Matthew Chapter 21 — The Third Passion Prediction, the Blind Man at Jericho, Zacchaeus, and the Parable of the Minas

Overview

UPDV chapter 21 covers the third passion prediction (21:1-3), the healing of a blind man at Jericho (21:4-9), the Zacchaeus episode (21:10-19), and the parable of the minas (21:20-36). This material comes from Matt 20:17-18, Mark 10:34, Matt 20:29-33, Mark 10:52, and Luke 19:1-27.

The chapter continues from chapter 20 (which ended with the rich young man at Mark 10:30). The opening picks up at Matt 20:17, where the triple tradition resumes with the third passion prediction. But the UPDV immediately revises the compiler's form: verse 3 switches to Mark 10:34 to replace the compiler's σταυρῶσαι (staurōsai, "crucify") with Mark's ἀποκτενοῦσιν (apoktenousin, "kill") — a correction of what scholars identify as vaticinium ex eventu, prophecy shaped by knowledge of the outcome. The blind man pericope (21:4-9) similarly revises the compiler: two blind men become one, physical touch healing becomes word healing, and the direction of travel reverses from leaving Jericho to approaching it — accommodating the Zacchaeus episode that immediately follows.

At 21:10, the chapter transitions from triple tradition back to Luke's narrative, picking up at Luke 19:1 with the Zacchaeus story. This is L material — pure Lukan Sondergut. The minas parable (21:20-36) is Q, with its parallel in the compiler's parable of the talents (Matt 25:14-30), but the UPDV follows Luke's form entirely, including the nobleman frame that most scholars attribute to a separate tradition about Archelaus.

Two substantial blocks of canonical Matthew 20 are absent from this chapter. The workers in the vineyard (Matt 20:1-16) is M material — a parable unique to the compiler, excluded under the UPDV's Lukan-baseline principle. The Zebedee sons' request (Matt 20:20-28) is relocated to UPDV chapter 25, where it appears in its Markan context within the journey narrative.

The Third Passion Prediction (21:1-3)

"And as Jesus was going up to Jerusalem, he took the twelve disciples apart, and on the way he said to them, Look, we go up to Jerusalem; and the Son of Man will be delivered to the chief priests and scribes; and they will condemn him to death." Verses 21:1-2 come from the compiler's Matt 20:17-18, which closely follows Mark 10:32-33. The narrative frame and the first two elements of the prediction — delivery to the chief priests, condemnation to death — are virtually identical in Mark and the compiler.

Verse 21:3 switches to Mark 10:34 for the details of the Gentile treatment: "and will deliver him to the Gentiles; and they will mock him, and will spit on him, and will scourge him, and will kill him; and the third day he will be raised up." The compiler's version at Matt 20:19 reads: "and will deliver him to the Gentiles to mock, and to scourge, and to crucify: and the third day he will be raised up." The UPDV makes three changes from the compiler's form.

First and most consequential: σταυρῶσαι (staurōsai, "crucify") becomes ἀποκτενοῦσιν (apoktenousin, "kill"). D&A identify the compiler's "crucify" as vaticinium ex eventu — a prediction shaped after the fact by knowledge of the actual event. Mark's three passion predictions use generic terms for killing (ἀποκτανθῆναι at 8:31; ἀποκτενοῦσιν at 9:31 and 10:34), never specifying the method. The compiler replaced Mark's "kill" with "crucify" only in the third prediction — the one closest to the actual event — a pattern consistent with editorial refinement rather than prophetic foreknowledge. Evans notes that the progressive specificity across Mark's three predictions (killed → killed → mocked, spat upon, scourged, killed) already shows literary development; the compiler carried this further by specifying the mode of death.

Second: the UPDV restores Mark's "will spit on him" (ἐμπτύσουσιν, emptysousin), which the compiler omitted entirely from Matt 20:19. Mark's four-verb sequence — mock, spit, scourge, kill — is reduced to three in the compiler's version. Lane notes that Mark's sequence presents the sufferings in an order that reverses the actual passion events, which he takes as evidence of traditional formulation rather than narrative construction after the fact.

Third: the UPDV retains the compiler's temporal formula "the third day he will be raised up" (τῇ τρίτῃ ἡμέρᾳ ἐγερθήσεται) rather than Mark's "after three days he will rise" (μετὰ τρεῖς ἡμέρας ἀναστήσεται). The compiler consistently corrected Mark's "after three days" to "on the third day" throughout all three passion predictions (cf. Matt 16:21; 17:23; 20:19). This is not arbitrary: the compiler's formula matches the pre-Pauline creedal tradition preserved in 1 Corinthians 15:4 — ἐγήγερται τῇ ἡμέρᾳ τῇ τρίτῃ κατὰ τὰς γραφάς ("he has been raised on the third day according to the Scriptures"). The same dative construction (τῇ τρίτῃ ἡμέρᾳ) and the same passive verb root (ἐγείρω) appear in both the creed and the compiler's passion predictions. Paul received this formula from the earliest Christian community (1 Cor 15:3), predating all four Gospels. The compiler did not invent the temporal formula; he conformed Mark's looser idiom to the established oral creed. The UPDV retains it because it represents the earliest recoverable form of the resurrection-timing tradition.

The Blind Man at Jericho (21:4-9)

"And as they drew near to Jericho, a great multitude followed him. And look, a blind man sitting by the wayside, when he heard that Jesus was passing by, cried out, saying, Have mercy on me, Jesus, Son of David." The blind man pericope (21:4-9) draws from Matt 20:29-33 with substantial revision, supplemented by Mark 10:52 for the healing itself.

The UPDV makes four changes to the compiler's form, each correcting toward Mark or Luke.

First, the number. The compiler has "two blind men" (δύο τυφλοί, Matt 20:30); Mark has one — Bartimaeus son of Timaeus (Mark 10:46); Luke also has one unnamed blind man (Luke 18:35). D&A list nine scholarly theories for the compiler's doubling but find none "obviously probable." The most likely explanation is the compiler's well-documented pattern of doubling: he also turns Mark's one Gadarene demoniac into two (Matt 8:28 vs Mark 5:2) and has two donkeys at the triumphal entry where Mark has one (Matt 21:2, 7 vs Mark 11:2). France calls this "a notorious crux" and concludes: "It is most naturally understood as a Matthean expansion of the Markan story." The UPDV follows Mark and Luke in having one blind man.

Mark's naming of Bartimaeus argues strongly for historicity. France observes that it is unusual for the recipient of a miracle to be named, and the preservation of Bartimaeus's name and patronymic suggests a personal reminiscence — someone known to the early community. Evans concurs: the naming suggests the healed man was known in the pre-Markan tradition, probably as a member of the early church. Collins notes a deeper literary function in Mark's arrangement: Bartimaeus asks the same question James and John asked — τί θέλεις (ti theleis, "what do you want?") — but where they sought thrones (Mark 10:35-37), he seeks sight. The contrast is pointed: the disciples who can see are blind to Jesus' teaching about service, while the blind man who cannot see recognizes Jesus as Son of David. The UPDV does not preserve the name Bartimaeus, following the compiler's and Luke's anonymous form.

Second, the direction. The compiler and Mark agree: the healing occurs "as they went out from Jericho" (ἐκπορευομένων ἀπὸ Ἰεριχώ, Matt 20:29; ἐκπορευομένου αὐτοῦ ἀπὸ Ἰεριχώ, Mark 10:46). Luke reverses this: "as he drew near to Jericho" (ἐν τῷ ἐγγίζειν αὐτὸν εἰς Ἰεριχώ, Luke 18:35). The UPDV adopts Luke's direction — "as they drew near to Jericho" (21:4) — abandoning the Mark/Matthew geographical agreement because the Zacchaeus episode (21:10-19) requires Jesus to enter Jericho after the healing. This is not a correction toward an earlier tradition; Mark and the compiler preserve the historical geography, and Luke altered it. Nolland attributes Luke's reversal to his "insertion of the Zacchaeus episode," which demanded that Jesus enter Jericho rather than leave it. The UPDV knowingly adopts Luke's redactional geography to maintain the Lukan-baseline narrative sequence — a decision that prioritizes structural continuity over the triple-tradition historical baseline.

Third, the address. The compiler has κύριε (kyrie, "Lord") as the blind man's address (Matt 20:30-31); Mark has Ἰησοῦ (Iēsou, "Jesus") in the first cry (Mark 10:47). The UPDV uses "Jesus, Son of David" in the first cry and drops the address to just "Son of David" in the second (21:5-6), following Mark's less confessional form. The compiler's κύριε is a Christological upgrade characteristic of his editorial practice.

Fourth, the healing method. The compiler has Jesus "moved with compassion, touched their eyes; and immediately they received their sight" (Matt 20:34) — a physical touch healing. Mark 10:52 has a word healing: "Go your way; your faith has saved you" (ὕπαγε, ἡ πίστις σου σέσωκέν σε). Luke 18:42 is virtually identical: "Receive your sight; your faith has saved you." The UPDV follows Mark and Luke's word healing (21:9): "Receive your sight; your faith has made you whole." The phrase "your faith has made you whole" — absent from the compiler's version — is characteristic of Jesus' response to those who come to him in need (cf. Mark 5:34; Luke 7:50; 17:19). France argues this emphasis on faith over physical contact is fundamental to Mark's theology of healing.

Zacchaeus (21:10-19)

"And he entered and was passing through Jericho. And look, a man called by name Zacchaeus; and he was a chief publican, and he was rich." The Zacchaeus episode (21:10-19) comes from Luke 19:1-10. This is L material — Sondergut with no Matthean or Markan parallel. The UPDV takes Luke's text without modification.

All three major Lukan commentators agree on the episode's traditional origin. Marshall identifies linguistic evidence for a pre-Lukan source, noting that ἀρχιτελώνης (architelōnēs, "chief tax collector") is a hapax legomenon — a word appearing nowhere else in the New Testament or in classical Greek literature. Its uniqueness argues against Lukan invention; Luke would not have coined a term for an otherwise unattested office. Bovon concurs that behind the narrative lies a traditional core, though he acknowledges Luke shaped the final presentation. Nolland takes a similar position, arguing the core narrative is pre-Lukan tradition even if some elements — particularly verse 17 (Zacchaeus's declaration) — show Lukan compositional activity.

The story functions as the narrative culmination of a theme running through the UPDV's L material. The Pharisees murmured that Jesus "receives sinners, and eats with them" (UPDV 19:2 = Luke 15:2); the prodigal son's father welcomed back the dissolute son (19:7-29); now Jesus invites himself into the home of a chief tax collector, and the crowd murmurs again: "He has gone in to lodge with a man who is a sinner" (21:16). Both murmuring scenes use the same verb — διαγογγύζω (diagongyzō, "to murmur/grumble") — a Lukan word that appears only at Luke 15:2 and 19:7 in the New Testament. Whether this verbal parallel is Lukan literary design or reflects a pattern in his source tradition, the thematic arc is clear: Jesus' practice of table fellowship with sinners, challenged from chapter 19 onward, reaches its climax in Zacchaeus's house.

Zacchaeus's declaration (21:17) — "the half of my goods I give to the poor; and if I have wrongfully exacted anything of any man, I restore fourfold" — is debated. Are the present tenses (δίδωμι, didōmi, "I give"; ἀποδίδωμι, apodidōmi, "I restore") describing a new resolution prompted by Jesus' visit, or a defense of existing practice? Marshall favors the former: a resolve on the part of Zacchaeus to make restitution, prompted by the encounter with Jesus. Bovon leans toward the latter: Zacchaeus is defending himself against the crowd's accusation by pointing to his existing generosity. Nolland takes a middle position: what is reported here is not so much a conversion as a vindication. The fourfold restitution exceeds the Torah's standard requirement — Leviticus 6:5 prescribes principal plus one-fifth for fraud; Exodus 22:1 requires fourfold only for stolen sheep — suggesting either extraordinary generosity or extraordinary guilt.

Jesus' response (21:18-19) — "Today has salvation come to this house, since he also is a son of Abraham. For the Son of Man came to seek and to save that which was lost" — contains what Marshall identifies as an authentic saying of Jesus. The Son of Man logion echoes Ezekiel 34:16, where God as shepherd will "seek that which was lost" (τὸ ἀπολωλὸς ζητήσω) — the same verb pair (ζητέω + σώζω, "seek and save") applied to the same object (τὸ ἀπολωλός, "that which was lost"). This connects directly to the lost sheep parable (UPDV 19:4-6), where the shepherd goes to seek the one that went astray. The phrase "son of Abraham" reclaims Zacchaeus's membership in the covenant community — the crowd had declared him a "sinner" (21:16), but Jesus declares him a legitimate heir of the promise.

The Parable of the Minas (21:20-36)

"And as they heard these things, he added and spoke a parable, because he was near to Jerusalem, and [because] they supposed that the kingdom of God was immediately to appear." The minas parable (21:20-36) comes from Luke 19:11-27. Its Q parallel is the compiler's parable of the talents at Matt 25:14-30. The UPDV follows Luke's form entirely.

Verse 21:20 is Lukan composition. Marshall, Bovon, and Nolland all agree that Luke 19:11 is editorial, created to introduce the parable in its present context. The notice that "they supposed that the kingdom of God was immediately to appear" is Luke's theological framing — it transforms the parable into a correction of imminent eschatological expectation, a theme important to Luke-Acts (cf. Acts 1:6-7). The UPDV includes this verse because it serves as the narrative transition from the Zacchaeus episode to the parable, but the reader should recognize it as Lukan editorial work, not source tradition.

The relationship between the minas (Luke 19:12-27) and the talents (Matt 25:14-30) is one of the most complex Q problems in the Synoptics. D&A argue that both derive from a single Q parable, but that neither evangelist preserves Q's form intact. Luke preserves the more original currency — μνᾶ (mna, "mina"), a modest sum worth about a hundred days' wages — where the compiler inflated it to τάλαντον (talanton, "talent"), an enormous sum worth about six thousand days' wages. The compiler's inflation fits his pattern of amplification. But D&A argue that the compiler preserves the more original structure: three slaves with differentiated amounts (five, two, one talent) versus Luke's ten slaves with equal amounts (one mina each, with only three reporting). The three-slave structure creates a natural narrative arc — graduated responsibility producing graduated returns — while Luke's ten-slaves-but-only-three-report arrangement is awkward and suggests expansion. D&A conclude that Luke expanded the number to ten under the influence of the nobleman frame, where a king would plausibly have ten servants.

The nobleman frame (21:21, 23, 24a, 36) is the most debated element. Luke's parable features not merely a wealthy man but an εὐγενής (eugenēs, "nobleman") who travels to receive a kingdom, whose citizens "sent an ambassador after him, saying, We will not have this man reign over us" (21:23), and who upon return orders his enemies slain (21:36). This frame has no parallel in the compiler's talents. Scholars universally identify it as an allusion to Archelaus, who traveled to Rome in 4 BC to receive the title of king, while a Jewish delegation of fifty followed to oppose him before Augustus (Josephus, Antiquities 17.11.1-2). Marshall sees two originally separate parables — a parable about servants and money, and a parable about a rejected king — that were merged before Luke received them. Bovon attributes the merger to L tradition rather than to Q. Nolland argues the royal frame was already part of Q, with the compiler stripping it because it did not serve his eschatological discourse context.

The core Q parable — a master entrusts money to servants, departs, returns, and settles accounts — is among the most securely reconstructed Q passages. D&A identify the shared structural elements: the master's departure, the distribution of money, the profitable trading of some servants, the hiding of the money by one, the master's return and reckoning, the condemnation of the unprofitable servant for not even depositing the money with bankers (21:32), the transfer of his portion to the most successful servant (21:33), and the concluding saying: "to everyone who has will be given; but from him who has not, even that which he has will be taken away" (21:35). This final saying has independent attestation in Mark 4:25, making it one of the rare logia with triple source attestation — Mark, and Q as witnessed independently by both the compiler and Luke.

The compiler's additions to the Q parable are visible in his characteristic judgment vocabulary. Matt 25:30 — "Cast out the unprofitable slave into the outer darkness; there will be the weeping and the gnashing of teeth" — uses a formula that appears six times in Matthew and never in Mark or Luke (Matt 8:12; 13:42, 50; 22:13; 24:51; 25:30). This is among the compiler's most recognizable editorial signatures. Luke's version ends differently: the unprofitable servant's mina is simply taken away (21:33), and the nobleman's enemies are slain (21:36) — the former belonging to the Q parable, the latter to the royal frame.

The UPDV's decision to follow Luke's form means it preserves the more original currency (minas rather than talents) while including the secondary nobleman frame. This is a different kind of editorial hybrid from the one in the lost sheep (chapter 19), where the UPDV mixed the compiler's parable body with Luke's conclusion. Here, the UPDV takes Luke's form wholesale — a simpler editorial decision, but one that introduces material most scholars regard as secondary to the original Q parable. The nobleman frame transforms a parable about faithful stewardship into an allegory about a king's departure and return — an allegorizing layer that is unlikely to go back to Jesus.

The methodological tension here is real. D&A demonstrate that the compiler preserves the more original Q structure (three slaves with differentiated amounts), while Luke preserves the more original Q currency (minas rather than talents). A reconstruction committed to recovering Q should ideally combine the compiler's structure with Luke's currency — three slaves entrusted with varying amounts of minas. Instead, the UPDV prints Luke's form wholesale, including the secondary Archelaus allegory and the awkward ten-slaves-but-only-three-report structure. This prioritizes Lukan narrative integrity over source-critical reconstruction. A future revision should consider stripping the nobleman frame (21:21, 23, 24a, 36) and reverting to the compiler's three-slave structure with Luke's minas currency, which would more closely approximate the original Q parable.

What the UPDV Removes from This Section

Matt 20:1-16 (workers in the vineyard): M material, omitted. The compiler's parable about equal pay for unequal labor has no Markan or Lukan parallel.
Matt 20:19 — revised: σταυρῶσαι ("crucify") replaced by Mark 10:34's ἀποκτενοῦσιν ("kill"). D&A: vaticinium ex eventu. Mark's "will spit on him" (ἐμπτύσουσιν) also restored; the compiler omitted it.
Matt 20:20-28 (Zebedee sons' request and the teaching on servant leadership): Relocated to UPDV 25:28-35, where it appears in its Markan context.
Matt 20:29 — revised: "going out from Jericho" changed to "drew near to Jericho" adopting Luke 18:35's redactional geography to accommodate the Zacchaeus episode. Mark and the compiler agree on the original direction.
Matt 20:30 — revised: "two blind men" reduced to one, following Mark/Luke. D&A: Matthean doubling (cf. Matt 8:28; 21:2, 7).
Matt 20:30-31 — revised: κύριε ("Lord") replaced by "Jesus" in the first cry, following Mark 10:47.
Matt 20:34 — revised: physical touch healing ("touched their eyes") replaced by word healing ("your faith has made you whole") from Mark 10:52.
Matt 25:14-30 (parable of the talents): Replaced by Luke 19:12-27 (minas). D&A: same Q parable; Luke's currency more original, compiler's structure more original.
Luke 19:11 — included but recognized as Lukan composition: editorial frame correcting imminent eschatological expectation.

References

Davies, W. D. and Dale C. Allison Jr. A Critical and Exegetical Commentary on the Gospel according to Saint Matthew. 3 vols. International Critical Commentary. Edinburgh: T&T Clark, 1988–1997.
Lane, William L. The Gospel according to Mark. New International Commentary on the New Testament. Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1974.
Evans, Craig A. Mark 8:27–16:20. Word Biblical Commentary 34B. Nashville: Thomas Nelson, 2001.
France, R. T. The Gospel of Mark: A Commentary on the Greek Text. New International Greek Testament Commentary. Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 2002.
Bovon, François. Luke. 3 vols. Hermeneia. Minneapolis: Fortress, 2002–2012.
Marshall, I. Howard. The Gospel of Luke: A Commentary on the Greek Text. New International Greek Testament Commentary. Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1978.
Nolland, John. Luke. 3 vols. Word Biblical Commentary 35. Dallas: Word, 1989–1993.