, and with Him one hundred and forty-four thousand, having His name and the name of His Father written on their foreheads. (Revelation 14:1 NASB)

The author emphasizes the striking quality of this visual by adding the phrase “looked and behold” (Revelation 14:1).

The picture of the Lamb atop the mountain stands in sharp contrast to the visuals from the previous chapter. The text transitions from those who have taken the mark of the beast to those who bear the mark of Christ. The names adorning the believers’ foreheads fulfills a previous promise given to the victors (Revelation 3:12). This inscription of God’s name dramatically opposes the mark of the beast, the number of his name. While the beast attempts to elicit worship, the Lamb is the recipient of true worship. The scene portrays the past invading the present while simultaneously foreshadowing the future as it recalls Revelation 7:1-8 and anticipates Revelation 21:1-22:6.

The lamb’s position, atop Mount Zion, is significant. The location is mentioned only here in Revelation. Zion is seldom mentioned in the New Testament and when it is, it is most commonly in Old Testament quotations (Matthew 21:5; John 12:15; Romans 9:33, 11:26; Hebrews 12:22; I Peter 2:6; Revelation 14:1; also Barnabas 6:2). Even so, Zion carries a lot of weight.

Though “Mount Zion” is introduced in the Bible as a fortress on one the southernmost and highest of the hills of the pre-Israelite city of Jerusalem (II Samuel 5:7) it eventually took on a broader reach, sometimes loosely encompassing all of Jerusalem. Nelson’s New Illustrated Bible Dictionary charts the name’s scope:

The designation of Zion underwent a distinct progression in its usage throughout the Bible...The first mention of Zion in the Bible is...the name of the ancient Jebusite fortress situated on the southeastern hill of Jerusalem at the junction of the Kidron Valley and the Tyropoeon Valley [II Samuel 5:7]. The name came to stand not only for the fortress but also for the hill on which the fortress stood...When Solomon built the temple of Mount Moriah (a hill distinct and separate from Mount Zion), and moved the ark of the covenant there, the word “Zion” expanded in meaning to include also the Temple and the Temple area (Psalm 2:6, 48:2, 11-12, 132:13). It was only a short step until Zion was used as a name for the city of Jerusalem, the land of Judah, and the people of Israel as a whole (Isaiah 40:9; Jeremiah 31:12). (Ronald F. Youngblood [b. 1931], Nelson’s New Illustrated Bible Dictionary: Completely Revised and Updated Edition), 1343)

Joseph L. Trafton (b. 1949) adds:

David took Jerusalem from the Jebusites by capturing the “stronghold of Zion,” which he renamed the city of David (II Samuel 5:6-10). Solomon built the Temple on a hill directly north of the City of David (I Kings 8:1-6). Hence, the site of the Temple, along with Jerusalem itself, came to be known as “Mount Zion” (e.g., Psalm 48:2, 74:2, 78:68-69, Isaiah 8:18, 18:7; Lamentations 5:18; cf. Psalm 2:6) or sometimes simply “Zion” (e.g., Psalm 147:12; Isaiah 37:32, 62:1; Joel 3:17; Micah 3:12, 4:2). In the Old Testament the expression “Mount Zion” is identified further as a place that will experience future deliverance (Joel 2:32; Obadiah 1:17, 21) and blessing (Isaiah 4:2-6), to which gifts will be brought by foreigners (Isaiah 18:7), which God will defend (Isaiah 31:4-5), out of which will come a remnant of survivors (Isaiah 37:32), and to which exiles will come to be ruled by the Lord forever (Micah 4:6-7). (Trafton, Reading Revelation: A Literary And Theological Commentary, 134)

At the time of Revelation’s writing, Zion was an emblematic term, long associated with the type of divine deliverance depicted here (Joel 2:32). It had an eternal quality which applied to heavenly temple in present (Hebrews 12:22; Revelation 11:19) and pointed to the new Jerusalem of the future (Revelation 21:2). Consequently, there is much debate as to whether the Zion in question is in heaven or on earth.

The text is ambiguous. Those who support a heavenly setting note that the Lamb is last seen in heaven and the narrative makes no comment about his transitioning from heaven to earth (Revelation 7:9). Likewise, the composition’s author, John, is never said to move from his initial position, also in heaven (Revelation 4:1). Another detail favoring a heavenly scene is a singing multitude of 144,000 suggesting the same group that previously appears in heaven (Revelation 7:4).

Those who support an earthly vision argue that the text itself says nothing of heaven. The 144,000 had been sealed and protected previously, which would be presumably unnecessary if they resided in heaven (Revelation 7:3). Some also note that the fact that in the next verse the author hears “a voice from heaven” indicates that he is situated on earth (Revelation 14:2).

Scholars are divided on the issue. Stephen S. Smalley (b. 1931) compares:

The precise location of Mount Zion in Revelation 14:1 is not immediately clear. In the view of some commentators, the setting of this verse is on earth; even if the reality represented is spiritual (William Milligan [1821-1893] 240-41; Henry Barclay Swete [1835-1917] 177; Isbon Thaddeus Beckwith [1843-1936] 647, 651; R.H. Charles [1855-1931] 2, 4-5; Michael Wilcock [b. 1932] 132; Robert W. Wall [b. 1947] 179; David E. Aune [b. 1939] 803). Others regard the vision of the Lamb of Zion, with the 144,000, as taking place in heaven (Martin Kiddle 262-65; William Hendriksen [1900-1982] 151; P.W.L. Walker [b. 1961], Holy City 261; Robert H. Mounce [b. 1921] 264-65); cf. 4 Ezra 2.42-48. A third interpretation equates Zion in this context with the new Jerusalem, which ‘comes down from heaven’ (Revelation 21:2), and becomes part of the new creation after the destruction of the old; so George Eldon Ladd [1911-1982] 189-90...also G.R. Beasley-Murray [1916-2000] 222, who believes there is a contrast here between the earthly Jerusalem, which has become a symbol for the godless world (Revelation 11:8-10) and the Jerusalem from above, where heaven and earth are brought together in a unity (Revelation 21:16). (Smalley, The Revelation to John: A Commentary on the Greek Text of the Apocalypse, 354)

The inconclusiveness is not surprising as Revelation is typically unconcerned with geography, frequently mixing temporal and spatial images. The book’s subject matter transcends time and space. The setting of Revelation’s Mount Zion could be heaven, earth, both or neither.

Ian Boxall (b. 1964) opts for a more general spiritual interpretation of the salvation community:

John is not concerned with physical geography: where the Lamb is standing is not the Temple Mount or even the heavenly Mount Zion (cf. Hebrews 12:22), but that spiritual Zion which is nowhere and everywhere. It describes that state of openness to God and protection by him which has been referred to elsewhere as the measured sanctuary (Revelation 11:1) or the ‘holy city’ (Revelation 11:2). It is that place of true spiritual worship which takes place neither on Mount Gerizim nor in Jerusalem (John 4:21-24). Understood in this way, the question as to whether this scene is located on earth or in heaven is superfluous. (Boxall, Revelation of Saint John, The (Black’s New Testament Commentary), 200)

James L. Resseguie (b. 1945) adds:

The symbolic mountain Zion is a sanctuary for the 144,000 who have the Lamb’s name and the name of the Father written on their foreheads (Revelation 14:1). Zion, a place of safety, is similar to the wilderness sanctuary (Revelation 12:6, 14) and the measured temple (Revelation 11:1). In the Old Testament, Zion is a refuge where God reigns along with the Messiah (Psalm 2:6-12; cf. 4 Ezra 13:25-35). The mountain is neither in heaven nor on earth, but is “nowhere and everywhere” at the same time. It is not found on John’s physical map, but on his spiritual map. Zion is God’s mountain, the “site of God’s presence,” and contrasts with Babylon, also located on mountains (Revelation 17:9). This is the first of several contrasts developed in the chapter that express an ideological point of view. Not only does Zion contrast Babylon (Revelation 14:1, 8), but also the names on the foreheads of the 144,000 contrast with the name of the beast on the foreheads or hands of its followers (Revelation 14:1, 9, 11); the grain harvest of the righteous contrasts with a grape harvest of the wicked (Revelation 14:14-16, 17-20); the wrath of God contrasts with the blessing of those who die in the Lord (Revelation 14:10, 13); and celibacy contrasts with fornication (Revelation 14:4, 8). (Resseguie, The Revelation of John: A Narrative Commentary, 193-194)

The reference to Mount Zion conveyed hope of restoration in and of itself to the original audience as the earthly Mount Zion had been pillaged by the Romans when Revelation was written.

Craig S. Keener (b. 1960) reminds:

Perhaps most significant of our observation here is the location of the 144,000. They are with the Lamb on Mount Zion, God’s dwelling in the present (Psalm 74:2, 76:2) and the future (Zechariah 2:10, 8:3), a place of Israel’s hopes for salvation (Psalm 53:6, 69:35, 87:5, 102:13) and triumph (Psalm 110:2; Obadiah 1:21; II Baruch 40:1). Although Jerusalem after 70 AD lay mostly in shambles and the nations were now trampling God’s sanctuary even in a symbolic sense (Revelation 11:2), John’s audience knew that the prophets had promised Zion’s restoration (Isaiah 1:27, 4:5, 46:13, 51:3, 61:11; Micah 4:2, 7). God would dwell in the midst of Zion as the triumphant warrior who delivered them (Zephaniah 3:15-19). He would make war form Mount Zion (Isaiah 31:4; cf. Zechariah 14:4); Jewish apocalyptic tradition added that the Messiah would stand atop Mount Zion when preparing to make war (4 Ezra 13:35). (Keener, Revelation (The NIV Application Commentary), 369)

Mount Zion itself becomes symbolic of redemption and victory. In spite of the previous chapter’s gloom and doom, the Lamb still reigns. In fact, some view Revelation 14:1-5 as the Lamb’s coronation as depicted in the second psalm (Psalm 2:6), a passage Revelation has already alluded to twice (Revelation 11:18, 12:5).

G.K. Beale (b. 1949) comments:

In the last days God will “install” his “Messiah” and “King on Zion, my [God’s] holy mountain.” Then the Messiah will judge the ungodly and will be a place of refuge for those who fear him (Psalm 2:6-12). On this Old Testament basis 4 Ezra 13:25-52 (cf. 4 Ezra 13:36) and II Baruch 40 speak of the “Son” and “Messiah” standing on “Mount Zion” at the end time judging the unrighteous and “defending” or “protecting” the remnant (those who “remain” or the “rest”). (Beale, The Book of Revelation (New International Greek Testament Commentary), 732)

The king installed on Zion will not be a lion but a lamb. And in spite of seemingly insurmountable obstacles, evil will be conquered by the Lamb, specifically by his death as opposed to the exercise of divine power (Revelation 13:8).

What is the most pronounced change in setting you have seen from one seen to the next? If you are experiencing difficult days, do you believe that there are better days ahead? What do you want restored? Are you confident in God’s ultimate victory?

In art, this scene is the basis for one of the most common depictions of the Lamb: with a nimbus standing upon a hill from which four streams flow (Revelation 14:1). It is noteworthy that the Lamb has the elevated position of standing on a mountain. In contrast, when last seen the beast stood on the sand of the seashore (Revelation 13:1). Even though the beast seems more imposing, the Lamb holds the high ground. As He has all along.

Where do you stand? Where does Jesus? Do you have confidence that the Lamb will slay the Dragon? Do you feel that Jesus is where He is supposed to be even if it does not feel that way?

“When I despair, I remember that all through history the way of truth and love have always won. There have been tyrants and murderers, and for a time, they can seem invincible, but in the end, they always fall. Think of it--always.” - Mahatma Gandhi (1869-1948)

King Saul’s Baggage (I Samuel 10:22)

Where was Saul when he was chosen to be king? Hiding among the baggage (I Samuel 10:22)

After the Israelites demand a king “like all the nations” (I Samuel 8:1-22), Saul is chosen by God as the nation’s first monarch (I Samuel 9:1-10:8, 10:17-27). Initially only Samuel, Israel’s last judge and de facto national leader, and the king-to-be are privy to Saul’s destiny. Then, Samuel calls a national assembly at Mizpah (I Samuel 10:18) where the new king will be selected before the people and be officially presented (I Samuel 10:17-27).

The process by which Saul is chosen is unclear as he is selected without being physically present. It can be determined that the nation is aligned by tribe and that the choice is presented as a process of elimination. Though the method seems random by modern standards, it was acceptable during the period and seen as a way of insuring God’s will.

Anticipation builds as the options dwindle to Saul’s tribe (Benjamin) and clan (Matri) but the proceedings are quickly reduced to an anticlimax as Saul is nowhere to be found (I Samuel 10:20-21). The man who is assured of being the #1 pick in the draft has chosen not to attend. The expectant people are put into a quandary and they ask a question which reads literally, “Is anyone else as yet come here?” (I Samuel 10:22). After human efforts fail, God outs Saul - the would-be-king is hiding among the baggage.

Therefore they inquired further of the Lord, “Has the man come here yet?” So the Lord said, “Behold, he is hiding himself by the baggage.” (I Samuel 10:22, NASB)

Peculiarly, instead of putting himself forward when presented, Saul instead steps back, hiding by the baggage. The Hebrew, k@liy, clearly has a broad range of meaning as it is translated alternately “baggage” (ASV, CEV, ESV, NASB, MSG, NLT, NRSV, RSV), “supplies” (HCSB, NIV),“equipment” (NKJV) and “stuff” (KJV).

P. Kyle McCarter, Jr (b. 1945) designates that the:

Hebrew hakkēlîm...can refer to almost any kind of equipment or paraphernalia, so that exactly where Saul was hiding is something we cannot know with certainty. He may have been concealed in a stockpile of weapons or a store of cultic utensils or, as many translators have supposed, a collection of baggage. (McCarter, I Samuel (Anchor Bible), 193)

The baggage may have been the necessary provisions for the national convention. Ronald F. Youngblood (b. 1931) suspects that it is indicative of the people’s high expectations:

The reluctant “leader” was subsequently found hiding among the “baggage” (I Samuel 10:22; the Hebrew word in this specific sense is elsewhere translated “supplies,” always in a military context, perhaps hinting at the major task that the people had hoped Saul would enthusiastically assume; cf. I Samuel 17:22, 25:13, 30:24; Isaiah 10:28). (Tremper Longman III [b. 1952], The Expositor’s Bible Commentary: Volume 3, 110)

Regardless of what the term entails, Saul’s hiding place is a good one as the Israelites cannot find him without divine intervention.

A more pertinent question than where Saul is hiding is why the nation’s potential leader is lurking among its supplies. Some have speculated that with time to contemplate this life changing event, the future king is getting cold feet. Timidity would be a natural response to such responsibility. A Targum reference claims that Saul slips out for prayer and Bible Study. Most, however, interpret Saul’s absence in one of two polarizing ways: commendable modesty or a flaw in character.

Some have viewed Saul’s action as evidence that he possesses the necessary modesty to be Israel’s king (I Samuel 9:21). Prominent rabbis Rashi (1040-1105) and Radaq (1160-1235) support this theory. Saul’s absence is not necessarily incriminating as David, Israel’s model king and Saul’s successor, will also initially be absent when being chosen (I Samuel 16:10-12). Even so, given the tragic way Saul’s life will unfold, it is difficult for many to see his truancy as a sign of the king’s goodness.

Many have viewed Saul’s concealment as unwillingness to lead. From this perspective, it is Saul’s personal baggage that leads the leader into the nation’s baggage. Reluctant to take the position, Saul’s physical position screams, “Not me!”

If this is the case, Richard D. Phillips (b. 1960) understands Saul’s trepidation:

The context strongly suggests fear instead of humility as the reason that Saul hid himself. And who can blame him, since he was being called to step into God’s place! Perhaps Saul could see that God was angry and that his selection was God’s judgment on the nation. Given the difficulty of the task, we can hardly blame him for trying to get away. Nonetheless, Saul’s selfish neglect of duty foreshadows a pattern that will be repeated during his kingship. The people of Israel had desired a king who would give them the leadership edge enjoyed by the worldly nations, no longer willing to rely simply on God’s saving power. Here, then, is the kind of self-serving cowardice that they will have to get used to under human kings! (Phillips, 1 Samuel (Reformed Expository Commentary),163)

Robert Alter (b. 1935) critiques:

This detail is virtually a parody of the recurring motif of the prophet-leader’s unwillingness to accept his mission. Saul the diffident farm boy had expressed a sense of unworthiness for the high office Samuel conferred on him. Now, confronted by the assembled tribes and “trapped” by the process of lot drawing, he tries to flee the onus of kingship, farcically hiding in the baggage. (Alter, The David Story: A Translation with Commentary of 1 and 2 Samuel, 48)

From this perspective, Saul lacks true humility which would include depending on God. This stance is supported as fear fits the paranoia that will characterize Saul’s life. Though his action is highly irregular, it is typical of Saul.

Robert D. Bergen (b. 1954) explains that this inauspicious start is fitting:

Saul’s actions, however off, were consistent with the portrayal of Saul to this point; previously the king-designate had shut out both his servant (I Samuel 9:27) and his uncle (I Samuel 10:16) from any knowledge of his destiny. Saul’s vacancy at his own coronation suitably foreshadows a reign that would vacate responsibilities associated with the exercise of godly rule and perhaps suggest the lack of wisdom of those who preferred such a king to Yahweh. At the same time, divine assistance in the search for Saul reinforced the conclusion that Saul was indeed the Lord’s answer to Israel’s demand for a king “like the other nations.” (Bergen, , 2 Samuel (New American Commentary), 132)

Clinical psychologist David A. Stoop (b. 1937) concurs, characterizing:

Saul’s fearful posture toward life is...seen in his response to being publicly anointed as king. He simply wants to avoid the whole process. The way he attempts to avoid being anointed king in front of all Israel is to hide. (Stoop, What’s He So Angry About?, 80)

Whatever his motives for hiding, when discovered, Saul assumes the crown. Saul’s reluctance is completely ignored and the people accept him as king (I Samuel 10:23-24). On cue, they chant, “Long live the king!” (I Samuel 10:24, NASB).

Despite his awkward discovery, Saul’s impressive stature makes an even more immediate first impression. The only descriptor mentioned is that he stands a head taller than any of his peers: Saul is tall (I Samuel 9:2, 10:23). This detail adds to the story’s humor as the nation’s tallest man is theoretically the most difficult to hide, comparable to 7'6" Yao Ming attempting to hide in a Chinese national assembly. Aside from Saul, impressive height is a quality reserved for non-covenant people and Saul’s more ideal successor, David, will not share this trait (I Samuel 16:7). In picking Saul, the Israelites receive what they ask for - a king like all the nations (I Samuel 8:5) and his selection foreshadows the typical lack of godly commitment exhibited by most of Israel’s monarchs.

What motivates Saul’s hiding, modesty or timidity? Who is he hiding from? If Saul does not want the position, why does he attend the convention at all? Why would God select a king that did not want the responsibility? Have you ever known anyone to turn down a promotion? Have you ever gotten a position that you didn’t want? Would you follow a leader who did not want her position? Would you want to be a monarch? Are you currently hiding from anything?

Whatever Saul’s reasons, his concealment has a significant consequence: it provides another opportunity for God to demonstrate divine involvement in his selection. It is God, not the Israelites, who finds Saul (I Samuel 10:22). Despite one of the implicit desires in asking for a monarch being independence, once again, the Israelites are reliant upon God. And they have enough access to God to use divine assistance to find the ruler they have chosen instead of God.

Eugene H. Peterson (b. 1932) comments:

Once chosen, Saul is nowhere to be found! He has gone into hiding. Did that last sermon by Samuel put the fear of God in him? Did he have a premonition that despite all the signs of God’s Spirit in his choosing, the kingship was flawed from the start by the people’s God-rejecting ambitions, and it was going to be a rocky road ahead? The story does not provide us with Saul’s motives for hiding. What it makes quite clear, though, is that this whole king business was going to be a mixed bag, involving both God’s mercy and God’s judgment...And here is a telling detail: They are now forced to pray to God to help them find the king they have just chosen with God’s help, but against God’s will (I Samuel 10:22). God graciously condescends to do for them what they cannot do for themselves. (Peterson, First and Second Samuel (Westminster Bible Companion), 66)

If the Israelites are close enough to God to find the concealed candidate, why do they seek a king? Is your trust in God’s leadership or in human rulers?

“Well, he’s always the tallest man in the room. He’s bound to end up leading something.” - Benjamin Franklin (Tom Wilkinson) to John Adams (Paul Giamatti) after Adams exclaims that George Washington is a “natural leader” in the HBO miniseries John Adams (2008)