This paper explores the Matthean version of the Triumphant Entry from a Nigerian postcolonial perspective. The methodology used is the exegesis of the passage using a Reader Response criticism to understand the contextual and typological contemporary meanings of the passage. The result showed that the colonial harbinger of the gospel message introduced a colonized gospel that robbed the people of the liberation they ought to experience through the gospel.
Although this passage focuses on Matthew’s rendering of the story, divergences with the other gospels are not too different. The immediate preceding and following stories are different for all the gospels but within the stories themselves, the differences are as follows. First is that only Matthew seems to suggest two animals: an ass and its young while the other gospels mention just an ass. Beare and Tasker suggest Matthew’s rendering to be an employment of Hebrew Parallelism where the second sentence is a repetition of the first in a slightly different way [
For this paper, Matthew’s account, for no special reason, would be used and other information from other gospels would be harnessed as needed.
Άπεστειλεν: The word from which we get “apostle” describes the mission of the two disciples. These two, like evangelists have been specifically sent on a special mission which means a lot to how we interpret Jesus’ identity and ministry. They were sent to the village opposite them. For the purposes of colonial and postcolonial readings, the word “village” (κωμη) becomes important. The Greek word κατεναντι rendered “opposite” could also mean “in the sight of”, that is the village that you can see over there. This is consistent with Jesus’ charge to be witnesses in “Jerusalem, Samaria, Judea and all parts of the world”. They were sent to their immediate neighbourhood.
“You will find”: Through Jesus’ foresight [
“A donkey that has been bound”: the Greek phraseology for the verb “to bind” here is the participle perfect passive feminine singular accusative form of the verb δεω. Interestingly the perfect in Greek has a different scope of meaning from the perfect in English. Daniel Wallace mentions succinctly that “The perfect is used less frequently than the present, aorist, future, or imperfect; when it is used, there is usually a deliberate choice on the part of the writer” [
The next action that follows, however, is that, Jesus says, using the aorist tense now. “At this particular instant you, loose the animals [
However, the act of liberation does not come without its obstacles. The authority by which the disciples loose the animals is subject to questioning. People asked, “Why are you loosing it?” (Lk 19: 31). An actual confrontation against the action of loosing was not recorded in Matthew but Mark and Luke records that some people in whose presence the disciples wanted to loose the colt actually questioned the disciples. Gratefully Jesus had already told the disciples what to say if such need arose. The disciples were to respond thus, “‘The Lord has need of them’, and immediately he will send them” (Mt 21: 3). This statement is to authorize or validate the authority of the disciples to loose the animals. When the appropriate authority, which is the Lord’s, backs up their action, the opposing party would have no choice than to immediately release the animals for the Lord’s use.
It must be noted further that the reason for loosing the animals is not and must not be divorced from the purpose for which they are loosed. It would make no sense to loosen the animals and ignore the purpose for which they are loosed. When the animals are loosed, Jesus said to bring them to him (Mt 21: 2). In addition, if anyone questions the disciples for loosing the animals, the disciples are to stand their ground saying that the Lord has need of the animals. In essence, the identity and status of Jesus in this action is not to be taken lightly. Jesus is the reason why they can be loosed; Jesus’ need is also the reason for which they are loosed.
But asides from the validation Jesus places on the disciples’ authority to loose the animals, Matthew endorses the action further by claiming that all this was done to fulfil an earlier prophecy found in Zechariah 9. This connection to Old Testament prophecy is found only in Matthew and is a characteristic of his gospel where only he in the gospels often makes connections with earlier Old Testament prophecies. Matthew’s gospel is “even more explicit about the fulfilment of Old Testament Prophecy” [
Then having brought the animals to Jesus, the disciples put their clothes on the animals and Jesus sat on them. Likewise the great multitude also spread their clothes on the floor for Jesus and the donkey to tread upon. This entry into Jerusalem plays upon the imagery of Alexander the Great coming into Jerusalem. Alexander had come on a war horse during a military campaign. The people feared that Alexander would destroy them but luckily for them, God had already told the prayerful High Priest at the time to dress in his priestly regalia to meet Alexander. Upon seeing the High Priest, Alexander got off his horse and bowed down. The people around wondered why Alexander bowed down to the High Priest but his response, Alexander’s, was that it was to the God who had ordained the High Priest that he bowed down because in his several battles, he saw the High Priest standing by him to fight and help him overcome in wars. Hence Alexander dealt peacefully with Jerusalem [
In comparison with Jesus [
One would have thought that the liberation Jesus brings to the donkey would be to set it free so that it is no longer a beast of burden. But Jesus uses the principle of demonic possession he mentions in Matthew 12: 43-45 that when an evil spirit is cast out of a person, the evil spirit becomes restless and wants to come back to possess that person. But when it comes back, finding it empty, the spirit comes with seven other more wicked spirits to live in such a person. In other words, having been freed from one demonic possession, one has to find another spirit, the Holy Spirit in this case, to take up that space or else the evil spirit would return. In a similar fashion, when this colt is relieved of a master, of a kind of possession, it needs to be repossessed by something else lest it goes back to the former state (or even a worse state than the one it was delivered from). This is to say that each person or nation must have something governing them; no human life can be empty without a master. So having released the donkey from its previous burden and bondage, Jesus sits on it as the new burden that it should bear.
By submitting itself to be used by Jesus, to be a Christopher [
Alongside the honour the donkey receives, Jesus too who had sat on it received praise. The proclamation of the multitude was indeed a political statement as to who they thought Jesus was and what he was going to do to alleviate their political oppression under the empire. There were people who further questioned Jesus’ identity saying “who is this?” But his identity was also further reinforced, “This is Jesus, the prophet from Nazareth of Galilee” (Mt 21: 10-11).
In the colonizer mentality, the African as the colt has been bound by its slavery to mundane, fetish, primitive ideas of worshipping stones, clay, iron, trees and rivers. Hence the colonizer came to civilize and liberate the African from its bondage as prophesied in Isaiah 49:6 that they will be a light to the Gentiles. But asides the need to be enlightened, just like how Jesus saw the animal not to be just a beast of burden but as an animal to be honoured, the colonizer has also spotted other potential in the African. The African could be an animal on whose backs the colonizer and slave master can sit and control, and in controlling, the colonizer can make fame and wealth for the colonizer. The Master’s mission to evangelise becomes an important entrée to these ulterior motives. Or perhaps it could have been that while evangelising, other economic opportunities which were not pre-planned opened up. Indeed, along with the colonizer came Christianity as a religion. Truly, “missionary propaganda from its inception was inextricably bound up with political considerations” [
The evangelists in the Bible context although go to Bethphage on the Master’s order to loose the colt; the colonizer goes on the Master’s order alongside their own personal interests. Like there was the certainty that the donkey was there waiting for Jesus, the colonizers also marched into Africa with pre-notions of a definitely bound, oppressed people from which nothing good could proceed without their (colonizer’s) help although there was no concrete evidence for this. Yet their rationale had to have its justifications. This led to terms like “the dark continent” to describe Africa. They were the primitive people of whom David Hume’s work on Miracles describes that “the testimony in favour of miracles [which is common among Africans] usually comes from uneducated people who have lived in far off places at time in ignorant and barbarous nations” [
Furthermore the colonizer’s presumptions, in the words of Olutayo and Omobowale, is that the colonial period was characterized by “the understanding of Africa was inhibited by four great denials, including the denial of history, the denial of science, the denial of poetry, and the denial of philosophy (including religious philosophy)” [
Moreover in the colonial phase, “To British officers and ambitious soldiers, the colonial wars opened great opportunities to rise in the service, become celebrities at home, and administer large areas and numbers of colonial subjects” [
After loosing the donkey, it was supposed to be brought to Jesus for Jesus alone to use. But in the colonial context, loosing the donkey from its previous owner led to the colonizer lording itself over the donkey together with Jesus making a double burden to bear. Those that would not allow the colonizer to ride on their backs were killed [
But what happened to the colonial donkey afterwards? The colonial masters used it. This led to continued indirect slavery, economic exploitation, religious bigotry, political destabilization among many other ills. The honour it was supposed to have by having Jesus on it was turned to horror because the colonial masters rode with Jesus on the donkeys’ backs. It is indeed not possible to serve both God and Mammon because when these big elephants fight, it is the grass underneath that suffers the most.
The characteristics of a natural donkey add a very interesting dimension to the aforementioned. The ones relevant to the current discussion are selected. Apart from being strong animals, and therefore used as beasts of burden, donkeys are also intelligent. They also cannot be forced to do something it considers unsafe [
The donkey willingly gave itself over to Jesus to be used for the master’s purpose. But it is not surprising that the colonial donkey did not blindly follow the colonizer since the colonizer’s purpose was unsafe and contrary to Jesus the master’s purpose. But the severe violence inflicted on the colonial donkey could not be resisted for too long. Their will to remain independent soon fell apart.
A question that has not been raised or answered is the aftermath of the donkey after the Triumphant Entry. Did it go back to its former owner? Or the disciples kept it afterwards? Or did it wander away? The answer is not certain. But the aftermath of the colonial donkey is readily obvious to everyone. The divide and rule, and violent methods of the colonial rulers are described by Toyin Falola as the following, “British rule created a government that could not be trusted. The lack of trust became mutual: colonial officers did not trust the citizens they governed. The successive Nigerian governments that followed the colonial government have adopted a similar approach. Violence continues to mediate the relationship between the rulers and their subjects” [
But to lay blame on the colonial enterprise for present dilemmas would be a greater mistake. As Grundy says, “To blame the colonialist powers for Africa’s underdevelopment suffers, objectively, from the weaknesses of most monocausal theories” [
The next steps we need to take therefore could as well be what Jesus does next in Matthew’s gospel, “The Cleansing of the Temple” [
However, this calamity (present or future) that would befall them however still was not an excuse for Jesus not to do something about the present. The temple that was corrupted still had to be cleansed, at least while Jesus was there. So after recognising the problems with them, Jesus goes to the temple and begins to rectify them, using words and actions to effect change. He also teaches and heals them (Mt 21: 14).
In the Nigerian context, Peter Cunliffe-Jones has this to say about the interim government of President Jonathan after President Yar’Adua’s demise, “To many outside the country, the uncertainty caused by Yar’Adua’s collapse was alarming; the sign of a country once more on the verge of breaking apart. To me, the way the situation had been handled-peacefully, with a transfer of power without resort to violence and following popular pressure-was an encouraging sign”. The same, perhaps, can be said of the March 2015 elections. In the light of this hope, it is time to regain the glory for the once-colonized donkey and transform it to a Jesus-only donkey, from a burden bearer to an only Christ bearing donkey.
So far, this paper has tried to exegete the triumphant entry its own context as well as a postcolonial Nigerian context. The former exegesis concentrated on key points on the status of the donkey, the nature of the evangelists, the purpose and outcome of loosing the donkey. The latter exegesis also looked at these same points with reference to colonialism. Although a donkey is a beast of burden, Jesus made it eligible for honour only if he was to sit on it. When other masters like colonial masters sit on the donkey alongside Jesus, the donkey can only experience horror.
In its own context, we have seen how the fate of a donkey was changed from a beast of burden to a honourable donkey by surrendering itself to a new master, Jesus. We have also seen how in our postcolonial context, the fate of Nigerians as a donkey has been rendered more miserable because it surrenders to two masters, Jesus and the Colonizer. Although Jesus had said, “Come unto me all you that labour and are heavy laden and I will give you rest. Take my yoke upon you and learn of me; for I am meek and lowly in heart; and you will find rest for your souls. For my yoke is easy and my burden is light” (Mt 11: 28-30), we had not experienced such rest. As a result, the conclusion in this paper has been to learn from the donkey’s fate in the Triumphant Entry. We are to drive out the illegal masters and make Jesus the one and only true master. Yes, we must make sure that it is only the Jesus burden that we allow our backs carry as it is the one that comes with honour. All other burdens must be rejected; they must be shaken off, especially the colonizer’s burden.
Adegbite Deborah Doyinsola,Adegbite Olusola Deborah, (2015) A Postcolonial Reading of the Triumphant Entry. Open Access Library Journal,02,1-6. doi: 10.4236/oalib.1101567