A Prophetic Ride (Zechariah 9:9)

Which prophet predicted that the Messiah would ride into Jerusalem on a donkey? Zechariah (Zechariah 9:9)

The Book of Zechariah is one of twelve Minor Prophets canonized in the Bible and is positioned as the penultimate book in the Christian Old Testament. The book is commonly divided into two units, often referred to as First Zechariah (Zechariah 1:1-8:23) and Second Zechariah (Zechariah 9:1-14:21). Second Zechariah is comprised of two poetic oracles (Zechariah 9:1-11:17, 12:1-14:21).

Second Zechariah begins by predicting doom for Israel’s enemies (Zechariah 9:1-8). The prophecy then transitions to describing the coming of a triumphant king who ushers in the dawning of a new age (Zechariah 9:9-17).

Marvin A. Sweeney (b. 1953) discusses:

Although the material in Zechariah 9-14 is generally considered to be much later additions to Zechariah 1-8...they appear to outline the fulfillment of the promises articulated in the present oracles concerning Zerubbabel. Throughout Zechariah 9-14, reference is made to the future Davidic monarchy. Zechariah 9:9-10 calls for the people to rejoice because the king will come to them riding upon a donkey and establishing his dominion from sea to sea. (Sweeney, The Twelve Prophets, Volume 2 (Berit Olam: Studies in Hebrew Narrative & Poetry), 611)

The Messianic king arrives riding a donkey amid a liturgical procession (Zechariah 9:9).

Rejoice greatly, O daughter of Zion!
Shout in triumph, O daughter of Jerusalem!
Behold, your king is coming to you;
He is just and endowed with salvation,
Humble, and mounted on a donkey,
Even on a colt, the foal of a donkey. (Zechariah 9:9 NASB)

Walter C. Kaiser, Jr. (b. 1933) situates:

At the heart of Zechariah 9 stands one of the most famous predictions about the coming messianic king. Whether it should be treated separately...or linked with Zechariah 9:1-8 or with Zechariah 9:11-17...is a difficult question. On the one hand, it does continue in the poetic form of Zechariah 9:1-8, and it does describe both the Messiah and the way He will govern the kingdom of God announced in both Zechariah 9:1-8 and Zechariah 9:11-17. On the other hand, it is distinctive in nature and functions as a pivotal point for both Zechariah 9:1-8 and Zechariah 9:11-17, and these factors persuade us that it is best to treat Zechariah 9:9-10 as a distinctive oracle that enlarges on the messianic teaching of Zechariah 3:8 and Zechariah 6:9-15. (Kaiser, Micah, Nahum, Habakkuk, Zephaniah, Haggai, Zechariah, Malachi (Mastering the Old Testament), 370)

The figure mounted on the donkey is the Messiah. Barry G. Webb (b. 1945) identifies:

Zechariah 9:9 is undoubtedly the best-known verse in Zechariah, and one of the better-known verses in the entire Old Testament. The key issue for the interpretation of the passage is the identity of the king who is seen here riding into Jerusalem on a donkey amid shouts of rejoicing...It is God who has been on the move in Zechariah 9:1-8, and his progress has been towards Jerusalem. So it is God himself whom we are expecting to arrive there at this point. But the picture of God himself riding on a donkey is incongruous, to say the least. Furthermore, God is clearly distinguished from the king. God is the speaker (the ‘I’ of Zechariah 9:10) who announces the arrival of the king and speaks of him in the third person...So the king is a man, a human being–but a man who is closely associated with God...The book of Zechariah has already given us the key to the identity of this king. In its context in Zechariah, this king can be none other than the one whose coming was promised in chapter 3 [Zechariah 3:1-10], and symbolized in the crowing of Joshua the high priest in chapter 6 [Zechariah 6:1-15]...The king is God’s Messiah. (Webb, The Message of Zechariah: Your Kingdom Come (Bible Speaks Today), 131)

The picture Zechariah paints is a unique and consequently redefines the notion of king. David L. Petersen (b. 1943) deliberates:

The author of Zechariah 9:9 is presenting a highly nuanced form of political expectation. This is no standard royal or messianic expectation, namely, the return of a real or ideal Davidide. This expectation has little in common with the hope for a prince (Ezekiel 40:1-48:35), a crowned Zerubbabel (Haggai 2:23); a Davidide à la the oracles of Zechariah (Zechariah 4:6-10). Instead, the poet focuses on collectivities, addressed through the technique of personification. (Petersen, Zechariah 9-14 and Malachi: A Commentary (Old Testament Library), 59)

George L. Klein (b. 1955) concurs:

In Zechariah 9...the royal role of the Messiah appears in unique form. In Zechariah 9:9 the Messiah enters the scene riding a beast of burden, not a steed associated with military might. Riding on a lowly donkey, the Messiah will reign over a kingdom that he will administer peacefully through the strength of compelling righteousness, not brute force as other kings must exert. In addition to the peaceful connotation of the beast on which the coming King will ride, this Monarch will arrive “righteous and having salvation, gentle” (Zechariah 9:9). (Klein, Zechariah (New American Commentary), 71)

The king that the prophet presents is an idealized version. David L. Petersen (b. 1943) characterizes:

Zechariah 9:9 depict[s], in surprising order, the manner in which the king will arrive, as well as his attributes. We might expect the poet to write “Humble, riding upon a donkey” immediately after the report that the king is coming. Instead, the poet offers two adjectives to define the salient features of the king. He, like other idealized earthly kings, will be righteous (so II Samuel 23:3) and victorious. The king shares these attributes with the deity. The imagery of just ruler and military savior are pivotal to the author’s understanding of the king. (Petersen, Zechariah 9-14 and Malachi: A Commentary (Old Testament Library), 58)

One of the striking features of the king is that he enters upon a “donkey” (CEV, ESV, HCSB, MSG, NASB, NIV, NKJV, NLT, NRSV) or “ass” (ASV, KJV, RSV) (Zechariah 9:9).

Carol L. Meyers (b. 1942) and Eric M. Meyers (b. 1940) define:

The word hămôr, “ass,” indicating the king’s mount, is the first of three animal terms used in this passage. Its commonplace usage in the Bible signifies a beast of burden (e.g., Genesis 42:26, 44:13, 45:23; I Samuel 16:20; II Samuel 16:1; etc.). However, cognate terms in Ugarit and Mari were used for animals that a deity rides or that draw a chariot in a ritual festival. In contrast to the horse, the mule was evidently a symbol of peace (Wilhelm Theodor In der Smitten 1980:466, 469). Although a lowly beast (Genesis 49:14ff.), it could signify royalty. The story of Saul retrieving asses may be an allusion to his future office [I Samuel 9:3-10], and the succession story of Solomon has him on a mule rather than a horse (although the word there is pered rather than hămôr [I Kings 1:33, 38]). The range of images attached to hămôr is striking, and they may all contribute to the message of this passage—that the king represents peace, that his humble beast is suitable for his role in submitting to divine power while exerting his own royal dominion, and that he is a legitimate monarch. The use of a lowly animal is one of the ways in which a royal figure partakes of the life-style of the people he dominates. In this way he bridges the structural gap between those in power and those subjugated and thereby helps to win the cooperation of people dominated by the royal elite. (Meyers and Meyers, Zechariah 9-14 (Anchor Bible), 130)

Mark Allen Hahlen (b. 1959) and Clay Alan Ham (b. 1962) add:

The extended description of the donkey (חמור, hămôr) as a colt, the foal of a donkey [Zechariah 9:10] more narrowly describes the king’s mount in both the premonarchical periods (Judges 5:10, 10:4, 12:14; II Samuel 16:1-2; I Kings 1:33). Evidence from Ur and Mari indicates the donkey is the royal mount par excellence in ancient Near East from the second millennium B.C. The association of the donkey with the promised ruler from Judah (Genesis 49:11) and with David (II Samuel 16:1-2) suggests it as an appropriate image for the legitimate Davidic heir. The choice of a donkey rather than a horse to portray the coming of the king also subverts militaristic notions. The horses and chariots that belong to Israel, Persia, or any other nation cannot secure for them the kingdom of Yahweh. This truth resonates with the earlier affirmation that the success of Joshua and Zerubbabel comes not from human power or might (Zechariah 4:6). (Hahlen and Ham, Minor Prophets, Volune 2: Nahum–Malachi (College Press NIV Commentary), 431)

As noted, there is precedence for ancient monarchs enlisting similar transportation. David L. Petersen (b. 1943) informs:

Just as the...previous poem used surprisingly vivid imagery to describe Yahweh’s presence in Jerusalem, namely, camping at his house [Zechariah 9:8], so too...this second poem uses vivid language to depict the king’s arrival in Jerusalem. To think of a king riding on a donkey may strike one as farfetched. However, we know that human kings in the Ancient Near East, particularly as attested in second millennium B.C.E. texts, rode donkeys. Genesis 49:10-11 also clearly demonstrates that these animals are mentioned in references to royalty (cf. II Samuel 16:2). The sole exception to this pervasive royal imagery is the term “humble,” which is used here to redefine the character of the divine king. (Petersen, Zechariah 9-14 and Malachi: A Commentary (Old Testament Library), 58)

Carol L. Meyers (b. 1942) and Eric M. Meyers (b. 1940) discuss:

The image of a royal figure mounted on an ass rather than a horse derives from a rather well-established Near Eastern practice of royalty in procession on a mule (Samuel Feigin [1893-1950] 1944; Jack M. Sasson [b. 1941] 1976:72-73). The description here is perhaps a reapplication of the text of Genesis 49:10ff., where in Jacob’s blessing of Judah and the dynastic promise is related to an action involving donkeys (Michael A. Fishbane [b. 1943 1980:355 and 1985:501-02). Fishbane suggests that the postexilic setting of Zechariah 9 is propitious for reworking an older text that forces a future that has not been realized since the Exile. An ancient blessing is reworked into a striking oracle, giving authority to what it envisions. (Meyers and Meyers, Zechariah 9-14 (Anchor Bible), 129)

Jewish texts especially emphasize the image of a king riding a donkey. George L. Klein (b. 1955) chronicles:

The biblical story of the coming messianic King likely begins with Genesis 49:10-11: “The scepter will not depart from Judah...He will tether his donkey to a vine.” The Judaic commentary, Genesis Rabbah, also connects the donkey tied to the vine in Genesis 49 to messianic interpretation. Zechariah’s Messiah represents the culmination of the Lord’s promise to David of a Davidic King who would reign perpetually: “Your house and your kingdom will endure forever before me; your throne will be established forever” (II Samuel 7:16). (Klein, Zechariah (New American Commentary), 271)

Pamela J. Scalise (b. 1950) supplements:

The king’s procession to Zion, riding on a donkey, follows an indigenous monarchic tradition found in Judges 5:10, 10:4, 12:14 and II Samuel 16:2. David’s return to Jerusalem after putting down Absalom’s revolt provides the background for this picture. He had left the city almost as a fugitive, reviled by his enemies and humbled by the treachery of his favorite son. He returned, having been saved in battle. The picture of the donkey-mounted monarch also interprets this promised king as ruler in Genesis 49:8-12, who tethers “his donkey to a vine,/his colt to the choicest branch.” Here in Zechariah 9:9, as in Genesis 49:11, the colt in the second line specifies the kind of “donkey,” purebred and not previously ridden. It does not name a second animal. The ruler from the tribe of Judah will hold “the obedience of the nations” (Genesis 49:10). A blessing once fulfilled in the Davidic monarchy is here renewed as an eschatological promise. (John Goldingay [b. 1942] and Scalise, Minor Prophets II (Understanding the Bible Commentary Series), 274)

While the motif of the king atop a donkey is present, the parallels between Genesis 49:10-11 and Zechariah 9:9-10 are imprecise. Mark J. Boda (b. 1962) observes:

This verse [Zechariah 9:9] appears to assume the royal tradition of Genesis 49:10-11, in which Judah will produce a king for Israel who will ride on a “donkey...colt.”...One should not, however, miss elements of contrast between Genesis 49 and Zechariah 9:9, as Iain M. Duguid [b. 1960] has pointed out. Rather than a figure hailing from the warlike tribe of Judah (Genesis 49:8), whose garments drip with blood from battle (Genesis 49:11), Zechariah 9 presents a humble king. “The warlike language is still present in Zechariah 9 but it has been transferred from the royal figure to the Lord himself.” (Boda, Haggai, Zechariah (NIV Application Commentary))

David L. Petersen (b. 1943) theorizes:

Though there seems to be a tradition of the king—in Israel, David—riding on a donkey, I do not think the poet is quoting another biblical text, contra Klaus Seybold [1936-2011], “Späetprophetische Hoffnungen auf die Wiederkunft des Davidischen Zeitalters in Sach 9-14,” Judaica 29 (1973): 104-5. Though there is clear allusion to royal traditions, I do not think that Zechariah 9:9-10 presents a specific allusion to a Vorbild in the Davidic period. (Petersen, Zechariah 9-14 and Malachi: A Commentary (Old Testament Library), 58)

Given this connection between animal and monarch, it is not surprising that many have taken the donkey as indicative of its rider’s royalty. Katrina J.A. Larkin classifies:

חמוד — another tone-setting word, this time kingly (George M.A. Hanfmann [1911-1986] (1985) traces the tradition of the ‘donkey’ as royal mount back to eighteenth century Mari); and possibly David (Klaus Seybold [1936-2011] 1973;103). (Larkin, The Eschatology of Second Zechariah: A Study of the Formation of a Mantological Wisdom Anthology, 63)

Kenneth G. Hoglund (b. 1954) counters:

Though the literature does not always do so, we must distinguish between a donkey (referred to in this passage), and a mule (hybrid between horse and donkey). The mule (Hebrew pered) is preferred over the donkey as an official royal mount. The evidence for a donkey as a royal mount in antiquity is meager. In Akkadian there is an occasional passing reference to a donkey for the king to ride. A Hittite narrative, The Queen of Qanesh and the Tale of Zalpa, has the thirty royal sons driving a donkey, but does not specify that they ride them. In Ugaritical literature, the goddess Athiratu rides on a donkey in one text, thus indicating it a regal mount if not royal...In biblical texts elites occasionally ride on an ‘ayir (the second word used in this text...see Judges 10:4, 12:13) or on an ’ātōn (the third term, foal of a “donkey,” and Balaam’s mount in Numbers 22:21-33). Consequently, evidence is lacking to suggest that the king in this verse is being provided with royal trappings. (John H. Walton [b. 1952], The Minor Prophets, Job, Psalms, Proverbs, Ecclesiastes, Song of Songs (Zondervan Illustrated Bible Backgrounds Commentary), 220-21)

Others have seen the donkey as evidence of the monarch’s inherent humility. Thomas Edward McComiskey (1928-1996) construes:

The donkey appears to express humility in this context, because Zechariah 9:10 states that the Lord will cut off the horse from his people, ending their misplaced trust in implements of war. Since Zion’s king establishes peace among the nations (Zechariah 9:10), it would be anomalous for him to ride an animal that symbolizes war. The donkey, on the other hand, stands out in this text as a deliberate rejection of this symbol of arrogant trust in human might, expressing subservience to the sovereignty of God. We must view Israel’s king in contrast to Alexander the Great [356-323 BCE] and the other proud conquerors of history. The reference to his riding a beast of burden, not a white charger, underscores this sense of the word ‘āni. Jerusalem’s king is of humble mien, yet victorious, and so it has always been that the church does not effectively spread the gospel by sword or by arrogance, but by mirroring the humble spirit of its king and savior. (McComiskey, The Minor Prophets: An Exegetical and Expository Commentary, 1166)

Carol L. Meyers (b. 1942) and Eric M. Meyers (b. 1940) concur:

What does the “ass” imagery represent, in light of the frequent emphasis on kings in relation to horses and chariots in the Bible, especially in First Zechariah (Zechariah 1:8, 6:2, 3, 6, cf. Haggai 2:22)? Horses and chariots represent the military, or power aspects of political domination. “Riding on an ass” is a royal image that does not partake of that dimension in dynastic authority. Karl Elliger [1901-1977] (1975:149), in pointing to numerous ancient rituals for kings on mules, may be correct in emphasizing the present setting, by signaling a postvictory scene, is intended to repudiate warfare of any kind. By substituting nonmilitary animals for horses, the prophet is reversing the power imagery associated with a king’s rule. In the eschatological future, the restoration of the Davidic monarchy will radically alter the notion of kingship—the future will not exert exploitative domination or foster socioeconomic elitism...Indeed the beginning of Zechariah 9:10 (wěhikratti), “I will cut off,” makes it clear that the future king will not need to depend on force in the eschatological future...It is difficult to determine whether this altered perspective of the royal figure can be related to the political realities in Yehud in the time of Second Zechariah, by which time any realistic expectation of full political power being restored to Yehud would have dissipated. The presence of First Zechariah of God’s spirit, rather than political force, as the theme for the future may have been based on political pragmatism. Such may also be the case here, with the Near Eastern ideology of stability and world order accompanying a new ruler involved to further strengthen the eschatological imagery of a restored Davidide...In any case it would be overburdening the text to see it as a reflection of conflicting royal ideologies (as Paul D. Hanson [b. 1939] 1973:43-44 and Rex A. Mason [b. 1926] 1976: 237). (Meyers and Meyers, Zechariah 9-14 (Anchor Bible), 129-30)

A people who do not have a king are told by the prophet that they can expect one (Zechariah 9:9-17). He will be unique. As is indicated by his mount, he will be both royal and humble. He will be as no king has been before. And this is cause for hope.

What words would you use to describe the ideal monarch? What means of transportation would you expect a ruler to use? Why does Israel’s Messiah sit atop a lowly donkey? Is it a sign of humility, royalty, or both? How improbable is this prophecy? Has the prophecy been fulfilled?

The passage is perhaps the most famous in the book of Zechariah due to its association with Jesus (Matthew 21:5; John 12:15). James Montgomery Boice (1938-2000) commends:

Few Messianic prophecies are better known than this, chiefly because of its quotation in Matthew 21:5 and John 12:15 as being fulfilled by the triumphal entry of Jesus into Jerusalem on what we traditionally call Palm Sunday. (Boice, The Minor Prophets, Volume 2: Micah – Malachi, 194)

The donkey is a staple in the gospel stories of Jesus’ “triumphal entry” into Jerusalem. Mike Butterworth (b. 1941) documents:

It is...recorded in all four gospels that Jesus rode into Jerusalem on a donkey, Matthew 21:1-11; Mark 11:1-11; Luke 19:29-40; John 12:12-18. Matthew and John have an explicit quotation of Zechariah 9:9. (Butterworth, Structure and the Book of Zechariah (Library Hebrew Bible/Old Testament Studies), 180)

Zechariah’s prophecies impacted the New Testament. George L. Klein (b. 1955) explains:

The book of Zechariah exerted a profound influence over the New Testament, particularly in the realm of Messianic passages—a point long noted by New Testament scholars. Several important themes from the book figure prominently in the New Testament. One of the most important of these is the shepherd-king. From Zechariah 9:9 the King who rode into Jerusalem on a “donkey” reemerges in Matthew 21:5 and John 12:15). C.H. Dodd [1884-1973] even suggests that Zechariah provided the Gospel writers with material of equal importance to the very testimonia of Christ’s ministry. (Klein, Zechariah (New American Commentary), 61-62)

Zechariah 9:9-10 is of particular interest to New Testament scholars. Mike Butterworth (b. 1941) comments:

Zechariah 9:9-10 is probably the best known and most discussed passage in Zechariah 9-14. Christian tradition has affirmed that Christ fulfilled this prophecy when he rode into Jerusalem jut before his arrest and death. Jesus himself seems deliberately to have acted out this prophecy. Since he also referred other passages from Deutero-Zechariah to himself there is considerable interest in the relation that these have each other. Paul Lamarche [1923-2004] connected them by means of his elaborate chiastic structure and argued that together they make up a coherent picture of a shepherd-king messiah. (Butterworth, Structure and the Book of Zechariah (Library Hebrew Bible/Old Testament Studies), 180)

The passage’s pervasive influence is somewhat perplexing. Richard Coggins (b. 1929) and Jin H. Han deliberate:

This is the first of the passages in Zechariah 9-14 which are taken up in the Gospels as prefiguring the ministry, and particularly the passion, of Jesus (F.F. Bruce [1910-1991]1961 remains the clearest discussion of the material as a whole.) There is still no agreement as to why this section should have been so influential. The passages might all have been incorporated into a collection of Testimonia, but that only raises the difficulty again at one remove: why should this apparently very obscure collection of material have been so widely used? Clearly the New Testament writers regarded it as in some sense “messianic,” but there are no obvious internal grounds for seeing that characteristic as more obvious here than in many other prophetic passages. In general terms this usage may remind us that the New Testament Gospel-writers will have regarded the testimony of God-given Scripture as more reliable than uncertain and sometimes conflicting human memories. (Coggins and Han, Six Minor Prophets Through the Centuries: Nahum, Habakkuk, Zephaniah, Haggai, Zechariah and Malachi)

Matthew seems to have taken the prophecy especially literally. Charlene McAfee Moss reports:

Where Luke 19:30 follows Mark 11:2 with respect to Jesus’ instruction to his disciples...the parallel passage in Matthew 21:2 describes two animals–they will find an ass tied and her colt with her...Mark and Luke contain no reference to fulfillment of Scripture in this part of their narratives, however, an echo of Genesis 49:11a may be discerned in the expression, “a colt tied” (Moss, The Zechariah Tradition and the Gospel of Matthew, 80)

Richard Coggins (b. 1929) and Jin H. Han expound:

Matthew 21:4 has brought it into the Gospel’s own characteristic structure, using the same formula as is found frequently there, specifically referring to this as a word “spoken through the prophet.” It is argued that the form of the text used by Matthew already prepared the way for such a reading (Max Wilcox 1988:199-201), and this might tie in with the existence of a collection of Testimonia...Matthew’s reading has been criticized by Jewish scholars on the grounds that he is interpreting poetry as literal fact (Jon D. Levenson [b. 1949] 1993:8). Certainly it seems likely that what was poetic parallelism in the original...has been understood by Matthew as a reference to two animals, on both of which Jesus is to be envisaged as riding into Jerusalem! (Coggins and Han, Six Minor Prophets Through the Centuries: Nahum, Habakkuk, Zephaniah, Haggai, Zechariah and Malachi)

Though not explicitly cited, Zechariah 9:9 likely influenced Mark’s gospel as well. Henk Jan de Jonge (b. 1943) suspects:

According to Mark 11:7-11, Jesus entered Jerusalem on a colt. Matthew, in his reworking of this passage (Matthew 21:4), adds the comment that ‘this took place to fulfill what had been spoken through the prophet, saying “Tell the daughter of Zion, Look, your king is coming to you, humble, and mounted on a donkey, and on a colt, the foal of a donkey.”’ This is a quotation from Zechariah 9:9, which does not yet occur in Mark. Yet many interpreters of Mark are of the opinion...that Mark’s account of Jesus’ entry into Jerusalem alludes to Zechariah 9:9, even if Mark avoids quoting Zechariah explicitly at this point. Not only in Matthew, but also in Mark, is the colt riding the animal mentioned in Zechariah 9:9. (Christopher Tuckett [b. 1948], “The Cleansing of the Temple in Mark 11:15 and Zechariah 14:21”, The Book of Zechariah and Its Influence, 87)

The Christian connection to Jesus has monopolized the interpretation of this Jewish text. Richard Coggins (b. 1929) and Jin H. Han acknowledge:

Largely Christian interpretation has dominated the understanding of a somewhat obscure passage. Jewish writers recognized that there had been a Christian “take-over,” but no concerted alternative interpretation emerged...Joyce G. Baldwin [1921-1995] is perhaps optimistic when she says that “most commentators agree that the Messianic king is foreshadowed here” (Baldwin 1972:163), but it is certainly true that a “messianic” understanding has been widely proposed. One approach which combines a “messianic” type of understanding and has been acceptable to later Judaism has been to see here a reference to Judas Maccabaeus, never a king, but treated, at least by the author of I Maccabees, in quasi-royal terms. Certainly one strand of later Jewish tradition, exemplified by Ibn Ezra [1089-1167], saw in the figure depicted here a reference to Judas Maccabaeus. More generally, it may be that our passage was interpreted by the author of I Maccabees as referring to the exploits of the Hasmoneans, and in particular Jonathan (I Maccabees 11:60-74, 12:1-38, 13:6-11) (Andrew Chester [b. 1948] 1988:152). There is also a possible reference of this kind among the Dead Sea Scrolls (1QM 12:12). (Coggins and Han, Six Minor Prophets Through the Centuries: Nahum, Habakkuk, Zephaniah, Haggai, Zechariah and Malachi)

The New Testament’s usage of the text does ring true to Zechariah’s original intent. Carol L. Meyers (b. 1942) and Eric M. Meyers (b. 1940) affirm:

The New Testament (Matthew 21:5 and John 12:15) is quite comfortable with the imagery of the passage; in adhering to its peaceful tone, it remains faithful to the original intent of Zechariah. (Meyers and Meyers, Zechariah 9-14 (Anchor Bible), 129)

Given this tradition, Jesus’ conscription of the donkey would likely have evoked messianic hopes in the spectators. Paul R. Eddy (b. 1959) discerns:

With Zechariah (among others) supplying the prophetic script, Jesus’ entry into the city on a donkey and his subsequent temple action (whatever else it signifies) would have consciously evoked messianic expectations. (Carey C. Newman [b. 1959], “The (W)Right Jesus: Eschatological Prophet, Israel’s Messiah, Yahweh Embodied”, Jesus & the Restoration of Israel: A Critical Assessment of N. T. Wright [b. 1948]’s Jesus and the Victory of God, 51)

Jesus is intentional about entering Jerusalem on a donkey (Matthew 21:1-3; Mark 11:1-3; Luke 19:29-31). In doing so, he plays upon Jewish tradition to inform the initiated that he is the long awaited messiah, “humble, and mounted on a donkey”.

Who does this prophecy most benefit? Do its words apply only to Jesus or has it been fulfilled in other ways? Does the prophecy’s existence lead to its fulfillment; is this art reflecting life or life reflecting art? Would Jesus have utilized the donkey had Zechariah not made his prophecy? Did the prophets guide Jesus’ ministry? How much of his identity did Jesus glean from tradition?

“Persistent prophecy is a familiar way of assuring the event.” - George Gissing (1857-1903), “An Author at Grass: Extracts from the Private Papers of Henry Ryecroft”, The Fortnightly Review, Volume LXXII: July to December 1902, p. 337

Blood, Sweat &... (Luke 22:44)

In which Gospel did Jesus’ sweat “become like drops of blood?”? Luke (Luke 22:44)

All three Synoptic gospels report that just prior to being arrested, Jesus prays on the Mount of Olives (Matthew 26:36-46; Mark 14:32-42; Luke 22:39-46). Matthew and Mark specify that the location is called Gethsemane (Matthew 26:36; Mark 14:32). Today the site is commemorated by The Rock of Agony, a large slab of bedrock on the chancel floor of the Church of All Nations.

While praying in anticipation of the events that lay head, Jesus becomes overwhelmed (Matthew 26:38, Mark 14:34; Luke 22:44). Luke alone, with its emphasis on the physical maladies, records a curious detail: Jesus’ profuse sweat “became like drops of blood” (Luke 22:44 NASB).

And being in agony He was praying very fervently; and His sweat became like drops of blood, falling down upon the ground. (Luke 22:44 NASB)

This verse and its predecessor (Luke 22:43-44) are not found in some ancient manuscripts and as such are excluded from the Revised Standard Version (RSV). David L. Tiede (b. 1940) acknowledges:

Both the external evidence of manuscripts and the internal evidence of the reading can be used as arguments either for the inclusion or the exclusion of Luke 22:43-44. It may be best to regard these as a very early elaboration, noting that Luke’s narrative does not require them. (Tiede, Luke (Augsburg Commentary on the New Testament), 391-92)

E.J. Tinsley (1919-1992) defends:

These verses are omitted by some manuscripts but since it is not difficult to see the motives which led to their removal they are probably genuine. (Tinsley, The Gospel according to Luke (Cambridge Bible Commentaries on the New Testament), 194)

Jesus’ peculiar sweat is the physical manifestation of the psychological pain he is enduring. He is said to be in “agony” (ASV, ESV, KJV, NASB, NKJV, NLT), “anguish” (HCSB, NIV, NRSV) or “great pain” (CEV). The cognate agonía is found only here in the New Testament (Luke 22:44).

Robert C. Tannehill (b. 1934) defines:

The word translated “anguish” (agōnia) can also be translated “struggle,” as in an athletic contest, and the profuse sweat fits this image. This description, too, could serve as a model for prayer in a time of crisis. There is need to pray intensely, but divine help is available in this struggle. (Tannehill, Luke (Abingdon New Testament Commentaries), 324-25)

The term originates from the field of athletics (e.g., Epictetus [55-135], The Discourses 1, 24, 1-2). Sharon H. Ringe (b. 1946) interprets:

To read Luke 22:44 as suggesting that Jesus’ resolve is weakening is to misunderstand both the vocabulary and the imagery involved. The word translated as Jesus’ “anguish,” like the image of sweat pouring off his body, comes from the realm of athletics. Both point not to hesitancy or uncertainty, but to the intensely focused energy of an athlete just as a contest is about to begin—for example, of a racer on the blocks, set to run a hundred-meter dash. The prayer finds Jesus focused and ready for the struggle at hand. (Ringe, Luke (Westminster Bible Companion), 266)

From this perspective Jesus’ agony is indicative of his getting his adrenaline flowing while preparing for the monumental task ahead. His perspiration is attributable to preparation.

The text does not claim that Jesus sweat blood but rather that his sweat becomes like drops of blood; the words for “sweat” (hidrós) and “drops” (thrómbos) appearing only here in the New Testament. Though not indicated by the text, sweating blood is humanly possible.

Lee Strobel (b. 1952) relays:

Medical doctor and Biblical scholar Dr. Alexander Metherell [b. 1939] says...“This is a known medical condition called hematidrosis,” he says. “It’s not very common, but it is associated with a high degree of psychological stress. What happens is that severe anxiety causes the release of chemicals that break down the capillaries in the sweat glands. As a result, there’s a small amount of bleeding into these glands, and sweat comes out tinged with blood. We’re not talking about a lot of blood; it’s just a very, very small amount.” (Strobel, The Case for the Resurrection: A First-Century Investigative Reporter Probes History’s Pivotal Event , 18)

Forensic investigator Steve A. Rush documents cases of hematidrosis:

A May 11, 1918, British Medical Journal article, A Case of Haematidrosis, describes a young girl, who having a fear of air raids during World War I, developed this condition after a gas explosion in the next door neighbor’s home...Johann S. Grafenberg [1530-1598], in his 1585 article Observations Medicae de Capite Humano, tells of a Catholic nun who was so terrified after being threatened by sword-beating soldiers that she bleed [sic] from every part of her body and died...In the 1996 Journal of Medicine article Blood, Sweat, and Fear: A Classification of Hematidrosis seventy-six cases of this phenomenon were studied. (Rush, CSI: Gethsemane to Golgotha, 17-18)

Mormons read this passage as Jesus literally sweating blood because the Book of Mormon records a prophecy purportedly issued around 124 BCE which states that the Christ would sweat blood (Mosiah 3:7). There is no Old Testament parallel to this belief.

As noted, Luke does not claim that Jesus sweat blood but rather that “his sweat became like drops of blood, falling down upon the ground” (Luke 22:44 NASB). There are several meanings to this analogy.

I. Howard Marshall (b. 1934) surveys:

The metaphor can be variously explained: 1. It is simply a rhetorical expression like our ‘tears of blood’. 2. The sweat was falling like drops of blood (Theodor Zahn [1838-1933], 691, Walter Grundmann [1906-1976], 412). 3. The sweat was the colour of blood (cf. Joseph and Aseneth 4:11; Apollonius of Rhodes 4:1282f.; Aristotle [384-322 BCE], Historia Animalium 3:19; Theophrastus [371-287 BCE], De Sudore 11f.). Alfred Plummer [1841-1926], 510f. cites cases of blood exuding through the pores of skin; Johannes Weiss [1863-1914], 514, regards the description as legendary; and Lyder Brun [1870-1950] sees it theologically as an anticipation of Jesus’ baptism by blood. The ancient parallels support view 3., but view 2. fits in better with Lucan style (Luke 3:22); the stress is on the falling, rather than the colour, and the implication is that the sweat was like the shedding of blood. (Marshall, The Gospel of Luke (New International Greek Testament Commentary, 832-33)

Joseph A. Fitzmyer (b. 1920) adds:

The comparison is made between profuse perspiration and copious drops of blood splashing to the ground; the text does not hint at a comparison of color. Cf. Walter Grundmann [1906-1976], Evangelium nach Lukas, 412. The text is often misunderstood as if it referred to a “bloody sweat,” i.e. that Jesus sweated blood. Ancient and modern interpreters have often restricted the meaning to the comparison of quantity (thus Theophylact [1055-1107], Euthymius Zigabenus [12th century], Theodor Zahn [1838-1933], Joachim Jeremias [1900-1979]). André Feuillet [1909-1998] (“Le récit lucanien”) has tried to undermine this interpretation by appealing the Lucan use of hōs or hōsei in the sense of real identity (Luke 15:19, 16:1; Acts 2:3), a highly dubious interpretation. Apart from the text-critical problem involved, it is stretching matters to invoke alleged instances of haematidrōsis. For the approximative sense of hōsei, see Luke 3:23, 9:14, 28, 22:41, 59, 23:44, 24:11; Acts 1:15, 2:3, 41, 10:3, 19:7, 34. (Fitzmyer, The Gospel According to Luke X-XXIV (Anchor Bible), 1444-45)

Theologically, there is a large gap in understanding between sweating blood and sweat like blood. Joel B. Green (b. 1956) clarifies:

The image Luke employs is of sweat dripping so profusely that it was like (ὡσεί) drops of blood, not that Jesus was actually “sweating blood.” Luke’s portrait thus gives no basis for interpretations that focus on the blood of Jesus on the Mount of Olives—e.g., that of J. Massyngbaerde Ford [b. 1928] (My Enemy Is My Guest, 118): “his redemptive blood begins to flow in the garden.” For examples of Luke’s fondness for simile, see, e.g., Luke 3:22, 10:18, 11:44, 22:31; et. al. (Green, The Gospel of Luke (The New International Commentary on the New Testament), 780)

The use of the word “drops” has led some to believe that Luke is stressing than in this case the water of sweat is as thick as blood.

Whatever his physical condition, Jesus’ humanity is on full display. Eduard Schweizer (1913-2006) observes:

“Like drops of blood” leaves open the question whether blood was mixed with Jesus’ sweat; in any case, Jesus is not depicted as a Stoic (cf. sweat as a sign of wrath, rejection, and remorse in Joseph and Aseneth 4:9, 9;1). (Schweizer, The Good News according to Luke, 343)

David E. Garland (b. 1947) reports:

Sweating so profusely, like drops of blood pouring out, may make Jesus seem too human. Celsus [2nd century] used it in his attack on the claims that Jesus was divine (Origen [184-253], Contra Celsus 2.24). The earliest orthodox fathers cite the passage against Docetists, who denied that Jesus was fully human (Justin Martyr [100-165], Diaogue with Trypho 103.8; Irenaeus [130-202], Adversus Haereses 3.16.1)...That it was appealed to in doctrinal disputes does not mean that it was created and inserted for polemical purposes. Raymond E. Brown [1928-1998] notes that Docetists, for example, could have easily responded that it was not the divine Savior who prayed. (Garland, Luke (Zondervan Exegetical Commentary on the New Testament), 882)

As a literary device, the simile creates sympathy for the hero in the climactic scene of the book. It accentuates Jesus’ internal struggle with the events that await him. He does not enter into death lightly. Jesus makes a conscious decision to die for others. It is a true sacrifice.

Phil Ryken (b. 1966) explicates:

When Jesus said that his soul was sorrowful to the point of death...he was not exaggerating. In describing the same scene, Luke tells us that as Jesus prayed “his sweat became like great drops of blood falling down to the ground” (Luke 22:44). When Jesus said he was “sorrowful, even to death,” it was as if to say that he almost died in Gethsemane before he went to Calvary. “In those supreme moments,” wrote B.B. Warfield [1851-1921], “our Lord sounded the ultimate depths of human anguish...In the presence of this mental anguish the physical tortures of the crucifixion retire into the background, and we may well believe that our Lord, though he died on the cross, yet not on the cross, but of a broken heart, that is to say of his mental suffering.” (Ryken, Loving the Way Jesus Loves, 125)

Why does Luke include the unnecessary detail that Jesus’ “sweat became like drops of blood”? Why does he use this particular analogy to describe the phenomenon? Have you ever had a physical reaction to a psychological condition? Is Jesus afraid? Are you comfortable with the thought of Jesus having ever been scared? Why is Jesus in so much anguish? What does Jesus dread most?

Leon Morris (1914-2006): speculates:

Why was Jesus in such perturbation as he faced death? Others, including many who owe their inspiration to the Master, have faced death quite calmly. It cannot be death as such that caused this tremendous depth of feeling. Rather it was the kind of death that Jesus would die, that death in which he was forsaken by God (Mark 14:34), in which God made him to be sin for us (II Corinthians 5:21). (Morris, Luke (Tyndale New Testament Commentaries), 340-41)

Jesus is willing to suffer to save. Warren W. Wiersbe (b. 1929) compares the sweat demanded by the eviction in the Garden of Eden (Genesis 3:19) to the sweat produced in the Garden of Gethsemane (Luke 22:44).

The First Adam sinned in a garden and was condemned to living by the sweat of his brow (Genesis 3:19). Jesus, the Last Adam, obeyed the Father in a garden and conquered Adam’s sin (Romans 5:12-21). (Wiersbe, Be Courageous: Take Heart from Christ’s Example (Luke 14-24), 139)

Jesus consents to God’s will (Matthew 26:39; Mark 14:36; Luke 22:42) and produces God’s desired result: Salvation. Jesus’ anguish in Gethesemane is a reminder that, contrary to much popular theology, deep dependence on God can come with great pain.

Which trial do you feel was harder for Jesus, Gethsemane or the cross? What is the most agony you have ever been in? Has following God ever caused you pain?

“In Gethsemane the holiest of all petitioners prayed three times that a certain cup might pass from Him. It did not.” - C.S. Lewis (1898-1963), “The Efficacy of Prayer,” The World's Last Night: And Other Essays, p. 5

The Gardener Of Eden (John 20:15)

Who did Mary Magdalene think Jesus was when she first saw him after His resurrection? The gardener (John 20:15)

Though she does not play a prominent role through most of the gospel narrative, Mary Magdalene takes center stage after the crucifixion. She is the person who discovers the empty tomb (John 20:1). After relaying the (potentially) good news to the disciples (John 20:2), Mary remains outside the tomb weeping (John 20:11). Presumably, she interprets the absence of Jesus’ body as an insult added to injury.

After conversing with two angels who were in the tomb, Mary encounters the risen Jesus himself (John 20:12-18). She does not recognize him initially, presuming him to be the gardener of the garden tomb (John 20:15).

Jesus said to her, “Woman, why are you weeping? Whom are you seeking?” Supposing Him to be the gardener, she said to Him, “Sir, if you have carried Him away, tell me where you have laid Him, and I will take Him away.” (John 20:15 NASB)

Recognition comes not through sight (Matthew 5:8; Ephesians 1:18) as it is only after Jesus says her name that Mary recognizes him (John 20:16). As Jesus had professed earlier in the gospel, sheep know their shepherd’s voice when they hear it (John 10:4).

Francis J. Moloney (b. 1940) reads the incident with an apologetic bent:

This is perhaps the earliest literary evidence of a Jewish response to the Christian story of the resurrection. While early Christians explained the tradition of an empty tomb by claiming that God had raised Jesus from the dead, early Christian documents report a Jewish response that the body has been stolen from the tomb by a gardener. (Moloney, The Gospel of John (Sacra Pagina), 528)

When she encounters Jesus, Mary is inconsolable and likely still in shock. Gary M. Burge (b. 1952) comments, “Her conclusion that perhaps this man moved Jesus’ body since he happened to be the gardener indicates that she has not heard the man standing before her (Craig A. Evans [b. 1952], Bible Knowledge Background Commentary: John, Hebrews-Revelation (Bible Knowledge Series), 156).”

Mary, like many in mourning, is on a mission, staying busy by doing the distracting work of taking care of the deceased’s affairs. She assumes the highly unusual role of chief mourner and claims her right to Jesus’ body. Jack W. Stallings (b. 1944) speculates, “Mary apparently supposes that there has been some objection to Jesus’ having been buried in this particular tomb and assures (the gardener) that she will assume the responsibility of finding another place to bury the body (Stallings, The Randall House Bible Commentary: The Gospel of John, 279).”

D.A. Carson (b. 1946) analyzes:

Perhaps, she told herself, he had seen something – indeed, perhaps he had been involved in the moving of the body himself. If Mary thought him to be the gardener, she may have wondered if he had been under orders from the owner to remove the body of this executed criminal from the new tomb where it had been hurriedly placed. That she should offer to make the arrangements to fetch the body and given it a proper burial suggests she was a woman of some wealth and standing (as Luke 8:2-3 attests). (Carson, The Gospel according to John (Pillar New Testament Commentary), 641)

Mary’s interpretation is mundane - she mistakes Jesus for the gardener (kepouros). This is the only time this word appears in the New Testament. Counselor and gardener Catherine McCann defines:

The gardener could mean the owner of the garden or an overseer or caretaker—therefore someone who would have known who disturbed the tomb. Brown remarks that the word kepouros (“gardener”) is the only biblical reference using this term, yet it was not an uncommon word in secular papyri. (McCann, New Paths Toward the Sacred: Awakening the Awe Experience in Everyday Living, 152)

Craig L. Blomberg (b. 1955) rationalizes, “Presumably he looks less angelic than the other two individuals, so that she mistakes him for a gardener (recall John 19:41) (Blomberg, The Historical Reliability of John’s Gospel: Issues & Commentary, 263).”

Andreas J. Köstenberger (b. 1957) notes that gardener was the best guess available to Mary.

Apart from grave robbers or other mourners—neither of whom would have been likely visitors at this early morning hour—gardeners attending to the grounds where a tomb was located (cf. John 19:41) would have been the only people around. Mary’s guess indicates that at first blush the resurrected Jesus is indistinguishable from an ordinary person. (Clinton E. Arnold [b.1958], Zondervan Illustrated Bible Backgrounds Commentary: John, Acts, 188)

Jo-Ann A. Brant (b. 1956) justifies Mary’s blunder:

The confusion of Jesus with a gardener is logical, given that they are standing in a garden. The misidentification points to the degree to which Jesus’s appearance is unexpected. That Jesus has left his burial clothes in the tomb might provoke fanciful speculation that Jesus has borrowed the gardener’s clothes. Rembrandt depicts this possibility in his painting The Resurrected Lord Appears to Mary Magdalene (1651) [pictured]. (Brant, John (Paideia: Commentaries on the New Testament), 269)

Some have seen Mary’s misconception as indicative of inadequate faith. Mark A. Matson (b.1951) critiques:

It is curious that, having seen and heard the angels in the tomb, she would still ask Jesus, thinking him to be a gardener, where the body has been moved. This question underscores her lack of comprehension and belief. (Matson, John (Interpretation Bible Studies),119)

Ben Witherington III (b. 1951) adds:

Her lack of spiritual perceptivity at this point could hardly be made clearer. On the other hand, it seems characteristic of first appearance stories that Jesus is not immediately recognized (cf. the Emmaus story in Luke 24). G.R. Beasley-Murray [1916-2000] has conjectured that the glorified Jesus made himself sensibly recognizable only to his disciples but that in his transfigured condition he would not have been distinguishable from other supernatural beings such as an angel. The problem with this suggestion is that Mary confuses Jesus with a gardener, but she certainly does not confuse him with the angels in the tomb. (Witherington, John’s Wisdom: A Commentary on the Fourth Gospel, 331)

As Witherington notes, not recognizing the post resurrected Jesus is not an uncommon phenomena (Luke 24:13-16). More than any deficiency in faith, Mary’s reaction accentuates the unexpectedness of the resurrection. She could not perceive Jesus because she had rejected the possibility of seeing him.

Are you looking for Jesus? Would you recognize him if you saw him? Have you ever not recognized a loved one because they were in an unexpected place? Why does Mary fail to recognize Jesus? Is her misidentification an evidence of a lack of faith? Is Mary completely wrong?

In a way, Mary is correct - she is encountering the gardener. In John 15:1-17, Jesus paints a famous picture of a vine meticulously trimmed by a gardener so that it might produce optimum fruit. Though the word for gardener (georgos) is different, the analogy begins with Jesus stating that the Father is the gardener of the vine (John 15:1).

The imagery may even bring the Biblical story full circle by alluding back to creation. Gary M. Burge (b. 1952) explains:

Some interpreters believe that John is consciously sweeping up numerous biblical motifs that connect with the theme of “garden.” If so, it is no accident that in John 20:15, here in this garden, Mary misunderstands the identity of Jesus and thinks he is the gardener. Nicolas Wyatt [b.1941], after showing the historical evidence in Judaism that placed the Garden of Eden in the Holy Land, goes on to show how motifs from the Eden story reappear in numerous literatures of the period. If this imagery is at work (and here many would caution us), in this story we are viewing a woman in “Paradise” meeting the ruler of the Garden himself, Jesus. (Burge, John (The NIV Application Commentary), 548)

Through his death and resurrection, Jesus plants the seed that will lead humanity to the new Eden.

Sandra M. Schneiders (b. 1936) adds:

The...scene, redolent of allusions to both the garden of the first creation (cf. Genesis 2:8-15 and Genesis 3:8-10) and the Song of Songs (especially Song of Solomon 3:1-4), brings the lover, Mary Magdalene, to the garden of the tomb searching for her Beloved and refusing comfort or enlightenment from anyone, even angels, who cannot tell her where he is...He is indeed the divine gardener inaugurating the New Creation, the Good Shepherd calling his own name, and the Spouse of the New Covenant rewarding the search of the anguished lover. (John R. Donahue [b. 1933], Life in Abundance: Studies of John’s Gospel in Tribute to Raymond E. Brown [1928-1998],183)

Ravi Zacharias (b. 1946) concludes, “Yes, there is a Gardener...And, yes, the Gardener is the God revealed fully in Jesus Christ (Zacharias, Jesus Among Other Gods: The Absolute Claims of the Christian Message, Extreme Edition).”

Given the same data as Mary, what conclusion would you have drawn? If Jesus were to cross your path, how would you recognize him?

“The best place to find God is in a garden. You can dig for him there.” - George Bernard Shaw (1856-1950)

Pierced for Our Transgressions (John 19:34)

What did the soldiers do to the side of Jesus on the cross? Pierced it with a spear.

The gospel of John (and only the fourth gospel) records that governor Pontius Pilate ordered the legs of those being crucified, including Jesus, to be broken (John 19:31-37). This was one of the few blows involved in crucifixion that was not commanded in derision.

Bruce J. Malina (b. 1933) and Richard L. Rohrbaugh (b. 1936) explain:

Breaking the legs of a runaway slave or a fugitive was punishment; for a crucified person it was a favor, since it enabled the person to suffocate rather quickly. Here we are told that the soldiers found Jesus dead already, and therefore did not break his legs. (Malina and Rohrbaugh, Social Science Commentary on the Gospel of John, 272)

While the other two condemned men needed their legs broken to speed their demise, Jesus’ limbs were left in tact as he was found already dead (John 19:33). Instead, a soldier jabbed Jesus’ side with spear (John 19:34).

But one of the soldiers pierced His side with a spear, and immediately blood and water came out. (John 19:34 NASB)

Colin G. Kruse (b. 1938) relays:

Instead of breaking his legs, one of the soldiers pierced Jesus’ side with a spear. Presumably, the spear thrust was to ensure that Jesus was dead, but the spear penetrated quite a away, bringing a sudden flow of blood and water. (Kruse, The Gospel According to John: An Introduction and Commentary (Tyndale New Testament Commentaries) , 371)

John sees the incident as corresponding to Old Testament passages in both Psalms (Psalm 34:20) and Zechariah (Zechariah 12:10). For the evangelist, this connection is further evidence for belief (John 19:35-37).

Frederick Dale Bruner (b. 1932) summarizes:

The piercing and the Witnesses (John 19:31-37) underline how Jesus’ postmortem treatment, particularly his pierced side (form which come flowing blood and water, attested by very trustworthy witnesses), remarkably fulfills both the words of ancient Scriptures and the very promises of Jesus himself (e.g., Exodus 12:46; Psalm 34:20; Zechariah 12:10; and John 4:10, 6:53, 55; 7:37-39). (Bruner, The Gospel of John: A Commentary, 1095)

Johannes Beutler (b. 1933) critiques, “In spite of considerable differences in wording, the looking upon the pierced side of Jesus is considered to be foretold by scripture, in this case Zechariah 12:10. (R. Alan Culpepper [b. 1946] and C. Clifton Black [b. 1955], Exploring the Gospel of John: in honor of D. Moody Smith [b.1931], 149).”

Leon Morris (1914-2006) adds that there is an allusion to Passover:

This appears to be a reference to the requirement that the bones of the Passover victim should not be broken (Exodus 12:46; Numbers 9:12). It would seem that John means us to think that Jesus’ death was the real Passover sacrifice (cf. the similar view of Paul, I Corinthians 5:7). (Morris, The Gospel According to John (The New International Commentary on the New Testament), 686)

Perhaps more important than any prophetic fulfillment is the fact that the post-mortem spear thrust establishes that Jesus died. To have resurrection, one must demonstrate proof of death. Craig L. Blomberg (b. 1955) elucidates:

The unusual speed of his death is almost certainly related to the severe flogging he had previously received (John 19:1). So, instead of breaking his legs, one of the soldiers thrusts a spear into his side (John 19:34). In a world without modern medical techniques for determining the exact moment of death, this may have been the easiest way to ensure Jesus had no spark of life left in him as the authorities prepared to take his body off the cross...Commentators and physicians alike have debated the medical significance of the outflow of water and blood. What first-century readers would have recognized was John’s emphasis on the complete and genuine death of Jesus. (Blomberg, The Historical Reliability of John’s Gospel: Issues & Commentary, 255)

F.F. Bruce (1910-1990) adds:

This was sufficient answer to those forms of docetism current when he wrote which held that the Christ did not really die. The persistence of this view is reflected in the statement in the Qur’ān that ‘they did not kill him, neither did they crucify him; it only seemed to be so’. (Bruce, The Gospel of John: Introduction, Exposition, Notes, 376)

The blow generates a peculiar reaction - the excretion of both blood and water (John 19:34). Apologists point to this detail as the definitive biblical verse which demonstrates that Jesus did indeed die.

Rick Cornish (b. 1950) writes:

The release of “blood and water” as described by eyewitnesses (John 19:34) is exactly what medical science expects when a person dies under these conditions. Severe shock accelerated the heart rate leading to heart failure, depositing fluid in the membrane around the heart and lungs. So he was probably dead when the soldier speared Him in the side, piercing His rib cage, lung, and heart. If He was still alive, the spear thrust would have killed Him. (Cornish, 5 Minute Apologist: Maximum Truth in Minimum Time, 151)

D.A. Carson (b. 1946) explicates:

The verb enyxen (‘pierced’) could in itself suggest nothing more than a ‘stab’ to see if Jesus was alive, but the rest of the verse shows that there was significant penetration: the wound brought a sudden flow of blood and water. Medical experts disagree on what was pierced. The two most common theories are these: (a) The spear pierced Jesus’ heart , and the blood from the heart mingled with the fluid from the periocardial sac to produce the ‘flow of blood and water’. (b) By contrast, it has been argued that fluid from the pericardial sac could not so readily escape from the body by such a wound; it would fill up the chest cavity, filling the space around the lung and then oozing into the lung itself through the wound the spear made. In tests performed on cadavers, it has been shown that where a chest has been severely injured but without penetration, hemorrhagic fluid, up to two litres of it, gathers between the pleura lining the rib cage and the lining of the lung. This separates, the clearer serum at the top, the deep red layer at the bottom. If the chest cavity were then pierced at the bottom, both layers would flow out...However the medical experts work this out, there can be little doubt that the Evangelist is emphasizing Jesus’ death, his death as a man, his death beyond any shadow of doubt. (Carson, The Gospel according to John (Pillar New Testament Commentary), 623)

Jesus’ humanity is on full display as there is nothing less divine than death. Charles H. Talbert (b. 1934) writes:

One of the soldiers pierced Jesus’ side with a spear, a thrust doubtless aimed at Jesus’ heart to be sure of his death (Quintilian 35-100], Declamationes maiores 6.9, “and at once there came out blood and water” (John 19:34b). The reference to the discharge of blood and water would be heard by Mediterranean readers as a testimony to the real humanity of the crucified one. Several parallels confirm the point. First, the Iliad 5.340-41 says that from a goddess, wounded with a lance, “blood-water” alone issued forth instead of blood and water, because gods who neither eat bread nor drink wine have no blood. Second, Plutarch [45-120], Moralia 180e, has Alexander the Great [356-323 BCE] tell those who regarded him as a god, “This is blood, as you can seem and not blood-water, such as flows in the holy gods.” Third IV Maccabees 9:20 tells how, at the martyrdom of the eldest of the seven brothers, not only blood but also blood-water flowed from his body onto the instrument of torture. His was a truly human death. Moreover, it is significant that Irenaeus [130-202] (Against Heresies 3.22.2) interprets the flow of blood and water from Jesus’ side, along with his hunger and thirst and physical fatigue, as a sign of his humanity. (Talbert, Reading John: A Literary and Theological Commentary on the Fourth Gospel and the Johannine Epistles, 254)

How important is it to you that Jesus was fully human? Why do you think the evangelist went to such great lengths to demonstrate that Jesus actually died? Do the connections between the piercing of Jesus and the Old Testament bolster your faith? Is there any symbolic significance to the event?

Numerous theories have been extended regarding the symbolic significance of the combination of blood and water that oozes from Jesus (John 19:34).

Urban C. Von Wahlde (b. 1941) connects the water to the “living water” that Jesus offers earlier in the gospel (John 7:37-39):

For the author of John 19:34, the fact that the blood of Jesus issued forth in addition to water is very important. Could it be that John 19 is a complement and a development of the thought of John 7:37-39? If the Fourth Gospel is more interested in theology than in narrative niceties, then we have an explanation. (Tom Thatcher [b. 1967], What We Have Heard From the Beginning: The Past, Present and Future of Johannine Studies, 348)

Robert Kysar (b. 1934) responds:

The search for the symbolic meaning of the two liquids has not been...easy. The primary question is whether or not the two are symbolic of the sacraments, and that seems clearly not to be the case. Water functions elsewhere in this gospel to symbolize the Spirit (e.g., John 7:39) and the revelation of God (e.g. Revelation 4:10ff.), While that might be the sense of water here, this verse is not intended as a fulfillment of John 7:39)...The blood might stand for the benefits of Jesus’ death flowing out from the cross, chief among them the gift of the Spirit. I John 5:6-8 seems to be an interpretation of this passage, but that does not mean that the sense of the verse in the epistle is necessarily the sense the evangelist had in mind. All in all two observations are called for: (1) The primary point to be established by this verse is the reality of Jesus’ death...(2) John may also have wanted to hint at the outpouring of the benefits of the crucifixion for the believer. (Kysar, John (Augsburg Commentary on the New Testament), 291-292)

Jo-Ann A. Brant (b. 1956) goes back further in time and sees a link to the Passover:

One of the soldiers with his lance pierced the side, and to his surprise, and surely to that of the first audience, out came a flow of blood and water (John 19:34). This issue of fluid invites investigation of its surplus of symbolic meaning and ironic significance. The soldier, who seems to imitate the humiliation of a defeated combative enemy is showered with life-giving elements. Mary Coloe points out that this is temple imagery. Jesus dies at the same time as the blood from the Passover lamb flows from the temple. The water signifies that Jesus is the eschatalogical temple from which the water of the spirit of life flows. (Brant, John (Paideia: Commentaries on the New Testament), 254)

Gary M. Burge (b. 1952) also sees an association with Passover:

Just as with the many other events on this day, John no doubt sees symbolism that goes beyond the surface meaning of piercing. Most evangelicals are reluctant to see sacramental symbolism here (such as baptism and the Lord’s Supper in the images of water and blood) although this has been a common view from the earliest centuries. More promising is the view that sees Passover symbolism at work. John may be making the point that the crucified Jesus qualifies as a Passover victim. He notes, for instance, that Jesus’ legs are not broken, likely because it was illegal for any Passover sacrifice to have broken bones. The lamb must be a perfect sacrifice. In case we miss this subtle point, John even alludes to the Passover requirement in Exodus 12:46 at the end of the paragraph, “Not one of his bones will be broken” (John 19:36; see also Numbers 9:12; Psalm 34:20). (Burge, John (The NIV Application Commentary), 506)

Scot McKnight (b. 1953) supplements:

It is difficult to know...what to make of the “water and blood” of the crucifixion of Jesus (John 19:34; cf. I John5:6-9), but it is safe to think that the language functions as either an antic-docetic notation or a symbol for purification. Along similar lines, it is clear that John finds it important that Jesus dies at the same time as do the Pesah victims at the temple (John 18:29, 39, 19:14), but it is not altogether clear what kind of atonement theology he finds in such a connection. If Jesus is the Passover victim, ingested at some personal level for his followers, it would mean he is the center of the celebration and that in which they participate in order to memorialize the redemption. It would also mean he would be the protector from the wrath of the slaying angel of YHWH. (McKnight, Jesus And His Death: Historiography, the Historical Jesus, And Atonement Theory, 369)

Andreas J. Köstenberger (b. 1957) posits that as his blood and water spill, Jesus’ very nature is on display:

Perhaps “blood and water”...points to Jesus’ two natures, human and divine. The parallel I John 5:6-8 refers to spirit, water, and blood; Jesus gave up his spirit when he died (John 19:30), leaving behind blood and water. (Köstenberger, John (Baker Exegetical Commentary on the New Testament), 552)

N.T. Wright (b. 1948) concludes:

Of course, at this moment of all moments, none of this is simply told for the sake of historical detail, vital though that is (the Word really did become flesh, not a phantom!). John has left us in no doubt that all these details, too, though from one point of view ‘accidental’ (nobody could have guessed what the soldiers might do next), were all to be seen as heaven-sent signs of what it all meant. We only have to think back through the gospel, to all the occasions where water and blood are mentioned, to realize that again and again they point to Jesus as the source of life, cleansing and purification. All these themes come together at this moment. (Wright, John for Everyone: Chapters 11-21, 135)

Is there symbolic significance to the blood and water which emanates from Jesus? What does the crucifixion mean to you?

“But He was pierced through for our transgressions, He was crushed for our iniquities; The chastening for our well-being fell upon Him, And by His scourging we are healed.” - Isaiah 53:5 NASB

Choosing The Wrong Jesus (Mark 15:15)

Who was released in order for Jesus to be crucified? Barabbas.

All four gospels record that a policy existed by which a prisoner was released at Passover (Matthew 27:15; Mark 15:6; Luke 23:7; John 18:39). At Jesus’ hearing before governor Pontius Pilate, this Passover amnesty gives the spectators a presumably unbalanced choice of whose life to spare - Jesus or a prisoner named Barabbas (Matthew 27:17; Luke 23:18; John 18:40). Matthew records that the alternative was posed by Pilate (Matthew 27:17), Mark attributes it to the priests (Mark 15:11) and John to the mob (John 18:40). Pilate assumes that the crowd will prefer the popular (albeit controversial) young preacher, Jesus, to the bloodthirsty killer. Instead, the crowd chooses the insurrectionist and Jesus is sent to be crucified (Matthew 27:15-26; Mark 15:6-15; Luke 23:17-19; John 18:39-40).

Though Barabbas does not speak in the Bible, all four gospels name him (Matthew 27:16, 17, 20, 21, 26; Mark 15:7, 11, 15; Luke 23:18; John 18:40). While the descriptions of him vary, the gospels agree that Barabbas deserves to be on trial. Matthew calls him a “notorious prisoner” (Matthew 27:16 NASB). Mark states that he had “committed murder in the insurrection” (Mark 15:7 NASB). John notes that Barabbas was a “robber” (John 18:40). In one of his first sermons, Peter calls him a murderer (Acts 3:14). Barabbas is obviously a known commodity, but exactly who he is cannot be determined as the brief New Testament references do not provide the specifics of his crimes and he is not mentioned outside of the Bible.

John Shelby Spong (b. 1931) acknowledges:

Mystery surrounds Barabbas, who is never mentioned either before this moment or after. He is defined in Mark as one who “committed murder during the insurrection” (Mark 15:7). His evils seems to increase as the later gospels pick up his story. He is “notorious” in Matthew (Matthew 27:16), a bandit in John (John 18:40, NRSV). (Spong, Jesus for the Non-Religious, 168)

The Greek provides little help in identifying his crimes. Allen Black (b. 1951) explains:

Barabbas...was one of several men imprisoned for committing murder in a riot. The nouns which the NIV translates “insurrectionists” and “uprising” [Mark 15:7] are cognate nouns (στασιαστής, stasiastes and στάσις, stasis) which could refer to a range of activities from general rioting to a major insurrection. (Black, Mark (The College Press NIV Commentary), 268)

William L. Lane (1931-1999) adds:

The leader of this revolt seems to have been a popular hero, and may have been a leading Zealot, but little is known of him or his deeds...The fact that Barabbas is introduced prior to the reference to the petitioners in Mark 15:8 suggests that the latter were supporters of the insurgent who came to the forum specifically to ask for his release. (Lane, The Gospel according to Mark (The New International Commentary on the New Testament), 554)

It has been assumed that Barabbas was a prominent figure in a movement resisting the Roman empire. It has even been posited that he belonged to the Sicarii (literally “dagger men”), a group of radical Jewish patriots who pledged to murder Roman rulers and their collaborators whenever possible. Barabbas’ supporters would have perceived him to be a freedom fighter.

Robert H. Gundy (b. 1932) suspects that knowing the specifics of Barabbas’ crimes would only distract from the narrative:

The placement of ἐν τη στάσει, “in the insurrection,” and φόνον, “murder,” before the verb calls attention to the criminality of Barabbas and his fellow prisoners. Against this foil Jesus’ innocence stands out in bold relief: Barabbas deserves to be bound and crucified; Jesus does not. Mark avoids obscuring this apologetic contrast with details concerning the insurrection. (Gundry, Mark: A Commentary on His Apology for the Cross, 926)

As the text leaves his sins to the imagination, Barabbas becomes an abstract but more relatable figure - he is the one who deserves the punishment that Jesus receives.

The name Barabbas is also generic, meaning, “son of a father.” John R. Donahue (b. 1933) dissects:

The proper name here consists of two Aramaic elements: bar meaning “son” and ’abba’ meaning “father.” The derivation from Bar-Rabban (“son of the master”) is less likely. There were rabbis known as “Bar-Abba,” and the practice of using bar plus the father’s name is witnessed in the cases of Simon bar Jona (for Peter; see Matthew 16:17) and Simeon Bar Kokhba (or Kosiba) around 132-135 C.E. Some manuscripts supply Barabbas with the first name “Jesus” in Matthew 27:16. Since one would expect him to have a first name and since it is unlikely that early Christians would have created the name “Jesus” for him there may well be a historical basis for this tradition. In either case the choice presented to the crowd—between Jesus of Nazareth (the real “Son of the Father”) and (Jesus) Barabbas—is rich in irony and in theological significance. (Donahue, The Gospel of Mark (Sacra Pagina), 432)

Gerrit Vos (1894-1968) declares, “Everyone in the world is in this Barabbas. The man born of a human father.”

As noted, Barabbas’ given name may have been Jesus. The New English Bible even translates his name as such, “Jesus Bar-Abbas” (Matthew 27:16, NEB).

Joel Marcus (b. 1951) analyzes:

Some texts of Matthew 27:16-17, mostly of a Caesarean type... read “Jesus Barabbas” rather than “Barabbas,” and Origen [184-253]acknowledges that some of the manuscripts known to him attest this reading (Commentary on Matthew 121 [on Matthew 27:16-18]). Many scholars think that “Jesus Barabbas” was the original reading in Matthew and that the forename was later suppressed by reverential scribes who felt, as Origen did, that no sinner should bear the name of Jesus...This theory is made more plausible by the observation that the forename has been erased from several manuscripts (see F. Crawford Burkitt [1864-1935], Evangelion da-Mepharreshe 2.277)...Some exegetes...even suggest that “Jesus Barabbas” may have been the original reading in Mark, since “the one called Barabbas” is awkward, and elsewhere ho legomenos is usually preceded by a personal name and followed by a descriptive title or nickname (Matthew 1:16, 4:18, 10:2, 27:17, 22; John 11:16, 20:24, 21:2; Colossians 4:11). There are instances, however, in which ho legomenos is not preceded by the personal name (Matthew 26:3, 14; Luke 22:47; John 4:25, 9:11, 19:17), and awkward expressions are common in Mark. (Marcus, Mark 8-16 (The Anchor Yale Bible Commentaries), 1028)

Ben Witherington III (b. 1951) adds:

At Mark 15:7 we are introduced to Barabbas, whose name according to a textual variant at Matthew 27:16 was Jesus Barabbas. This, in turn, has led to the suggestion that Pilate misheard the crowd when they were shouting for the release of Jesus Barabbas, thinking they were asking for Jesus of Nazareth. But there is no clear evidence for such a conclusion here, and most of the earliest and best manuscripts do not have the name Jesus appended to Barabbas.(Witherington, The Gospel of Mark: A Socio-Rhetorical Commentary, 391)

When Barabbas hears his name called, he likely thinks it is to be executed. Much to Barabbas’ surprise and Pilate’s chagrin, the crowd chooses to spare Barabbas instead of Jesus. While the gospels vary on who is most responsible for suggesting Barabbas as an alternative, they are unified in recounting the crowd’s unified decision to release the insurrectionist (Matthew 27:21; Mark 15:15; Luke 23:18; John 18:40). The people not only choose Barabbas, but reject Jesus, demanding his death (Matthew 27:22,23; Mark 15:13; Luke 23:21; John 19:15). The latter decision is more difficult to understand.

Mary Healy (b. 1964) questions:

Why would the crowd demand such a horrible fate for their fellow Jew? Mark does not explain, and leaves it as a question for the reader to contemplate. Perhaps the nationalists in the crowd regard Jesus a threat to the release of their man, Barabbas. Perhaps they regard the kingdom of God that he preached (Mark 1:14-15) as a futile pie-in-the-sky religious quest when what was really needed was violent, military action to liberate Israel. It is also possible that most people in the crowd did not know who Jesus was and were simply willing to go along with the chief priests’ agitation. In either case, they demonstrate chilling indifference to the torments to which they expose him. (Healy, The Gospel of Mark, (Catholic Commentary on Sacred Scripture), 309)

There is a tragic irony in their shocking selection. Jesus is targeted because of his popularity and growing influence yet the crowds who are responsible for his influence are also behind his execution.

Pilate did not account for an extreme form of peer pressure, mob psychology. The crowd is incited by it religious leaders (Matthew 27:20; Mark 15:11). Lamar Williamson, Jr. (b. 1926) examines:

The explicit motivation..is that “the chief priests stirred up the crowd.” The mob is essentially mindless and subject to manipulation. For whatever motives, twice they reject Jesus as king (Mark 15:9, 12), and twice, by acclamation they call for his death: “Crucify him” (Mark 15:13-14). (Williamson, Mark (Interpretation: A Bible Commentary for Teaching and Preaching), 271)

The crowd is stirred into a frenzy, willing to believe the worst about the best regardless of the facts. Passion overrides judgment. Psychology has demonstrated that it takes only a handful of people positioned in strategic places to start a riot.

Leslie J. Francis (b. 1947) determines:

Here is a narrative about crowd psychology. Consider how little responsibility each individual in the crowd took for the release of Barabbas, how little responsibility each individual in the crowd took for the crucifixion of Jesus, how the moral autonomy of the individual is eroded by the power of the crowd. (Francis, Personality Type and Scripture: Exploring Mark’s Gospel, 145)

Barabbas became the popular choice and as is often the case, the popular choice was wrong.

When have you made a decision simply to follow the crowd? Why do the spectators choose Barabbas? When have you seen a popular choice proven wrong? Have you ever seen religious officials lead their followers astray? Is Barabbas’ inclusion in each gospel evidence of substitutionary atonement? Compare and contrast Jesus and Barabbas.

The two figures are intended to be contrasted. Not only are Jesus’ and Barabbas’ names similar, but they find themselves in very similar positions. Both wish to save their people, Barabbas from Rome; Jesus from sin and death.

Theodore W. Jennings (b. 1942) recognizes:

Jesus and Barabbas belong together in some odd way...It really doesn’t matter how far we seek to distinguish the strategy of Jesus from that of Barabbas. Jesus himself does not condemn Barabbas, even if he does seem to embody a different way of confronting the imperial authorities. Instead, he dies in his place. If Jesus’ death may be literally said to be a ransom for another, that other is first of all none other than Barabbas, the terrorist, the assassin. (Jennings, Transforming Atonement: A Political Theology of the Cross, 32)

M. Eugene Boring (b. 1935) adds:

Many Gentile Christians could be expected to see “Barabbas” as an ironic counterpart to Jesus, the true Son of the Father. The parallel and contrast may go further: Barabbas has already been convicted of insurrection and sentenced to death, but will escape; Jesus is falsely accused of insurrection and will die in Barabbas’ place, although he is innocent and has not been convicted or sentenced. During the whole period from the Roman takeover of Palestine (63 BCE) to the actual revolt in 66 CE, the only people crucified in Palestine were those convicted of being revolutionaries and their followers. It is important for Mark and his readers to distinguish Jesus from revolutionaries such as Barabbas. The point will again be made at the cross, where those crucified as actual revolutionaries will dissociate themselves from Jesus (Mark 15:32). (Boring, Mark: A Commentary (New Testament Library), 420-21)

Barabbas serves as a stark reminder of the grim reality of the situation - he should have been the one to die. Gary W. Charles (b. 1954) concludes:

Barabbas...is chiefly a Markan foil to advance the story by emphasizing the dramatic injustice being done to Jesus. The tragic irony is advanced when the same crowd that had shouted “Hosanna” at the entrance to Jerusalem (Mark 11:9) is now manipulated by the chief priests to shout “Crucify him!” (Mark 15:14). Ironically, Jesus, the one who can save lives (Hosanna means “Save now” in Hebrew) is rejected in favor of one who has taken life. (Brian K. Blount [b. 1955] and Charles, Preaching Mark in Two Voices, 235)

The crowd’s choice is also indicative of a greater ideology. Barabbas represents the world’s way of doing things while Jesus presents a radical alternative. R. Kent Hughes (b. 1942) exclaims:

The crowd preferred Jesus Bar-Abbas to Jesus Bar-Joseph, the real son of the Father!...Why? Because Barabbas was a grotesque form of the Messiah Israel wanted! He was a leading Zealot, a political activist who had taken to the bandit trail. He was a man of action who would even murder to reach his own ends (cf. Acts 3:14; Matthew 27:16; Luke 23:19; John 18:40). In the twisted thinking of some, he was a patriot. His vitality and elan appealed to the mob. Jesus, however, had disappointed them with his inaction. The people chose lawlessness instead of righteousness, violence instead of love, war instead of peace. The world is still the same. (Hughes, Mark: Jesus, Servant and Savior, Volume Two (Preaching the Word), 193)

David E. Garland (b. 1947) laments:

The choice of Barabbas represents the human preference for the one who represents our narrow personal hopes—in this particular case, a perverted nationalism. He appeals to our basic instinct to protect our interests, with violence if necessary. In contemporary culture, we have been indoctrinated to prefer the violent answer over the peaceful one...Our heroes become the Barbbases of the world, who take matters into their own hands and dispatch the enemy with brute force or clever trickery. If the vote came today, then, Barabbas would likely win again, hands down. (Garland, Mark (The NIV Application Commentary), 583)

The contrast between Jesus and Barabbas is illustrated in the work of British artist George Tinworth (1843-1913). In 1882, Tinworth produced a terra cotta relief called “The Release of Barabbas” (pictured). There is perfect symmetry between the scene’s three principal figures - Barabbas, Pilate and Jesus. Pilate occupies the painting’s center, situated between a bound solemn Jesus and Barabbas whose hands are free. Inscribed beneath Barabbas are the words, “The World’s Choice” while the marker beneath Jesus reads, “The Good Shepherd” (John 10:11). Tinworth was correct. The world tends to choose poorly, continually favoring Barabbas over Jesus.

N.T. Wright (b. 1948) resolves:

The story of Barabbas invites us to see Jesus’ crucifixion in terms of a stark personal exchange. Barabbas deserves to die; Jesus dies instead, and he goes free. Barabbas was the archetypical Jewish rebel: quite probably what we today would call a fanatical right-wing zealot, determined to stop at nothing to bring in a version of God’s kingdom which consisted of defeating Roman power by Roman means – in other words, repaying pagan violence with holy violence. No doubt many Christians in Mark’s community, and others who would read his book, had at one stage at least flirted with such revolutionary movements. Reading the story of the guilty man freed and the innocent man crucified, it would not be hard for them to identify with Barabbas, and to view the rest of the story with the awestruck gaze of people who think, ‘There but for God’s grace go I.’ (Wright, Mark for Everyone, 209)

Who will you choose, Jesus or Barabbas? What do you think became of Barababas, a man who was lived because Jesus died? How has this same phenomenon affected you?

“Pilate told the people that they could spare the life of either a murderer named Barabbas or Jesus of Nazareth, and they chose Barabbas. Given the same choice, Jesus, of course, would have chosen to spare Barabbas too.” - Frederick Buechner (b. 1926), Peculiar Treasures: A Biblical Who’s Who, p. 15