Another comment triggered teaching of a similar nature. The continuing theme is the messianic kingdom.
13:31 This incident followed the former one chronologically. Therefore it is probable that Jesus' words about Jews not entering the kingdom and Gentiles entering it had caused the Pharisees to gnash their teeth in anger against Him. Luke's presentation of the Pharisees has been consistently antagonistic, so it is reasonable to assume that their suggestion had a hidden motive. They wanted to scare Jesus into retreating rather than continuing on toward Jerusalem where Herod awaited Him.
Did Herod Antipas really want to kill Jesus? He kept trying to see Jesus (9:9), and when he finally did he was very glad for the opportunity hoping that Jesus would perform a miracle (23:8). However he proceeded to mock Jesus and to treat Him with contempt (23:11). It appears that the Pharisees were overstating Herod's hostility at this time. Their warning posed a temptation for Jesus to depart from His Father's will for Him, but He did not yield to it.
13:32-33 Jesus' reply to the Pharisees shows that He viewed them as Herod's messengers. They were as antagonistic to Him as they claimed Herod was. A fox is, of course, a proverbially dangerous and cunning animal that destroys and scavenges (cf. Lam. 5:17-18; Ezek. 13:4; 1 Enoch 89:10, 42-49, 55). In Jesus' day foxes were also insignificant animals (cf. Neh. 4:3; Song of Sol. 2:15). Jesus viewed Herod similarly.
Jesus explained that He would not run from Jerusalem but would continue moving toward it and ministering as usual as He went. He would reach Jerusalem in three days. This may have been a reference to three literal days. In this case it appears to refer to Jesus' second visit to Jerusalem rather than to His third and final visit.328This seems unlikely in view of Jesus' statement about visiting Jerusalem in verse 35. Probably this was an idiomatic expression indicating a relatively short, limited period (cf. Hos. 6:2).329In this case the days would refer to the time of present opportunity culminating in the end of that opportunity.330
Jesus spoke of the city as His goal because it would be in Jerusalem that He would reach the goal of His ministry, namely His passion. He acknowledged that He would die there. He viewed dying outside Jerusalem as inconsistent with the tradition of prophets who had died there at the hands of the Jews (1 Kings 18:4, 13; 19:10; Jer. 26:20-23; Neh. 9:26; cf. Acts 7:52). Jesus obviously did not mean that all the prophets died in Jerusalem. He meant that since Jerusalem had killed prophets it was appropriate for Him to die there too.
13:34-35 The double reference to Jerusalem, following as it does the name of the city at the end of verse 33, draws attention to it. It was the city of Jesus' destiny and the pathetic, unresponsive object of His love. Jesus' lament recalls Jeremiah's lamentation over Jerusalem's destruction by the Babylonians (cf. Jer. 12:7; 22:5; Lam.). The city was heading for a similar fate under the Romans for rejecting Jesus. The house left desolate is perhaps the temple (cf. 1 Kings 9:7-8), though this could be a reference to the nation as a whole, the city, or the Davidic dynasty.
"The great expectations in the birth narrative for the redemption of Israel and Jerusalem are not being realized in the anticipated way and with the anticipated fullness, because Jerusalem is failing to recognize the time of its visitation. The great expectations aroused at the beginning contribute to the tragic effect of this turn in the plot, for we feel the loss more keenly in contrast to these great hopes."331
The city would not see Jesus until the Triumphal Entry (Ps. 118:26; Luke 19:38; 23:41-50). However the final and true fulfillment of the prophecy of the people of Jerusalem hailing the arrival of their Messiah is still future (Matt. 23:39). Jesus gave two predictions of the fulfillment of Psalm 118:26. The one here was fulfilled at the Triumphal Entry. The second one that He gave after the Triumphal Entry (Matt. 23:39) will be fulfilled at the Second Coming.
Jesus' lament constituted a formal rejection of Israel for her rejection of her Messiah (cf. Matt. 23:37-39). Jesus used Jerusalem figuratively (i.e., in metonymy) for the whole nation. However, Jesus rejected her with a broken heart. He continued to offer Himself to the nation, but its fate was now irrevocable.
