A Defense of Inerrancy

Sorry, but this post may be a little hard to follow. I’d still love comments from those who get through it though. :D

That the original manuscripts of the original authors of the Bible have been redacted/edited/tampered with (though that last one is misleading) - whatever you want to call it - is pretty well founded. The extent of the work of those later redactors can be questioned (and we must always temper it in the light of radical higher criticism) but it is difficult to demonstrate that redactors have not contributed to the final canonical form we have in our hands.

A quick example of redaction is when one looks at the “macro-structure” of the Old Testament (also known as “Canonical Redaction”). John Sailhamer (who is fervently Evangelical and advocate of inerrancy) argues that the original ending of the Pentateuch is Deut. 32:52 (see his “Introduction to Old Testament Theology, pp. 239-252). Deut. 33:1-34:12 would then be added by a later redactor; otherwise one has to believe Moses wrote about his death while at the same time ignoring much compositional evidence against that thesis. His arguments are indeed very compelling.

Sailhamer has also told my OT theo class about “Mr. Red-Fingers” who redacted the text. In fact, we can still discern the “seams” of his work today and come up with some conclusions. Apparently, these are a little difficult to determine because our canonical form is not what the Hebrews had. The following will presuppose this Hebrew canonical structure.

In any case, I’ve come up with an “Inerrancy Tetrad” to summarize what I’ve been thinking about for a long time. The way to picture the following four points is a triangle with a circle in the middle; the outside three points are Original Work, Affirmation, Canon (left, top, middle respectively) and the Redactor in the middle - all of them are connected to the other.

1) Revelation in acts and God’s revelation through the inspiration of human authors in the recording of those acts with a divine interpretation.

2) Affirmation by the spirit led community. Despite not knowing many of the real authors of many OT and NT books, that God’s community affirmed his writings as inspired and authoritative tells us much about the author. He may have already lived a life of genuine prophetic declarations through which the community was already “primed” to accept his writing.

3) Affirmation leading to the formation of the canon. The affirmation of those writings by the community led to the formation of the canon.

4) The work of the Redactor/Canonicler. Much of the work of the redactor and canonicler (who contributed to the final form of the canon) would have happened before the formation of the canon. That the community affirmed the redactor’s/canonicler’s work as inspired and authoritative tells us much about that person. That redactor/canonicler may have already lived a life of genuine prophetic declarations through which the community was already “primed” to accept his editing of the Word of God since he was inspired.

Thus, I propose two novel definitions of inerrancy that take into account the moderate higher criticism of the Bible that is accepted by most evangelical scholars. As of now, I favor the second but my whole thesis is very tentative in the first place.

1) Inerrancy - The Bible is true in all that it affirms, dependent on literary genre, as recorded in the original manuscripts prior to redaction of any sort (thus we have to “get back” to the original composition, which really is kind of impossible).

2) Inerrancy - The Bible is true in all that it affirms, dependent on literary genre, as recorded in the original manuscripts and the final canonical form simultaneously (thus there are two separate inspirations, in a sense, both of which are inerrant since God’s ability to reveal himself through human authors and language has not changed).

The presupposition here, as we all understand it, is then deduced from our understanding of the character of God who always speaks truth. He did not overpower the authors of the Bible so that they only wrote God’s words and not their own but adapted his revelation through human authors and human language, both of which he had prepared beforehand to reveal himself adequately. This modified definition of inerrancy seems to be the only way inerrancy can be reconciled with certain aspects of higher criticism in my mind.

Isn’t this all pretty circular though? Sort of, though it is not vicious if seen within the big picture. I’ve been considering many Christian arguments for inspiration, it seems a lot to me like the strict Presuppositionalism of Cornelius Van Til (unlike John Frame’s): impossible to falsify by definition. This does not seem a good approach to me because it also vindicates many other religions/worldviews. So in the case of “taking the Bible at its word” and conforming literary criticism to that, the argument can apply to the Qur’an, the Book of Mormon, the Vedas, etc. equally.

I think in the end, the only reason this all makes sense to me is because I take it as a cumulative case of other factors. Thus as Blomberg says, Christians go the way the bulk of the evidence was already pointing and do not fly against it. So we look at the ridiculous inaccuracies of the Book of Mormon and the Qur’an, many contradictions, etc., and compare it to the Bible’s explanatory force and accuracy and we are bewildered. Thus, within this framework and not taken on its own, inerrancy seems to be not only consistent but reasonable and probable.

Infallibility or Inerrancy?

I've been thinking about inerrancy for over a year and I still don't know what to think. I don't want to go into detail about the ins and outs of it but to share my reflections on what the position of infallibility, rather than inerrancy, does to a Christian.

For one, I don't think denying inerrancy is heresy as long as you affirm infallibility. As an infallibilist, you can still hold to the sin of humanity, the need for a savior, that the only true God sent his son to live a life of obedience we could never live and died for our sins to make us right with God, in the Trinity, in the character of God as described in Scripture, and basically all the foundational things needed for salvation (that's another can of worms in itself but let's leave it at that). I've been wondering: holding to infallibility and denying inerrancy would do very little to nothing at all to me as a Christian saved by grace. Sure, it changes hermeneutics a bit, but it doesn't make much of a difference in my relationship with God and my rudimentary understanding of his character.

Infallibility makes tons of things easier in the Bible, but one would never want to revert to it merely because of that reason - that would be called cowardice and laziness. No, I think at the very least the historicity of our faith and the basis of a cumulative case for our faith is sufficient for me to at least err on the side of infallibility.

Still, nothing is yet even near for sure until I at least read a couple books I have here that I've been wanting to read for a long time. I'll be done with them in a couple months, so until then, I've not much to say definitively. I have been encouraged by this thought however, seeing as the decision is no longer inerrancy versus "chuck out the whole system."

The Israel-Palestine Conflict

Here's the paper I just turned in yesterday super cut down to half its original text. Again, if anybody wants the full paper, email me at samuel.garcia@biola.edu. The first section is much longer than the last two.


The Nature of the Essential Problem

At the close of World War I, the doctrine of imperialism necessitated that control of Palestine by a foreign, European power. The ensuing British Mandate (1922-48), which had promised the Palestinians their own independent state in the Husayn-McMahon correspondence, also issued the Balfour Declaration advocating the establishment of an independent Jewish state in Palestine. The seeds of Jewish nationalism, however, find their source in the Austrian journalist Theodore Herzl who organized the first Zionist Congress in 1897 to promote Jewish immigration to Palestine.

Due to the complexities of the issue, the British decided to turn the issue over to the United Nations and in 1947 the U.N. announced its Partition Plan. This called for a two-state solution of independent Jewish and Palestinian states with Jerusalem and Bethlehem set aside as international zones. Though the Jews owned a mere six percent of the land, they were to be given 55 percent of Palestine for the Jewish state while the Palestinians, who vastly outnumbered them, were to receive only 45 percent.

The Arabs had no intention of giving Jews any land and gathered to decimate them hours after Israel declared independence in 1948. Against all odds, the fledgling nation of Israel overcame the armies of six Arab nations. Sixty percent of native Arab Palestinians (about 700,000 to 800,000) became refugees and Israel owned seventy-seven percent of Palestine, “one third more than it would have had if the Arabs had accepted the UN plan.”

Many other conflicts led to greater frustration and the floundering of various peace treaties. Of all these, the most important event was the Six-Day war of 1967 at the end of which Israel occupied the Sinai Peninsula, Jerusalem, the Gaza Strip, the West Bank, and the Syrian Golan Heights.

The Israelis have a number of concerns that form their presuppositional grid through which they filter every peace proposal. Many times, peace will be trumped by the overwhelming concern for security. It must be remembered that the nations (U.S. and Europe) closed their doors to the Jews during the “final solution” of Hitler’s Nazi regime in Germany, leaving Palestine as the only viable destination for many Jews.

Israel’s obsession with a guarantee of security is not unfounded. Terrorism abounds from fundamentalist Muslim groups such as Hamas and Islamic Jihad that strive to wipe the memory of Israel off the face of the earth.


Nevertheless, in the face of such opposition, Israel’s overwhelming use of force, occupation of foreign territory and complete disregard for the boundaries acknowledged by the international community, hoarding of water at the expense of the Palestinians, awful prison system and former extensive use of torture, construction of a security wall in Palestinian territory, and deprivation of basic human rights for refugees is not justified in the least. And instead of honoring the peace agreements, Israel made herself more comfortable in the West Bank and did nothing towards a peace resolution for six years. Such actions frustrate Palestinian communities beyond comprehension. Even when political leaders stand up for peace, they are assassinated (i.e. Yitshak Rabin, prime minister of Israel and Anwar Sadat, president of Egypt).


Many Palestinians contribute to the problem by endorsing terrorism that arises out of desperation out of so many years under occupation. Groups such as Hamas attempt to justify their actions by calling attention to Israel’s “state-sponsored terrorism” by which thousands innocent children and adults die every year as “collateral damage.” But “collateral damage” and the targeting of innocent civilians are surely worlds apart! Even when Palestinian frustration does not end in terrorism but in an intifada, Israel’s hand is forced to respond with tremendous military strength. Ultimately, Hamas, Islamic Jihad and other militant groups are impeding the peace process; it’s a circular pattern with both sides sharing the blame.

Realistic Steps in Peacemaking

Israel needs to honor what she has already pledged to do at Camp David by submitting itself to the U.N. Resolutions 242 and 338. It is a simple state of cognitive dissonance that Israel has signed many treaties agreeing to work toward a two-state solution but turns around to make impossible demands from the Palestinians as prerequisites to even talking about peace. Israeli security measures, such as the illegal construction of the security wall, must take place within Israeli territory for there to be any semblance of respect for the Palestinian people. Israel must also stop acting unilaterally as doing so complicates matters. For example, the Israeli “withdrawal” from Gaza led to a Palestinian economic disaster, “per capita income has decreased 40 percent during the last three years, and the poverty rate has reached 70 percent…with more than half of all Palestinian families eating only one meal a day.”

Palestinians yearn for an independent Palestinian state of their own with east Jerusalem as its capital. The secular moderate Fatah that led the PLO in peace talks has now been replaced by the fundamental Islamic party Hamas. Whereas Arafat and the PLO were willing to acknowledge the existence of Israel at the Oslo Accords in 1993 (and Israel mirrored the gesture), Hamas is fully committed to destroying Israel through terrorism. Palestinians have to understand that terrorism is only a major impediment to the peace process.

Hamas must acknowledge Israel’s right to exist if the Palestinian claim to be content with Israel’s return to the 1948 borders is to be taken seriously. This is not a prerequisite that Israel will, or should, fudge on. Benhorin reports that Hamas is calling on Israel to concede the Palestinian land before Hamas acknowledges Israel; afterwards, they may commence a permanent hudna, or cease-fire. The only way this stalemate will be broken is if one side takes a risk and the international community enforces justice. Who’s to say it shouldn’t be Israel who takes the first step? This is the “land for peace” principle in action that will lead to definitive movements towards peace.

What can Evangelical Christians do to contribute to a resolution?

The kind of staunch Dispensationalism espoused by the Trinity Broadcasting Network that is typical of so many Christian Zionists must be moderated. It is believed that the promises God made to Abraham concerning the land remain unconditional and that Israel is still entitled to receive it. So confident are the Christian Zionists of this interpretation of Scripture that they are unwittingly beginning to elevate their view of the Israeli-Palestinian conflict to the level of essential doctrine. By the way the issue of “blessing” Israel is spoken of in ultra conservative Christian circles one would almost believe it to be held onto more tenaciously than the doctrine of the Trinity!

Whether or not the promises made to Israel should still be in effect after the ministry of Jesus’ kingdom mission should not influence Christians to turn a blind eye to the plight of the Palestinians nor to oversimplify the issue. The same Christian Zionists who presumably rebuke their Christian brothers and sisters for any hint of immorality castigate others for attempting to correct Israel who “as far as the gospel is concerned…are enemies on your account; but as far as election is concerned…are loved on account of the patriarchs” (Rom. 11:28, NIV). Even more to the point, Christian Zionists are favoring a people who have rejected the Messiah and are currently practicing grave injustices while ignoring the predicament of Christian Palestinian brothers and sisters who have been disenfranchised.

Gary Burge argues that even if “the link to the biblical promise is the basis of Israeli nationhood, then modern Israel must be judged by the standards that the prophets applied to biblical Israel.” Micah 6:8 informs the believing community what God requires of Israel, “to do justice, and to love kindness, and to walk humbly before [their] God.” Submitting to his commandments and practicing justice in the land is so important to God that Israel would be vomited out of the land if they neglected to obey (Lev. 18:26-28; 20:22; cf. Deut. 16:20; Jer. 18:1-10). The demands of the land must not be forgotten in the current debate. The land was given to Israel is ultimately God’s land; Israel was the tenant (Lev. 25:23). Colin Chapman elucidates, “The gift of the land was not an end in itself, but a means to the end of enabling the revelation of God’s love to reach to the ends of the earth.” The current climate, however, is such that Palestinian Christian leaders and both Christian and secular relief organizations almost unanimously blame Israel for failing to establish peace and the preservation of human rights.


Disciples of Jesus must return to peacemaking initiatives so intimately tied to the heart of Jesus’ ministry. This cannot be emphasized enough. The Bible does not teach that God funnels peace through inert conduits of passivity, “…peacemaking must be understood holistically…[including] economic justice, human rights, defense of the ecostructure…[and] positive steps creating the conditions for well-being, and not only limits on war or protest against war.” Undoubtedly, many Christians are not called to immigrate to the Middle East and strive to make a difference there. They are still supposed to find a way to contribute to establishing peace in Palestine, including conversing with others and even voting for a president who will invest much towards a peaceful resolution.

Random Thoughts: Semantics

Ugh, I should be writing my paper on the Israel-Palestine conflict (will post a condensed version of it on here later) but instead am posting these very random thoughts that came to my head in class the other day.

Most of the people who were able to write on parchment or scrolls back in the day were wealthy (the money to buy parchment!) or had some sort of privileged access to write. The fact that they could read was already remarkable, but writing is another level.

Anyway, I was looking through BDAG (a sort of dictionary for the words used in the New Testament) and how it lists the range of a word used in antecedent and contemporary literature. What's interesting is how most of these writers are very educated. I think about the phenomena today across all cultures: words are not used the same way in every level of society. There's the unconscious meaning imported by specific subcultures to certain words and thus a different meaning, there's slang, etc. So depending on who's writing, there's a different flavor given to a certain word which is especially compounded when there is a large gap in the amount of education received.

So looking at the use of certain words only in the extant writings of ancient authors does not prove that we must limit the connotation of that word to those uses. The poor or middle class could have used and probably did use the word in a different way; a phenomenon that can still be seen in the world today. And this has a lot to do with those authors of the New Testament who came from a background of poverty. This doesn't make much of a difference in anything but are just random thoughts.

My main point though, is important: we see that in any case, context is the key to the translation of a word and has primacy over and above the connotation of any word by the external evidence of contemporary witnesses and any lexicon. We can point to BDAG and say, "hey it's usually used this way", and that's good evidence but not the final say. CONTEXT, CONTEXT, CONTEXT. This applies to determining the meaning of the flow of argumentation as well as to the meaning of a specific word.

How Egalitarian / Complementarian Are You?

I’ve devised this simple system (it's actually more complicated than it probably should be but "meh") to gauge where you fall. The first 3 sections can score from -3 to 3 each, the former being “very confident that the Egalitarian interpretation” is correct and the latter being “very confident that the Complementarian position is correct. “Zero” is completely neutral or so unsure you can’t pick a side in the least. Also, the last section counts less and can only range from -1 to 1 each. You are allowed to go in “.5” increments. Let me know your score!

Maximum Egalitarian score: -36
Maximum Complementarian score: 36
"Mr. and Mrs. Indecisiveness" score: 0

FOUNDATIONAL TEXTS (-3 to 3)
Genesis 1-3 → -3
Gal 3:28 → -1.5
1 Corinthians 7 → -1

MARRIAGE (-3 to 3)
Ephesians 5:21-33 → 2
Colossians 3:18-19 → 0
1 Peter 3:1-7 → 1
Titus 2:3-5 → -2

MINISTRY (-3 to 3)
1 Corinthians 11:3-15 → -0.5
1 Corinthians 14:34-35 → -2
1 Timothy 2:9-15 → -1

MISCELLANEOUS (-1 to 1)
Aquila and Priscilla (Acts 18:24-26)→ -1
Deborah and Barak (Judg. 4:4-10)→ -0.5
Phoebe, who is called a “deacon” (Rom. 16:1) → -1
Junia, who is called an “apostle” (Rom. 16:7) → -1
Proverbs 31 → -0.5
Huldah (2 Ki. 22:11-20) → -0.5

Post your score as "Wayne Grudem (#)" [he's a complementarian]

or "Gordon Fee (#)" [he's an egalitarian]

Sam's score --> Gordon Fee (-12.5)

Random Thoughts: Has the Church been "Chickified"?

I watched a youtube video a couple of days ago in which Mark Driscoll talks about how the church has been "chickified" and that we need a more "manly" ministry. He talks about how when he looks back in the Bible, he doesn't see little wimps but King David and other men who saddled up and slaughtered other people. These are "men," not the wussy pastors we see now, he says. The church has been fluffed up by female characteristics that eclipse the manliness of our church.

Hmmm....my first thought is: is this language even justified? I wonder how many women are turned off my simply hearing this? It doesn't seem necessary to me to speak in this manner. Secondly, is the epitomy of manliness David, Solomon, Zerubbabel, etc., or is it Adam and Jesus? What is the picture we are given of Adam? It is one of harmony in the garden and servanthood. And Jesus? God forbid he would actually let someone injure him and not strike back as a powerful warrior of the Davidic line!

Of course, I'm not saying that we should be passive (as if that is even a "female" characteristic in the first place). Jesus denounced the corruption of the elitists and so on, but the overall message of Jesus was that of peacemaking and loving in word and deed. It is true that our church has overly emphasized God's love (as if that's even possible) and neglected other aspects of his character (justice, wrath, jealousy, etc.; this would be, more accurately, the church's problem), but that doesn't mean that it has been "chickified" (!). What is trying to be said, that love is a quality only to be found in women? Are men to be stoics in church when they sing of God's amazing grace or are they able to weep as Jesus did (though for other reasons)? I can't see the logic of these kinds of statements in the least.

Matthew's use of Zechariah

So I just turned in my paper, and presented and defended it in class, yesterday and just thought I would share a heavily edited and chopped down version of it; what Mig calls "highly concentrated orange juice." If anybody is interested in the full paper, you can email me at samuel.garcia@biola.edu.

Matthew 21:5 from Zechariah 9:9

The OT Text in Its Context

The book of Zechariah was written in circa 520 B.C., within the first four years of the reign of Darius I, the king of Persia (1:1, 7; 7:1). This may only apply to “First Zechariah” however (chs. 1-8); current scholarly consensus regarding the date of “Second Zechariah” (chs. 9-14) places it during the Greek period. This sharp distinction between a “first” and “second” Zechariah is necessary since most scholars see a dramatic shift in vocabulary, style, and literary themes between chapters 1-8 and 9-14 which, they believe, are sufficient to call the unity of the book into question.

Zechariah desired to encourage the roughly fifty thousand Israelites who had returned from exile in Babylon in 538-537 B.C. After a zealous start in building the temple, the Israelites soon discontinued their work because of opposition. Thus, “the chief purpose of Zechariah…[is] to rebuke the people and motivate and encourage them to complete the rebuilding of the temple…though Zechariah was clearly interested in spiritual renewal as well.”

Chapter 9 follows this “victory” theme closely as Zechariah commences with God trampling down the traditional enemies of Israel as he descends from the north. These great cities, in all their magnificent splendor and eminent fame, would be laid waste before the Lord who “has roused himself from his holy dwelling” (2:13). Despite the heavy tone of judgment upon these nations, the text seems to imply the survival of a “remnant” out of the Philistines.

The tone of the oracle changes abruptly to a description of a human king entering Jerusalem whose rule is to be characterized by peace. Zechariah envisages all of Zion and Jerusalem (personified) receiving the procession of this king with overwhelming joy in the light of God’s provision for his children.

This king, however, is not riding in on a warhorse but is “humble and riding on a donkey.” In fact, it makes sense that the king is riding a donkey and not a warhorse since he is supposed to proclaim peace to the nations. The donkey stands as a symbol of a “deliberate rejection…of arrogant trust in human might, expressing subservience to the sovereignty of God.”

The conclusion of verse 9 clarifies that the human king will ride “on a colt, the foal of a donkey.” Zechariah is clearly utilizing synonymous parallelism in which “successive poetic lines dynamically strengthen, reinforce, and develop each other’s thought.” Thus, we can say with a fair amount of certainty that Zechariah visualizes the king only riding one animal.

In doing this, Zechariah may already have Genesis 49:10-11 in mind which describes a warlike descendant of the tribe of Judah (v. 8) but rather than building on this idea, Zechariah presents the reader with a humble king. The description of the coming king also bears a striking similarity to the Davidic king portrayed by the Psalmist (Ch. 72, see esp. v. 8). This implies that the coming king will be of the Davidic line and will therefore be a “son” to God like the Davidic kings before him. God was to establish his reign as a universal kingdom.

The rest of Zechariah describes how Israel will be empowered by God to vanquish her enemies but will, yet again, turn away from God and “pierce” him. They reject God himself, the Good Shepherd, and are led instead by evil shepherds (11:16). Ultimately, God will purify a remnant for himself and establish a peace on earth that will instill the fear of God in the hearts of all the nations.

All of this can be found solely in Deutero-Zechariah (9-14) and are positioned within the context of eschatological oracles. Because of this, it seems best to interpret Zechariah as expecting a future fulfillment of these revelations at the end times. Though the passage displays a paradoxical tone of victory and jubilee juxtaposed with military conflict and spiritual decay, it is certain that once the human king’s rule is firmly established, the world will finally be at peace.

The NT Text in Its Context

The Gospel of Matthew was most likely written sometimes during the 60s AD by the apostle Matthew, the former tax collector. The common thread that unites his work is that of the presence of the kingdom of God, which finds its climax as Jesus enters Jerusalem. Matthew’s use of the prophetic word in Zechariah at the “triumphal” entry will be analyzed after surveying the context of our passage.

The general context of Matthew 21:5 starts in Matthew 20:17, where Jesus reveals to his disciples that they will be traveling up to Jerusalem and that he would be crucified yet raised the third day. Matthew then focuses the reader’s attention on two events that take place while Jesus and his disciples make their way to Jerusalem: the request of the mother of the sons of Zebedee and the healing of the two blind men. The former shows the disciples misunderstanding of Jesus' mission; the latter, the acnkowledgment of his messiahship. Matthew then thrusts the reader into the moments right before Jesus’ “triumphal” entry. How will his people respond to his arrival?

Jesus instructs two of his disciples to bring him a female donkey and her colt for his entrance into Jerusalem. Of all the methods Jesus could have chosen to enter Jerusalem, he deliberately chose to go in a way that would generally remind some in the crowd following him of Zechariah 9:9; “this was a deliberate act of symbolic self-disclosure.”

Matthew cites Zechariah 9:9 before finishing the narrative. The quotation here seems to be a composite of Isaiah and Zechariah 9:9, the latter of which Matthew appears to utilize the Masoretic Text primarily and the Septuagint secondarily.

In any case, the two disciples whom Jesus sends to retrieve the animals spread their outer garments on the donkey and her colt. Because of the occasion, the garments would have to be draped over both of the animals (even if one wasn’t ridden) but Jesus is not required to have sat on both animals. Apparently, though the colt had never been ridden (Mark 11:2), it was at least old enough for this occasion. It might have been the case that his mother’s company was sufficient to calm the inexperienced colt who needed to be calmed in the great crowd.

It is apparent that Zechariah 9:9 employs the use of synonymous parallelism and thus describes the king’s riding one animal. Did Matthew mistreat this parallelism and turn the narrative into “something of a circus spectacle”? First, it seems that Matthew should be given the benefit of the doubt in quoting Old Testament sources involving synonymous parallelism since he was “quite comfortable with [it, this is] clear from its presence in the quoted material of Mt. 4:16; 8:17.” Matthew exhibits a profound understanding of the OT throughout his gospel, and this particular application of an OT text should not surprise biblical scholars since “Matthew has regularly seen fulfillment of prophecy where correspondence between OT and NT is not exact.”


The fact that Matthew alone among the Gospel writers writes about two animals when Zechariah speaks of one is still an irksome question however. The best explanation, that doesn’t simply wave the problem away, seems to be that of R. T. France,

"It seems likely that, aware that two animals had been present, [Matthew] enjoyed the fact that the wording of Zechariah’s oracle can be read as including both mother and foal, and so mentioned them both. That is not to say…that Matthew simply invented a second animal because his wooden reading of the Hebrew parallelism told him that it was needed. The author of this gospel was not ignorant of OT idiom, and would surely have recognized parallelism when he saw it. His mention of the second donkey is due rather to a typically Jewish interest in the form of the text, so that even though he knew it referred to only one animal, its wording nonetheless lent itself to the mention of the other."

Besides, it’s not like the female donkey actually fulfills anything since the MT of Zechariah 9:9 prophesied a male donkey (admittedly, the LXX is ambiguous). That Matthew’s translation is more literal than the LXX points to his use of the MT and thus, his knowledge of the donkey’s gender.

This text’s application to Jesus recalls and is similar to the imagery used of the king of Judah described in Genesis 49:11. There is an important difference however, “…the figure in Genesis ties up his mount in order to celebrate, but Jesus arranges for the mounts to be untied to carry him to his fate of suffering in the royal city.” One must not miss the tension that Matthew must have also experienced in citing Zechariah (and possibly Genesis implicitly): in approaching Jerusalem, Jesus is staring death in the face with the knowledge that it will temporarily overcome him on the cross.

The crowds seem to have made some sort of connection to Jesus’ arrival in Jerusalem and his royalty by laying their cloaks on the ground and even calling him the Son of David. In their fervor, however, the crowds overlooked the fact that Jesus was riding an animal that was “sometimes ridden by rulers in times of peace (Judg 5:10; 1 Kings 1:33; cf Rev 19:11).” Jesus had already provided the correct perspective of his kingdom when he described his mission to his disciples as one of radical service. Blomberg elaborates,

"[T]he subtleties in Zechariah’s narrative, which juxtaposes peacemaking with triumphing over Israel’s enemies are lost on the crowds. Their response…suggests that they are looking only for a triumphant, nationalistic, even militaristic king, whereas Jesus, at least during this advent, enters Jerusalem entirely peacefully, humbly, and willing to submit even to crucifixion…[this] is not the kind of salvation that Jerusalem is seeking here."

Instead of conforming to the crowd’s expectations, Jesus enters Jerusalem in judgment instead (Mat. 23). Zion was not rejoicing; Jerusalem was not jubilant. Instead, Matthew portrays the people as suspicious of Jesus and questioning his identity, not delighted. This sets the tone for the subsequent unbelief of Israel and God’s ensuing judgment.
After Jesus enters Jerusalem, he “cleanses” the temple – an act which is supposed to call people to repentance like the Old Testament prophets. He proclaims judgment on Israel through his action to the fig tree, the parable of the “disobedient” son, the parable of the vineyard, the parable of the wedding feast, and then denounces the leaders. The paradoxical conclusion is that Jerusalem was not able to rejoice because God came to them in judgment. Jesus had confounded expectations.

The Hermeneutical Principles

Now and Not Yet. The world is not yet at peace and all of God’s enemies have not been vanquished. This is the theology of “now and not yet” or inaugurated eschatology. To be sure, the evangelists only saw this two-part fulfillment of the Old Testament in hindsight.

The NT/OT Relationship

Prophetic Fulfillment. It is not easy to argue for prophetic fulfillment when most commentators make a convincing case that there are historical parallels in the intertestamental period that seem to coincide with Zechariah’s prophecies. For example, when Alexander the Great invaded Persia, he came down the same route described in the first eight verses of chapter nine and brought relative stability to the region. Furthermore, the rulers of other nations (the “evil shepherds”?) oppress the nation of Israel in ways that seem to fulfill their description in chapter 10 and 11. Finally, the Maccabean revolt seems to parallel the victory that was to be given to Israel when they overcame Greece (v. 13) and Judas Maccabeus was even greeted with palm branches and much exuberance when he entered Jerusalem.

I do not believe, however, that Zechariah 9:9-10 was fulfilled in any proper sense in that time period. Some Jews may have observed the historical landscape with keen insight and possibly thought that they were seeing the fulfillment of these and other prophecies, but it also seems likely that they would have been upset within months or even days. Judas Maccabeus was not “righteous” and “humble” in the sense described by Zechariah. Neither did he enter Jerusalem on a colt nor was his reign characterized by peace. Alexander the Great cohered with these expectations even less, being the incarnation of reliance on human might and pride. In neither of these cases do we see the return of all the exiles spoken of in Zechariah; “clearly [Zechariah] looks forward to a human agent acting on God’s behalf coming to Jerusalem, riding on a donkey, to reign as king and establish peace. Rightly understood, Jesus fulfills every one of those elements with his so-called triumphal entry into Jerusalem.” Finally, the internal evidence of Zechariah appears envelope the prophecy concerning the king in a largely eschatological context anyway.

Admittedly, Jesus’ fulfillment of these expectations is difficult and unexpected. Whereas Zechariah appears to have thought that the “day of the Lord” would penetrate this world in one fell swoop, the New Testament reveals to us that Jesus’ kingdom ministry was a partial fulfillment. Israel will be judged for their rejection of God and the Lord would find a remnant from among the Gentiles and the Jews.