When Jesus entered Jerusalem as YHWH returning to his temple (not simply as a prophet warning of YHWH’s coming: see the many previous posts on this issue)…

Even under your interpretation, Peter, the kingdom comes with Jesus’ death and resurrection and the outpouring of the Spirit at Pentecost, so there is still a prophetic and anticipatory aspect to the entry into Jerusalem. And if - as you say rightly - he proceeds to ‘enact judgment on the temple and its occupants’, then that is again a prophetic action that has reference to a future event, namely the destruction of Jerusalem and the temple in AD 70. We can adopt a high christology here and say that Jesus is God entering Jerusalem, but it surely still points forward to dramatic events and transformations that are yet to take place, including the removal of Caesar as king over Israel. And what about Jesus’ previous visits to Jerusalem - were they also YHWH returning to Zion? What makes this visit so significant is the prophetic form of the action, to understand which we have to read the Old Testament texts.

The fact that he goes to the temple rather than to the Antonia fortress does not contradict the argument that there is a political dimension to this whole event. It simply brings into view the fuller prophetic and thoroughly biblical narrative of judgment on the temple followed by judgment on the enemy of the people of God. It is not an accident that the Old Testament allusions that accompany the entry have in view God’s victory over foreign powers on behalf of oppressed Israel. They are not texts simply about internal matters: ‘I will stir up your sons, O Zion, against your sons, O Greece, and wield you like a warrior’s sword’ (Zech. 9:13). But Jesus’ point is that it is precisely by means of a renewal of the relationship to YHWH (symbolized by the temple and by the new temple in his body) that Israel would be ‘saved from our enemies, and from the hand of all who hate us’ (Lk. 1:71). You have to keep in mind that foreign hostility towards Israel is invariably interpreted both as judgment on the wicked and as oppression of the righteous.

I don’t think Danutz is entirely right, but he’s certainly not entirely wrong, and I think it rather unfair to attribute his reading of the entry into Jerusalem to a ‘personal agenda’.