Matthew 20

Matthew 20:29-34

XV HEALED; SAVED; AND THE PARABLE OF THE POUNDS Harmony, pages 137-139 and Matthew 20:29-34; Mark 10:46-52; Luke 18:35-19:28.This section commences on page 137 of the Harmony. There are just seven things that I want to say about this miracle of the healing of Bartimeus:

1. This record has always given Bartimeus a lively place in the memory of each student of the Bible. The story takes hold of the imagination.

2. While our Lord healed a great many blind people, our Gospels specialize but three instances in the following order: (1) The healing of the blind man in Bethsaida recorded by Mark alone (Mark 8:22-26), found on page 89 of the Harmony; (2) the healing of the man born blind at Jerusalem as recorded in John 9, and found in the Harmony, page 108; and (3) this lesson on page 137 of the Harmony, recorded by Matthew, Mark, and Luke. And it is one of the greatest proofs of the inspiration of the Bible that when we take the three accounts and put them together in the form of a Harmony, a definite plan is just as evident in the combined narrative of the case as in the gradations of the single narratives. The same characteristic appears in the three restorations to life: (1) of the daughter of Jairus, (2) of the son of the widow of Nain, and (3) of Lazarus. So with other miracles; the combined narratives are graded in every case. Therefore in studying this miracle of the healing of blindness we must compare the first instance recorded, the one in Bethsaida, with the second instance recorded, the one in John 9, and this last instance, and we will be enabled by the comparison to notice the distinguishing features of the three miracles, which are very remarkable.

I have more than once recommended Trench’s book on miracles. If we take his book and carefully read in connection and in order these three instances of the healing of the blind, then Broadus on this last one in his commentary on Matthew, and Hovey on the one in John, we learn how to gather and correlate homiletic materials for a great sermon on Christ’s healing the blind. The books of Broadus and Hovey belong to “The American Commentary.”

3. The textual difficulties of this last case call for some explanation. These difficulties appear as follows: Matthew says, “Behold, two blind men sitting by the wayside;” Mark and Luke give just one, and give the surname. Matthew says, “And as they went out from Jericho,” and Luke says, “As he drew nigh unto Jericho.” There is no trouble at all about the first difficulty, that is, Matthew mentions that there were two and the others confine what they say to the principal one; there is no contradiction. In other words the histories of Mark and Luke do not contradict the statement by Matthew that there were two, unless they had said, “only one.”

4. In the other difficulty, Matthew and Mark saying it occurred as they went out from Jericho, and Luke saying that it was as they drew nigh to Jericho, and Luke saying that it was as they drew nigh to Jericho, there seems to be a plain contradiction of Scripture. The footnote in the Harmony gives the best explanation. It is clearly stated in that footnote and it is much more elaborated in the commentary on the passage by Dr. Broadus. The point is just this: The old Jericho was abandoned for a long time after the curse that was put upon it when the Israelites first entered into the land, but it was afterward partially rebuilt. Herod, the king living when Christ was born, built a new Jericho, and if we simply understand that Luke is referring to the new Jericho, and Matthew and Mark to the old Jericho, we have the explanation.

5. This beggar, or these two beggars, both ascribe to Jesus a messianic title: “Thou son of David.” It was the peculiar characteristic of the Messiah when he came that he was to be the son of David – sit on David’s throne – and that is why in the genealogies Matthew traces the descent of Jesus from David legally through Joseph, and Luke really through Mary, his mother. It had to be proved that he belonged to the royal family of David. Now these men ascribe that messianic title to him.

6. The next thing which I wish to explain is in Matthew 20:31 of Matthew’s account: “And the multitude rebuked them, that they should hold their peace.” The source, or ground, of that rebuke, has been explained in two ways, and the latter way is the more probable. The first is that the Pharisees in that multitude rebuked these suppliants for ascribing the messianic title to Jesus of Nazareth. It is more probable that the disciples did the rebuking because they did not like for Jesus to be constantly obtruded upon by the persistence of these beggars. In like manner, on an earlier occasion, they rebuked the persistence of the Syrophoenician woman: “Why trouble ye the Master?” And again they rebuked the bringing to him of little children that he might put his hands on them, bless them, and pray for them.

One of the strongest proofs of the divinity of Jesus Christ was his approachableness by all men at all times. He would not allow himself to be hedged against the approach of people to him who needed help.

A rich man like Mr. Rockefeller surrounds himself with guards and with clerks, so that it is impossible for anybody to have an interview with him unless he first designates his wish to have an interview, and the reason is that he hasn’t time, and that it isn’t possible for him to receive and hear everybody who desires to come and see him) especially when they want help, but Christ faces the whole world and says, “Come unto me, all ye that labor and are heavy laden, and I will give you rest,” and whether it was a Syrophoenician woman, or parents bringing little children, or blind beggars by the wayside, he would not have their approach or progress to him barred.

7. The last thing to which I wish to call attention in that miracle can be put forth in the form of a question. What thrilling song was based on a passage in this miracle? SAVED

Now, on the next section (p. 138 – Luke 19:1-28), I wish to say a few things about the case of Zaccheus. Zaccheus, like Bartimeus, strikes the imagination. In my childhood I heard a plantation Negro sing: Little Zaccheus climbed a tree, The Lord and Master for to ace.

I don’t remember the rest of the song, but it illustrates the hold of the Zaccheus story on the popular imagination. It suggests also a very valuable lesson, correcting the impression that only giants in body and strength can become masters in mind and knowledge. Big men physically are apt to look down somewhat, not only in body, but spiritually and mentally, upon men of low stature. I recall the poem in the old school book, McGuffey’s Third Reader: How big was Alexander, Pa, That people called him great? Was he so tall, like some steeple high, That while his feet were on the ground His hands could touch the sky?

We recall such men in this country as Alexander Stephens, and Stephen Arnold Douglas, the little giant, and many others of small stature who attained to great distinction. The great William of the house of Orange, the Duke of Luxemburg, General Roberts, a great British general, the Duke of Wellington, and even Louis XIV, were small men. I say that for the comfort of any one who is unable to measure up high physically as he may wish he could.

Here I ask a question: When Zaccheus says, “Behold, Lord, the half of my goods I give to the poor; and if I have wrongfully exacted aught of any man, I restore fourfold,” does that language express what had been his habit before this date, or does it express a purpose of what he will do since he has met Jesus? Does Zaccheus say that from the viewpoint of a man converted that day and expressive of what he intended to do in the future, or does he designate what had been his habit to justify himself of the censure upon him by the Pharisees? They said, “Here is a sinner and Jesus of Nazareth is going to abide with a sinner.” Now does Zaccheus reply, “However great a sinner I may have been, hereafter I intend to give half of my goods to the poor, and if I have wronged any man, to restore to him fourfold?” Or, “Though they call me a sinner, yet by my deeds have I proved that I am saved?”

The third observation on the case of Zaccheus is the expression, “Today is salvation come to this house.” I remember once when the president of Baylor University, in the long ago, took a number of the boys out to hear an Episcopal preacher. The Episcopal preacher took the position that there was no such thing as instantaneous conversion, intending to criticize the Methodists and Baptists upon that point – that conversion was the result merely of a long previous education. As we were walking away from the church Dr. Burleson says, “What about the case of Zaccheus? He was a sinner, and a lost sinner, when he climbed that tree. He was a saved man when he came down from the tree, for our Lord said, ‘To-day is salvation come to this house.’ "

I call attention to that fact because a great many preachers preach without directness and without expectation of immediate results. They think that if they will hold a meeting about nine days that on the tenth day they can get the iron so hot somebody will be converted, and they themselves have no faith in anybody being converted early in the meeting.

But great preachers expect immediate results. They are dissatisfied if somebody is not converted every time they preach. They feed their minds on that thought that God has present ability to save any man, and look for conversions. They believe that somebody will be converted that day. They pray that somebody will be converted that day:

The last thought on the Zaccheus case is what Christ said in the rebuke of the Pharisees: “He also is a son of Abraham.” They counted him, because a publican, an outcast, for the publican was a Jew, who would consent to collect taxes for the Roman government, and they were held as much in abomination by the Jews as the Southern people used to hold a scalawag, i.e., a Southerner who would take office under the oppressor of the people. So “scalawag” would be a pretty good modern translation of “publican.” Jesus says, “He shows that he is the son of Abraham.” “All are not Jews who are Jews outwardly, but only those that are Jews inwardly,” Paul says. Now this man is a Jew inwardly and outwardly; he is a fleshly and spiritual son of Abraham.

THE PARABLE OF THE POUNDSThe case of Zaccheus and what disposition he made of his money, for he was a rich man, suggested a parable. But the two reasons assigned for giving the parable of the pounds are these: “He spake a parable, because he was nigh to Jerusalem, and because they supposed that the kingdom of God was immediately to appear.” Oh, how many times did our Lord warn against the idea that the coming of Christ in his glorious kingdom was immediate! Instead of its being immediate, this nobleman goes away as Jesus went away when he ascended from the dead; went to receive his kingdom and administer it from his throne in heaven; only after a long time will he come back. Let us be clear on that. He will stay there until he has done the things for which he ascended to heaven, and then when he comes back he will come back for reasons of resurrection and judgment. He will make professed Christians give an account of their stewardship.

He will punish his enemies and there will not be an interval of time between his coming to reward his people and the punishment of the wicked, which the premillennialists continually affirm, but both will take place on the same occasion. This parable and a number of others make that as clear as the noonday sun.

One of the reasons for speaking this parable was because so many of them supposed that this glory kingdom would come immediately. A little later we will take up a parable pretty much on the same line as the parable of the pounds, called the parable of the talents, and the two ought always to be studied together, but there were special reasons for speaking the parable of the pounds, in this connection, and when we get to the parable of the talents I will show the points of distinction between the two. So far as this one goes, two classes of people are in his mind, as here represented in the parable, the going off of the nobleman or prince to receive a kingdom: the first one is the case of those who profess to be his disciples or his people; the second case is that of those who refuse to admit his sovereignty over them, that is, the wicked, the avowedly wicked, those who openly say Jesus Christ is neither my king, nor my ruler, nor my Saviour. It is the object of this parable to show what he does in the case of his servants as he goes off, and what he does in their case when he comes back, and then to show what he does with those citizens who say that he shall not reign over them. In the case of his professed servants they are represented as agents or stewards receiving a certain amount, and here the amount is equal, ten servants each one pound, and he says, “Trade ye herewith till I come.” If we profess to be Christians we acknowledge that we stand toward Christ in the relation of steward, and that what we have is given to us; that we may use it for the glory of God, and that when Jesus returns he will have a reckoning with us on that point; so that a Christian comes into judgment, not on a life and death matter, but he comes into judgment on his fidelity as a Christian. The parable shows that rewards will not be equal.

All saved people will not be rewarded alike: they are saved alike, but they are not rewarded alike. The difference in their rewards is based upon the degree of their fidelity.

If one man takes one pound and makes ten with it his reward is twice as great as the one who takes one pound and only makes five. That is clear. We often hear the question, “Are there degrees in heaven?” The answer to it is but another question, “Degrees of what?” If we ask, “Are there degrees of salvation?” The answer is, “No.” If we ask, “Are there degrees of rewards?” The answer is, “Yes.” That is evident. The servants are dealt with according to their profession, as church members are held accountable, without stopping to inquire whether they are rightfully church members. One of these servants took his pound and hid it in a napkin, and at the day of judgment he says, “Lord, here is your pound, just as you gave it to me. I rolled it up in a napkin and hid it.” Now to the man Jesus replies, “Thou wicked servant,” wicked because he has done no good with his opportunities, with his talents, with his money, with anything that he has had as a professed Christian. “Therefore,” says the Lord, “take away from that man his pound.

What good is it to him? Wrap it up in a rag and stick it in a hole.

He doesn’t use it for any good purpose.” As Cromwell said when he entered the British parliament and saw twelve silver images, “Whose are those images?” and the reply was, “They are the twelve apostles in silver.” “Well,” he says, “melt them down and put them into the coin of the realm and let them go about doing good like their name sakes.” An idea is expressed in this paradox, “Unto every one that hath shall be given, but from him that hath not, even that which he hath shall be taken away from him.”

There is an inexorable natural law, that an unused organ goes into bankruptcy and a used organ develops a greater power. An arm carried in a sling and unused for twelve months, loses its muscle power. So nature proves how may be taken away what one hath and to him that hath shall be given. The parable closes, “Howbeit these mine enemies, who would not that I should reign over them, bring hither and slay them before me.” The slaying of the enemies and the rewarding of the servants take place at his coming and not separated by a thousand years of time. As Paul says, he visits his righteous indignation upon his enemies when he appears to be admired in his people. The two are simultaneous.

1. What is the impress made by the story of Bartimeus?

2. What three instances of healing the blind specialized by the Gospels and what evidence of inspiration do they give?

3. What are the points of likeness and the points of contrast in these three instances?

4. What authors commended on these instances of Christ’s healing the blind and the special value of a study of them on these miracles?

5. What two textual difficulties here and what is the solution of each?

6. What title did these beggars ascribe to Jesus, what is its meaning and what is the bearing of this on the harmony of the genealogies of Christ?

7. What are the two explanations of Mat 20:31, which is preferable, and what other examples that illustrate this explanation?

8. What is one of the strongest proofs of the divinity of Christ and how contrasted with modern men of wealth and power?

9. What thrilling modern song is based on a passage in this miracle?

10. How has the incident of Zaccheus impressed the imagination and what is the couplet here given to illustrate?

11. What valuable lesson suggested by the fact that Zaccheus “was little of stature”? Quote the poem to illustrate.

12. Name seven men small in stature but great in mind.

13. What did Zaccheus mean by his saying in Luke 19:8?

14. What bearing has this incident on instantaneous conversion and what is the lesson here for the preacher?

15. What is the meaning of Christ’s saying, “He also is a son of Abraham,” and what is Paul’s teaching in point?

16. What parable suggested by the case of Zaccheus and what two reasons assigned for speaking the parable?

17. How does this parable warn against the idea that Christ’s coming in his glorious kingdom was immediate?

18. What other parable ought to be studied in connection with this one?

19. What two classes of people in the mind of Christ when he gave this parable and what is the object of the parable?

20. What do “servants” and “citizens” each represent in this parable?

21 What tremendous responsibility here shown to rest upon the professed servants of Christ and what is the bearings on rewards?

22. Who is represented in this parable by the man who buried his pound?

23. Give the illustration of the twelve apostles in silver.

24. What paradox in this parable and what the explanation?

25. What does this parable teach relative to the second coming of Christ and attendant events?