I observed in reading the accounts of Jesus's Triumphal Entry into Jerusalem that Matthew and John both specifically refer to the colt of a donkey, as did Zechariah in his prophecy..(Zech. 9:9) Yet neither Mark nor Luke mention a donkey, referring to the animal only as a colt. I wondered if there was any specific reason for the reference to the donkey, and why two of the writers ignored it.
First let us look at the term "colt." It is technically applied to a male horse, whole, and under four years of age. It is also used in reference to the male foal of a donkey or a camel. So one reading Mark's account, for instance, might think "horse" or even "camel" either of which was used as a beast of burden. Yet I think it is significant that the animal was a donkey. Why?
There are numerous references to "chamor," donkey, in the scriptures. But here is an interesting fact that I did not learn in Sunday School. The Torah demands that the first-born male of mankind must be redeemed, that is the priest is entitled to him lest he is redeemed by way of sacrifice of a lamb or kid. The priest sacrifices the animal, and is entitled to certain portions as meat for himself. This mitzvah is common knowledge, but the mitzvah peter chamor is less well-known. Talmudic scholars insist that the first-born male offspring of the chamor must be redeemed! Now we know that a donkey is "unclean" according to the Torah, so what is going on here? Talmudic scholars teach that the sanctity was imputed to the donkey as a reward for providing transport for the goods of the Hebrews as they fled Egypt. Thus each first-born male belongs to God, represented by the Levitical order. This animal may not be used for anything whatsoever unless he is redeemed, "bought back" by the owner by way of trading in a kid or a lamb!
The details are intense and quite interesting, but too much for this blog post. Suffice it to say that when the peter chamor is completed, the sanctity of the animal is gone and thus he may now be used in the normal man/donkey relationship, i.e., as a beast of burden, or for leather, or hair, or whatever.
Now this is extremely odd in such a manner as to spark further curiosity, for this is the only instance in which sanctity disappears in redemption, for in all other cases, redemption imputes righteousness!
Well, talk to your friendly neighborhood kohen. You will probably confuse him, too.
So back to Jesus in Jerusalem. When Jesus told the disciples to inform anyone who questioned them that "The Lord has need of them," He was asserting his ownership, for an unredeemed colt of an ass belongs to the Lord! Jesus chose to ride into Jerusalem on the same beast that was instrumental in effecting freedom of the Hebrews from Egyptian captivity, and now chamor is carrying the Redeemer of all mankind into His city!
It's a beautiful thing!
Why did Luke and Mark elide this detail while the other writers included it? Fodder for another post. String Too Short to Tie: Gospel Writers and Colts (vanilla-ststt.blogspot.com)
Be blessed!
4 comments:
Really interesting. This is the kind of meat one can chew on- not the drivel we usually get at Bible Studies (sorry... I just feel that way)
Sharkey, happy that you found this interesting. I often preface such ramblings with "Here's something I did not learn in Sunday School" or some such. I guess I am attracted to the arcane, the little things that most writers seem not to notice.
was a statement he might have used to infer that his listeners knew stuff - even though it was likely they didn’t. Like me. I knew none of this.
Vee, not only was righteousness imputed to the donkey for its service in carrying the burdens of the Hebrew children out of Egypt, now the donkey in service to the Master carries the One laden with the sins of the world as He makes his journey to the cross for us.
Post a Comment