Matthew Chapter 22 — The Triumphal Entry, the Fig Tree and the Temple, and the Wicked Husbandmen

Overview

UPDV chapter 22 covers the triumphal entry into Jerusalem (22:1-8), the fig tree cursing and the temple cleansing (22:9-13), the fig tree withered and the faith sayings (22:14-18), the question about Jesus' authority (22:19-23), and the parable of the wicked husbandmen (22:24-35). This material comes from Matt 21:1-3, 6-9, 12-13, 18-19, 23-27, 33-46, Mark 11:11, 19-24, and Mark 12:8-9.

The chapter marks a turning point in the UPDV's narrative: Jesus arrives in Jerusalem. From this point forward, the UPDV follows the Markan passion narrative with corrections to the compiler's redactional additions. The most consequential editorial decision in this chapter is the restoration of Mark's two-day chronology and his "sandwich" structure for the fig tree and temple cleansing. The compiler collapsed Mark's multi-day sequence — entry and inspection (day 1), fig tree cursing and temple cleansing (day 2), fig tree withered (day 3) — into a single dramatic day. The UPDV restores Mark's structure: Jesus enters the temple, looks around, and leaves for Bethany (22:8); the next morning he curses the fig tree (22:9-10), cleanses the temple (22:11-12), and departs (22:13); the following morning the disciples discover the fig tree withered (22:14-15). This intercalation — the fig tree bracketing the temple cleansing — is theologically deliberate: the fruitless tree interprets the fruitless temple.

Several blocks of canonical Matthew 21 are absent. The formula quotation (Matt 21:4-5) is omitted as the compiler's editorial insertion. The city's stirring and the crowds' identification of Jesus (Matt 21:10-11) are replaced by Mark's understated 11:11. The temple healings and children's Hosanna (Matt 21:14-17) are M material. The parable of the two sons (Matt 21:28-32) is possibly the compiler's own composition. The kingdom-transfer saying (Matt 21:43) and the falling stone (Matt 21:44) are redactional additions with no Markan parallel.

The Triumphal Entry (22:1-8)

"And when they drew near to Jerusalem, and came to Bethphage, to the mount of Olives, then Jesus sent two disciples, saying to them, Go into the village that is across from you, and right away you will find a colt tied: loose him, and bring him to me." The triumphal entry (22:1-7) follows Matt 21:1-3, 6-9 with significant revisions, and verse 22:8 switches to Mark 11:11 for the entry into Jerusalem itself.

The UPDV makes three changes to the compiler's form.

First and most visible: two animals become one. The compiler has "a donkey tied, and a colt with her: loose them, and bring them to me" (Matt 21:2); Mark has simply "a colt tied, on which no one has ever sat" (Mark 11:2). The compiler's two animals derive from his reading of Zechariah 9:9, which he quotes in full at Matt 21:4-5. The Hebrew of Zechariah 9:9 uses standard poetic parallelism — "riding on a donkey, on a colt, the foal of a donkey" — where both lines refer to the same animal. D&A reject the simple explanation that the compiler was "unfamiliar with the nature of Hebrew poetry." Instead, they argue the compiler read Zechariah 9:9 in light of LXX Exodus 4:19-20, where Moses sets his family on asses (plural) when returning to Egypt: "We suspect that Matthew, just like the later rabbis, read Zech 9:9 in the light of Exod 4:19-20, so that it was natural, given the plural in LXX Exod 4:19-20, to find two animals in the ambiguous LXX Zech 9:9." This is part of the compiler's broader Moses typology — Jesus as the new Moses entering the holy city. But whether the motivation was typological or literalistic, the result is the same: the compiler created a second animal that has no basis in Mark or Luke. The UPDV follows Mark's single colt.

France notes that Mark's πῶλος (pōlos, "colt") without species specification is itself a clearer echo of LXX Zechariah 9:9 — which has πῶλον νέον (pōlon neon, "a young colt") — than if he had specified it was a donkey. Mark presupposes the Zechariah connection without quoting it; the compiler made it explicit by inserting the formula quotation at 21:4-5. Lane adds that the detail of the colt being "tied" evokes Genesis 49:11, where the coming ruler ties his donkey's colt to a vine — a passage interpreted messianically in pre-Christian Jewish tradition. The untying of the colt was itself a messianic sign.

Second: the UPDV drops the formula quotation entirely (Matt 21:4-5). D&A identify this as "not spoken by Jesus but by the author" — an editorial insertion by the compiler into the narrative. The quotation itself is a conflation: the first four words ("Say to the daughter of Zion") come from Isaiah 62:11, not Zechariah 9:9, and the rest follows a "deliberate, ad hoc, targumizing translation" of Zechariah that omits "righteous and saving is he," putting "all the emphasis upon Jesus' meekness and the animals." D&A note that the opening of Zechariah 9:9 ("Rejoice greatly, daughter of Zion") was replaced, possibly because it was "deemed inappropriate in view of Jerusalem's hostility and/or the destruction of Jerusalem in AD 70." The formula quotation is one of the compiler's most distinctive editorial techniques — ten or more such quotations appear throughout canonical Matthew — and the UPDV consistently omits them.

Third: the Hosanna acclamation is modified. The compiler has "Hosanna to the Son of David" (Matt 21:9); Mark has simply "Hosanna" (Mark 11:9). D&A confirm that "to the Son of David" is redactional: it "makes the acclamation explicitly christological (contrast Mk 11:9)." The compiler also dropped Mark's "Blessed is the kingdom of our father David that is coming" (Mark 11:10a). The UPDV restores the simpler "Hosanna" without the Christological specification.

Verse 22:8 is one of the chapter's most consequential insertions. It replaces the compiler's Matt 21:10-11 (the city stirred, the crowds identifying Jesus as "the prophet from Nazareth") with Mark 11:11: "And he entered into Jerusalem, into the temple; and when he had looked around on all things, it being now evening, he went out to Bethany with the twelve." The compiler eliminated this verse to create his single-day chronology; the UPDV restores it because it creates the temporal structure that makes Mark's fig tree sandwich possible.

The commentators read Mark 11:11 differently but agree on its significance. France identifies it as purposeful reconnaissance: Jesus looks around the temple "not without purpose" and leaves "in order to return and take decisive action the next day." Lane reads it as the Lord's inspection of his temple, evoking Malachi 3:1: "the Lord whom you seek will suddenly come to his temple." Evans reads it more darkly: the entry failed — "When Jesus finally entered the temple precincts, there was no priestly greeting. Jesus was ignored. All that he could do was look over the precincts and then retire to Bethany." Collins connects this to ancient conventions of civic reception, where the failure of leaders to welcome a dignitary was itself a significant insult. On any reading, Mark 11:11 transforms the triumphal entry from the compiler's single-day climax into a two-part sequence: a public procession followed by a private assessment that sets up the next day's prophetic action.

The Fig Tree and the Temple (22:9-13)

"Now in the morning as he returned to the city, he was hungry. And seeing a fig tree by the wayside, he came to it, and found nothing on it, but leaves only; and he says to it, No longer from you will there be fruit, forever. And his disciples heard it." The fig tree cursing (22:9-10) and temple cleansing (22:11-12) are presented in Mark's original intercalated sequence: curse the fig tree on the way into the city, cleanse the temple, leave for the night.

The compiler broke Mark's sandwich by unifying the fig tree episode. In Matthew, Jesus curses the fig tree and "immediately the fig tree withered away" (Matt 21:19); the disciples marvel on the spot ("How did the fig tree immediately wither away?" Matt 21:20); the faith sayings follow immediately. By making the fig tree wither at once, the compiler lost the intercalation — the temple cleansing no longer sits between the curse and its visible effect. D&A identify the compiler's motivation: "the miraculous element is heightened in Mt 21:19, where the fig tree withers immediately; and one presumes that the tendency of the tradition was to magnify Jesus' powers."

The UPDV restores Mark's two-day structure. The curse is pronounced in 22:10, ending with Mark's "and his disciples heard it" (Mark 11:14) instead of the compiler's "and immediately the fig tree withered away." The withering is not discovered until the next morning (22:14-15). Between curse and discovery, the UPDV places the temple cleansing (22:11-12), restoring the theological framing that all four Mark commentators identify as deliberate. Lane articulates the principle: "Just as the leaves of the tree concealed the fact that there was no fruit to enjoy, so the magnificence of the Temple and its ceremony conceals the fact that Israel has not brought forth the fruit of righteousness demanded by God." France calls this "one of the more elaborate examples of Mark's tendency to weave separate incidents together by shifting the spotlight to and fro between two narrative scenes, so as to enable the reader to interpret each incident in the light of the other."

The temple cleansing itself (22:11-12) follows the compiler's form from Matt 21:12-13 rather than Mark's fuller account at 11:15-17. This means the UPDV, like the compiler, drops Mark's "for all the nations" (πᾶσιν τοῖς ἔθνεσιν, pasin tois ethnesin) from the Isaiah 56:7 quotation. Mark has: "My house shall be called a house of prayer for all the nations." The compiler and the UPDV both have: "My house will be called a house of prayer." D&A explain the compiler's motivation: after the destruction of the temple in AD 70, the universalist promise had not been fulfilled — "the temple never became a house of prayer for all peoples." This is a methodological tension that should be acknowledged honestly. In this same chapter, the UPDV identifies and reverses the compiler's two-animal redaction of Zechariah 9:9, his chronological compression of Mark's fig tree sandwich, and his reordering of the son's death in the wicked husbandmen. All of these are theologically motivated changes by the compiler, and all are corrected back toward Mark. Yet here, where D&A explicitly identify the compiler's theologically motivated deletion of the Gentile promise, the UPDV retains his shorter form. The source chart assigns 22:12 to Matt 21:13 rather than Mark 11:17, so the omission is built into the text's documentary foundation. A future revision should consider whether πᾶσιν τοῖς ἔθνεσιν should be restored from Mark, since the same methodology that restores the fig tree sandwich and the kill-then-cast-out order would logically require restoring the universalist phrase the compiler removed.

France argues the temple cleansing was "a symbolic declaration of eschatological judgment" rather than an attempt at reform. Evans agrees on the limited scope: "His actions were symbolic and quite limited. He could not and did not bring temple traffic to a standstill." Lane provides historical context: the sale of animals in the temple forecourt may have been a recent innovation introduced by Caiaphas in competition with the traditional markets on the Mount of Olives. The "den of robbers" language from Jeremiah 7:11, Lane argues, "may be intended to evoke the larger context of Jer. 7:11 where the destruction of the land is prophesied."

The Fig Tree Withered (22:14-18)

"And as they passed by in the morning, they saw the fig tree withered away from the roots. And Peter calling to remembrance says to him, Rabbi, look, the fig tree which you cursed is withered away." The next-morning discovery (22:14-15) and the faith sayings (22:16-18) come from Mark 11:20-24. The compiler's compressed version (Matt 21:20-22) has the disciples marveling immediately at the fig tree's instant withering; Mark has Peter noticing the withered tree the following morning and addressing Jesus as ῥαββί (rhabbi, "Rabbi") — a title the compiler never uses.

The UPDV follows Mark's fuller form for the faith sayings. Where the compiler has "If you have faith, and do not doubt, you will not only do what is done to the fig tree, but even if you will say to this mountain, Be taken up and cast into the sea, it will be done" (Matt 21:21) — making the fig tree miracle a lesser example of faith's power — Mark begins with the independent exhortation "Have faith in God" (ἔχετε πίστιν θεοῦ, echete pistin theou, Mark 11:22) before the mountain saying. The compiler omitted this opening command. The UPDV restores it.

Mark 11:25 — "And whenever you stand praying, forgive, if you have anything against anyone, so that your Father also who is in heaven may forgive you your trespasses" — is not included. The Q parallel to this forgiveness logion appears in the compiler's Lord's Prayer context (Matt 6:14-15), which the UPDV handles in an earlier chapter.

The Question of Authority (22:19-23)

"And when he came into the temple, the chief priests and the elders of the people came to him as he was teaching, and said, By what authority do you do these things? And who gave you this authority?" The authority question (22:19-23) follows Matt 21:23-27, which closely reproduces Mark 11:27-33. This is one of the few pericopes where the compiler's version requires minimal correction.

The exchange is a classic rabbinic counter-question. Jesus refuses to answer until his opponents answer his question about John's baptism — a question that traps them between the crowd (who revere John) and their own refusal to submit to him. The theological point is that Jesus' authority and John's authority stand or fall together: if John was from heaven, so is Jesus; if John was merely human, the leaders would have said so openly. Their evasion ("We don't know") exposes their intellectual dishonesty, and Jesus matches it: "Neither do I tell you by what authority I do these things."

The Wicked Husbandmen (22:24-35)

"And he spoke to them in parables, saying, There was a man who was a householder, who planted a vineyard, and set a hedge about it, and dug a wine press in it, and built a tower, and let it out to husbandmen, and went into another country." The wicked husbandmen parable (22:24-35) follows Matt 21:33-46 with revisions drawn from Mark 12:1-12. D&A confirm Markan priority: "We are content to postulate dependence upon Mk 12:1-12 ... the differences from Mark may be attributed to Matthean redaction."

The UPDV makes four changes to the compiler's form.

First, the introduction. The compiler has "Hear another parable" (Matt 21:33) — a transition that connects to the preceding parable of the two sons (21:28-32). Since the UPDV omits the two sons parable, "another" loses its referent. The UPDV substitutes "he spoke to them in parables," which follows Mark's phrasing at 12:1 (ἐν παραβολαῖς αὐτοῖς λαλεῖν, en parabolais autois lalein).

Second, the order of the son's death. The compiler has "they took him, and cast him forth out of the vineyard, and killed him" (Matt 21:39) — cast out first, then killed. Mark 12:8 has the reverse: "they took him, and killed him, and cast him forth out of the vineyard" — killed first, then cast out. The UPDV follows Mark's order: "And they took him, and killed him, and cast him forth out of the vineyard" (22:30). Evans explains that the compiler reversed Mark's sequence "to reflect Jesus' being taken out of the city of Jerusalem and then executed (cf. Heb 13:12, which says Jesus 'suffered outside the gate')." Luke independently made the same reversal (Luke 20:15), confirming this was a theologically motivated correction rather than a textual accident. Mark's order works at the story level: the murder followed by the casting out of the body — not even a decent burial — provides what Lane calls "the climax of iniquity demanded by the plot of the story." France notes that Mark "intends no more" at the story level than this vivid escalation. The UPDV restores Mark's order, preserving the parable's narrative logic over the compiler's allegorical adjustment.

Third, the question and answer about the vineyard's fate. The compiler has Jesus ask the question and his opponents answer — ironically pronouncing their own condemnation: "He will miserably destroy those miserable men, and will let out the vineyard to other husbandmen" (Matt 21:41). D&A describe this as the compiler making "the question ... posed to Jesus' opponents and they answer him," creating dramatic irony. Mark 12:9 has Jesus answer his own question: "What will the lord of the vineyard do? He will come and destroy the husbandmen, and will give the vineyard to others." France notes that Mark's form is closer to Isaiah 5:5-6, where the vineyard owner himself announces the judgment. The UPDV follows Mark: Jesus asks and answers (22:31-32).

Fourth, the stone quotation. The compiler introduces it with "Did you never read in the Scriptures" (Matt 21:42); Mark has "Have you not read even this Scripture" (Mark 12:10) — singular "scripture" rather than plural, referring specifically to Psalm 118:22-23. The UPDV follows Mark's singular form (22:33).

The UPDV omits the parable of the two sons (Matt 21:28-32) entirely. D&A observe that "the verses are from first to last permeated by Matthean vocabulary and style" and conclude: "a redactional origin is possible." The parable has no Markan or Lukan parallel, and D&A note that even if a dominical parable lies behind it, the compiler may have "reduced an oral composition to writing, wherefore the multitude of redactional features." Whether the parable is authentic M-tradition or the compiler's own composition, its omission follows the UPDV's consistent rule for M-material: without a Markan or Lukan parallel to verify its original documentary context, it cannot be placed in the reconstructed text. This is the same principle applied to the sermon expansions, the temple healings, and other M-blocks throughout the UPDV.

The UPDV also omits Matt 21:43 — "Therefore I say to you, The kingdom of God will be taken away from you, and will be given to a nation bringing forth its fruits." D&A are explicit: "This verse, without Markan parallel, is redactional." They note it "stands in tension with the parable, in which the issue is not production of fruit but who should profit from that fruit." The ἔθνος (ethnos, "nation") to whom the kingdom is given refers to "the church and/or its leaders," not the Gentiles specifically — D&A argue "if the Gentiles were in view, would we not expect the plural?" They reject the interpretation that this means ethnic replacement: "it is misguided to interpret the parable as though it concerns ethnic relations."

Matt 21:44 — "And he who falls on this stone will be broken to pieces: but on whomever it will fall, it will scatter him as dust" — is also absent. D&A regard this verse as a secondary interpolation into Matthew from Luke 20:18, noting it is "missing from D 33 it sys Ir Or Eus" (important early witnesses). NA28 prints it in brackets. The verse draws on Daniel 2:34, 44-45 and Isaiah 8:14-15, and represents early Christian exegetical elaboration of the Psalm 118 stone quotation rather than part of the original parable.

What the UPDV Removes from This Section

Matt 21:2 — revised: "a donkey tied, and a colt with her" reduced to "a colt tied." D&A: the compiler created two animals from a literalistic reading of Zechariah 9:9's Hebrew parallelism.
Matt 21:4-5 (formula quotation from Zechariah 9:9 / Isaiah 62:11): Omitted. D&A: "not spoken by Jesus but by the author."
Matt 21:9 — revised: "Hosanna to the Son of David" simplified to "Hosanna." D&A: "to the Son of David" is redactional, making the acclamation explicitly Christological.
Matt 21:10-11 (city stirred, "This is the prophet Jesus"): Replaced by Mark 11:11 (enters temple, looks around, leaves for Bethany). Restores the two-day chronology.
Matt 21:14-17 (temple healings, children's Hosanna, Psalm 8 citation): M material with no Markan or Lukan parallel, omitted. The UPDV's restoration of Mark's two-day chronology — where the temple cleansing is a brief prophetic action on day two, followed by departure (Mark 11:19) — leaves no space for the compiler's extended scene of Jesus healing the blind and lame in the temple courts. The compiler created time for these healings by collapsing the chronology into a single day.
Matt 21:19 — revised: "immediately the fig tree withered away" replaced by Mark 11:14's "and his disciples heard it." Restores the overnight withering and Mark's intercalation structure.
Matt 21:28-32 (parable of the two sons): Omitted. D&A: "permeated by Matthean vocabulary and style"; "a redactional origin is possible." Matt 21:32 ("John came to you in the way of righteousness, and you did not believe him, but the tax collectors and the prostitutes believed him") shares thematic overlap with Luke 7:29-30 (tax collectors accepted John, leaders rejected him), but the verbal correspondence is weak — different vocabulary, different structure — and the compiler inextricably embedded it as the moral conclusion to the M-parable. It is lost when the parable is dropped.
Matt 21:39 — revised: order changed from "cast out then killed" to Mark 12:8's "killed then cast out." Evans: the compiler reversed Mark's order to match Jesus' death outside Jerusalem.
Matt 21:40-41 — revised: the opponents' self-condemning answer replaced by Jesus answering his own question, following Mark 12:9.
Matt 21:43 (kingdom taken from you and given to a nation): Omitted. D&A: "redactional." No Markan parallel.
Matt 21:44 (falling stone): Omitted. D&A: secondary interpolation from Luke, absent from key early manuscripts.
Matt 21:45 — revised: "the chief priests and the Pharisees" simplified to "they."
Mark 11:17 — note: the UPDV retains the compiler's shorter form of the Isaiah 56:7 quotation, dropping Mark's "for all the nations" (πᾶσιν τοῖς ἔθνεσιν). Both the compiler and the UPDV omit this universalist phrase.

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.
Collins, Adela Yarbro. Mark: A Commentary. Hermeneia. Minneapolis: Fortress, 2007.
Brooks, James A. Mark. New American Commentary 23. Nashville: Broadman, 1991.