Matthew 11
OGCCHAPTER ELEVEN OUTLINES Section 24
JESUS RECEIVES QUESTIONS FROM JOHN AND PREACHES SERMON ON JOHN (11:2-19)
Section 25
JESUS CONDEMNS UNBELIEVING CITIES AND INVITES BABES TO COME TO HIM (11:20-30)
STUDY OUTLINES
I.
Challenging the Christ to Change (Matthew 11:2-3)
II.
Christ Convinces and Cautions His Captive Comrade (Matthew 11:4-6)
III.
Christ’s Charitable Commendation of the Conscientious Champion (Matthew 11:7-11)
A.
A Changeling’s Character? (Matthew 11:7)
B.
A Courtier’s Costume? (Matthew 11:8)
C.
A Colossal Communicator! (Matthew 11:9-11)
IV.
Christ’s Conclusions Concerning the Kingdom (Matthew 11:12-15)
V.
Christ Condemns the Contrary Critics Contemptuous Caricatures (Matthew 11:16-19)
A.
A Cameo (Matthew 11:16-17)
B.
A Contrast in Caricatures (Matthew 11:18-19)
C.
A Confident Conclusion (Matthew 11:19 b)
VI.
Heartbroken Condemnation (Matthew 11:20-24)
Invincible Unbelief
A.
Impenitence=Unbelief (Matthew 11:20)
B.
Opportunity=Responsibility (Matthew 11:21-24)
VII.
Heaven’s King (Matthew 11:25-27)
Unconquerable Submission
A.
Joyous Thanksgiving (Matthew 11:25-26)
B.
Majestic Self-revelation (Matthew 11:27)
VIII.
Heart-felt Compassion (Matthew 11:28-30)
Pleading, Universal Invitation
SPECIAL STUDY: SHOULD JESUS DRINK WINE?
Without hesitation many Christians respond in the negative without examining the reasons for their conclusion. If pushed for a reason, they might reply, The Bible forbids its use. To this a skeptic might raise the challenge: Always? Unconditionally? At this point the teetotaler might object, But Jesus is my example, and I KNOW that. He would not drink. For me, His example is conclusive. But is the presupposition on which this conclusion is drawn a correct one? That is, is it true that Jesus would not drink? Instead of supposing what a person might or might not have done, is it not better to ask the person himself, to learn what his practice really was? Why not ask Jesus, Lord, what is your personal practice regarding wine? How does your practice compare with that of your contemporaries, or how does it differ?
To this, Jesus made reply: John the Baptist came eating no bread and drinking no wine; and you say, -He has an evil spirit.-’ The Son of man has come eating and drinking, and you say, -Look! A greedy fellow and a drinker, a friend of tax-collectors and sinners.-’ Yet wisdom is proved right by all her children. (Luke 7:33-35)
The life-style of Jesus revealed in this text is probably quite different from that expected of Him by ascetics of every age. Yet what this text actually says proves that their desire to use the Son of man as a champion for the cause of total abstinence on the question of alcohol is based on other considerations and not on the example of Jesus. Note the importance of this text as it relates to this question:
Jesus affirmed that He normally and habitually drank wine. This is not a conclusion drawn by scholars or the consensus of critics, but the unabashed statement of the Lord Himself as He comments on His own way of life. The question at issue in this context is the immediate contrast between the fundamental wisdom behind the way of life practiced by John the Baptist and Jesus, and the fundamental folly of those who perversely refused to accept the life, message, ministry and mission of either. However, it is worthy of note that Jesus did not change His life-style merely because it laid Him open to the criticism of being a glutton and a wine-bibber, a friend of publicans and sinners.
Jesus affirmed that He habitually drank wine and said so in a context where His meaning is clear, His practice being sharply contrasted with that of the abstainers on the one hand, and that of the drunkards on the other.
a.
Jesus was not an abstainer, as evidenced by the contrast with the life-long habits of John the Baptist whose wellknown asceticism was common knowledge and the basis for the baseless criticism of him by fickle people.
b.
Jesus was no drunkard or glutton, since He Himself borrows these slanders from the mouth of His detractors, not from those who objectively try to describe His real manner of life. His matchless life and sinless character unmask these vilifications for what they are.
c.
Therefore, Jesus-’ practice, by His own statement, clarified by His stated antitheses, stands exactly halfway between both extremes. His is neither the teetotaler’s abstinence nor the drunkard’s excess, but the moderate’s evenness of balance in all things.
Jesus affirmed that He habitually drank wine, saying so to a people accustomed to think of wine as a blessing.
a.
That the Jews knew wine and other strong drink to be a dangerous curse, goes without saying, as many texts testify. (Cf. Proverbs 20:1; Proverbs 21:17; Proverbs 23:10; Proverbs 23:21; Proverbs 23:29-35, etc.)
b.
But the Jews knew wine to be the generous blessing from the Lord. (Genesis 27:28; Psalms 104:15; Isaiah 55:1; Hosea 2:8-9; Hosea 2:22; Joe 2:19-24; Amos 9:13-14)
(1)
They spoke of bread and wine as the staple articles of diet. (Genesis 27:25; Genesis 27:37; Deuteronomy 11:14; Numbers 6:20; Judges 19:19-21; 2 Samuel 16:1-2; 2 Chronicles 11:11, etc.)
(2)
Consequently, they were required to put wine on the grocery list of provisions for the priesthood (Numbers 18:12; Deuteronomy 18:4; 1 Chronicles 9:29, etc.)
(3)
Wine appeared as a normal expression of ordinary hospitality. (Genesis 14:18; Judges 19:19-21; 1 Samuel 16:20; 1 Samuel 25:18; 1 Chronicles 12:40; John 2:3-10)
(4)
Wine was commanded as a drink offering to God (Exodus 29:40; Leviticus 23:13; Numbers 15:5; Numbers 15:7; Numbers 15:10), probably because it was in common use and therefore had practical value to the Jews. This made it a proper thing that could be offered in sacrifice to God.
(5)
Wine was consumed by the Israelites even at their religious festivals. (Deuteronomy 14:22-26; Deuteronomy 12:17-18; Isaiah 62:8-9)
(6)
The Jews knew of its value as an anesthetic (Proverbs 31:6-7; Luke 10:34) as well as its necessity in case of bad water or stomach infirmities (1 Timothy 5:23)
c.
So, for Jesus to confess to eating bread and drinking wine to a Jewish audience, is no more than to confess to living a quite normal life. As an accurate reading of the circumstances in this text (Luke 7:33-35 and Matthew 11:18-19) will show, it was this very normalness about Jesus-’ conduct that drew fire from the cynics. In collision with the popular view as to what a holy man should be, Jesus wore no hair shirt, fasted so secretly that no one ever knew about it (if He ever did), ate common food, drank common drink and made no extraordinary effort to let His real holiness appear in a superficial manner. But His real character was so well attested, that He did not need to dignify the accusation of being a winebibber and a glutton by even bothering to answer it. The facts people knew about His life spoke for themselves.
So, the real question is not Should Jesus drink wine? as our tongue-in-cheek title would have it, for, as a matter of fact, He did. But this is not the point to be discussed with the modern Christian, disturbed by the excess in certain areas surrounding the use of wine or other forms of alcohol. The question is really Should a Christian follow his Lord’s example in drinking wine today?
Although the apostolic doctrine is replete with stern denunciations of drunkenness wherein is riot and excess, yet the Apostles do not enjoin unconditional and perpetual abstinence as the way around over-indulgence. Theirs too is the route of habitual moderation in all things (1 Corinthians 9:25), since they are suspicious of any doctrine that promotes rigor of devotion, self-abasement and severity to the body through negative regulations that God did not give. Such prohibitions might have an appearance of wisdom, but ate of no value in checking the indulgence of the flesh. (Colossians 2:16-23)
Beyond his dispraising of drunkenness and other forms of excess connected with the attitudes and activities under the influence of alcohol, the Apostle Paul, for instance, can find no rational basis for abstaining either from meat or wine in normal practice, since he knows that all God’s gifts (the context is food) are to be received with thanksgiving. (1 Timothy 4:1-5) However, under special circumstances Paul could conceivably dispense with ANY given food, for instance, if it caused a brother to stumble. (Romans 14:21) But contextually, it is obvious that the Apostle viewed this abstinence only as necessary in reference to the weaker Christian who had some scruple against that particular food. (See Romans 14:1 to Romans 15:7; 1 Corinthians 6:12-20; 1 Corinthians 8 all; Matthew 10:23-33) This is a necessary conclusion, since Paul could delineate no objective or absolute principle whereby wine or any food should be proscribed under any and all circumstances.
Further, in seeking qualified personnel for the highest tasks in the Church, the Apostle demanded that no excessive drinkers be tolerated in the eldership or in the diaconate. (1 Timothy 3:3; 1 Timothy 3:8; Titus 1:7) In giving directions for producing Christlike piety in the Church, he only urges Titus (Matthew 2:3) to bid older women not to be slaves to drink. However, in neither case does he suggest abstinence as a necessary quality. Rather, when he felt called upon to give his advice to a young abstainer, Paul counselled Timothy specifically in favor of wine, as opposed to water. (1 Timothy 5:23)
Should Jesus Drink Wine? may be an amusing question, but it will stand for serious reflection. Jesus was a Jew living in first-century Palestine. Out of proper moral consideration for the needs and views of His people, He ate and drank the food common to His people. It is a fair question whether He would follow His first-century practice while living, say, among twentieth-century Americans, whose history and attitudes toward alcohol may well be quite different than that of first-century Jews. But here it may be objected that twentieth-century Americans may need instruction by the Son of God, so that their (mistaken?) conscience be edified, i.e. formed along entirely different lines.
WHEN IN ROME, DO AS THE ROMANS?
Lest some, caught up in the confusing currents of a relativistic age and maddened by the spineless morality of situation ethics, mistake this position taken here to be the same drivel, let it be vigorously denied that situation ethics has anything to do with Christianity. The assertions made earlier that Jesus did in fact drink wine in His own situation in the first century, primarily because He chose to conform His practice with that of His own people, the Jews, cannot be construed in any fashion to justify the character-rotting influence of that immorality passing under the current name of situation ethics. Situation ethics, as I understand the phrase in its popular use, refers to a life guided by NO ABSOLUTE moral principle. There is no absolute morality, that is, except for the pervasive rule of thumb that each situation must be dealt with as a separate entity without any necessary reference to any other situation. According to its various practitioners, each moral decision must be made without reference to the (im)moral standard of reference of the individuals involved, be it hedonism, opportunism or whatever.
There is a chasmic contrast between this view of ethical decisions and that practiced by Jesus of Nazareth and expected of His disciples. Whereas situation ethics has no fixed code of absolutes within the sphere of which ethical judgments are made, Christ’s doctrine proclaims a rigid standard of inflexible righteousness. This standard outlines clearly what is meant by drunkenness, fornication, theft, lying, etc. By forbidding these and commanding their ethical opposites, i.e. temperance, purity, integrity, etc., Jesus unveiled a code of absolutes as demanding as the very character of God Himself! (See Jesus-’ Purpose For Preaching This Sermon, notes on the Sermon on the Mount, Vol. I, 188ff.) What is NOT spelled out in regard to these standards is how they are to be applied in every case. To a certain degree every situation faced by Jesus-’ disciple will be different from every other. So, instead of writing new rules of conduct for each new situation, Jesus placed into the hands of His disciple a few simple directives by which he may decide how to act ethically in each situation. (There directives may be gleaned from great blocks of Scripture on this subject, such as Romans 14:1 to Romans 15:7; 1 Corinthians 6:12-20; chap. 8; Matthew 10:23-33; Matthew 16:14; 1 John 3, etc.)
Thus it is that the Christ and His disciples are armed, not with some self-seeking, self-serving philosophy, but girded with the revelations of the living God in an enlightened conscience, face each situation and decide what each must do (1) to please the Father, and (2) to serve his fellow man best in that situation, and (3) what will achieve his own highest goal. Now to return: should Jesus (or His disciple) drink wine? But to ask this question is to see another: what other moral considerations were weighed into His decision which brought Him to act as He did in that given situation? If we fail to see these, we should badly interpret why He pursued that course, and, as a natural consequence, we would misapply His example in our own period. He drank wine in an age that knew no automobiles racing along a narrow ribbon of concrete within a cubit of oncoming traffic. He drank wine in a society not yet pressed for time, where the need for ready reflexes to operate fast-moving machinery was small. He lived in an age that moved in terms of the sun, not the timeclock. His was an era of walkers, not riders, to whom sedentary living was less a problem. But He also lived in an age as profligate as any other, an age that sought its amusements in the arms of Bacchus, an age when many a party devolved into revelry. Even so, Jesus could trace a clear line of godly conduct between asceticism and excess. In our own highly industrialized machine age, common sense considerations of safety may cause the Lord to counsel against alcohol in any situation where consideration for others and one’s own safety is compromised by slower reflexes. In light of Jesus-’ practice, another interesting, if unsolvable, puzzle is the question why the Lord did not concern Himself greatly with the long-term effect of alcohol on the brain about which modern research has so much to say. Is it possible that Jesus-’ answer to this query might be: Do not drink to excess, and you need not fear the adverse effects of alcohol on your brain? After all, is not His practice somewhat indicative of the conclusion that a moderate use of alcohol by a God-oriented man need not fear long-range negative effects on any part of his body, presuming that this man eats, sleeps and exercises normally? Or to state the problem differently, would not Jesus, Revealer of God and Creator of man, surely have revealed something of the lethal danger of drinking what is held to be a poison? Is it too much to argue that His silence on the subject and His personal practice, taken together, argue that our body chemistry can absorb and profitably use a certain amount of alcohol?
IS ALCOHOLISM A SICKNESS?
Another ramification of the conclusion that Jesus Himself drank wine, though never to excess (a conclusion drawn from His unanswerable denunciation of drunkenness as sin and from His own unimpeachable character, John 8:46; Hebrews 4:15), is the dilemma: should we consider the alcoholic a sinner or a sick man? To put the question in other terms: did Jesus escape alcoholism by righteousness (moderation), by maintaining a healthy body, or both?
While modern research has tended to demonstrate the direct connection between long-term embibing and many mental and physical debilities, sicknesses to which both psychological and medical cures must be applied, what is the meaning of the statement: The alcoholic is a sick man? This declaration, while declaring an objective reality, is often made with emotional overtones that suggest that the alcoholic can no more be charged with the responsibility for his condition than would a child suffering from measles. On the other hand, some religionists talk as if the alcoholic could be transformed into a proper citizen simply by immediate and permanent swearing off of alcohol, without any recourse to medical or psychological help to repair the damage that has been done to his body, mind, life, as if correcting the alcoholic’s responsibility for his weakened condition were the whole of his rehabilitation. Before we hasten to decide whether the alcoholic is either a sick or a sinful man, let us remember that some dilemmas are badly stated, including this one. There is a third alternative: the alcoholic may be both a sick and a sinful man. His sin has made him a sick man. Forgiveness of his sin will not make him a well man. Making him a well man in body and mind, insofar as modern science is able to effect this, will not make him acceptable to God. He must be both saved and healed. His rehabilitation in both these respects may require much time and may witness many set-backs, but it must take place in both areas, i.e. healing of the body and purifying the conscience and reinforcing the will, if the whole man is to be brought back to normalcy.
There is one sad, tragic fact that may face the alcoholic which, repent as he might, he cannot change: damage to his body as the natural consequence of alcohol’s ruinous effects. A man may repent a thousand times of his carelessness in handling a power saw, but his tears and his undoubted change for the good cannot give him back his right arm sawn away in the accident. If this analogy applies to the alcoholic in any way, it becomes a stern warning to any who drink, that alcohol is capable of bringing upon him a blight that no amount of repentance can correct.
Numerous are the instances where Jesus performed this very healing of both body and soul by curing the body and forgiving the sin. He not only purified the conscience but also provided the Gospel whereby the whole man can be transformed into a strong, stable character. What is most remarkable is that Jesus held all sinners responsible for the mess into which they get themselves (Cf. John 5:14; Matthew 12:45), especially drunkards (Luke 21:34; Romans 13:13; 1 Corinthians 5:11; Galatians 5:21; Ephesians 5:18). Accordingly, if people were merely sick due to some physical weakness related to causes not dependent upon their choice, then, presumably, Jesus could not justly hold them responsible for the bad results of their actions. So, the fact that He judges men responsible for their drunkenness, lays the charge for failure, not merely upon constitutional weaknesses, but upon the quality of the heart of the individual. Rather than become a scientist or a doctor to heal all mankind by giving out useful remedies or advice on physical health, He dealt with man’s fundamental problem: his relation with God and man. If THIS problem be not solved, physical or mental healing if only to live a few more years in constant danger of being corrupted again, solves nothing.
HOW DID JESUS ESCAPE BECOMING AN ALCOHOLIC?
As completely out of place as this query may seem, yet to answer it may lead us to grasp something of the answer to our other question, Should Jesus-’ disciple drink wine? How is it possible to harmonize the potentially catastrophic danger that alcohol represents both to the individual and to society, with Jesus-’ practice of taking wine? The secret lies in being guided by all the moral directives that prompted Jesus. By taking His view of the world, by having a conscience molded by the will of God and by showing the same forthright obedience to the Father as did He, by knowing no other dependence than upon the daily provision of the Father, one will be pleased to learn that he is not troubled by those diseases that excess and indulgence bring in their wake.
EXPOSITORY SERMON CHAPTER ELEVEN LOOKING FOR ANOTHER CHRIST
Introduction:
WHY look for another Christ? Because some are disappointed in the Christ given to us! This is not so surprising in light of the experiences of the people described in this chapter:
I.
THE PERPLEXITY OF THE LOYAL-HEARTED (Matthew 11:2-15)
A.
John the Baptist: If you are really the Messiah, how is it that the world goes on more or less as before, as if you had never come?
This is the statement in other words of the problem of pain and evil: Why does not God DO something about evil in the world, especially about the wicked themselves?
It is similar to the question stabbing the conscience of our age: If you are really the Church of the living God, if you really proclaim a Gospel of salvation and moral transformation that really works, why have you not done more to eliminate evil and initiate a practical demonstration of the rule and love of God on earth? Our age just cannot ignore 2000 years of bad church history with its failures, corruptions and misrepresentations of Jesus.
As with all expressions of the problem of evil, these questions reveal an ignorance and a misapprehension of God’s plans.
a.
In the patient, merciful ministry of Jesus, God WAS doing a great deal about the injustices in the world.
b.
Human intellect had failed to decipher the designs of God.
John’s personal problem was the disproportional exaltation of Jesus-’ divine office as Judge, to the detriment of His merciful human ministry as the Son of man come to seek and save the lost.
a.
The Law, Prophets and John had prepared Israel for the glorious coming of the King.
b.
Jesus had come but apparently nothing was happening that would square with John’s understanding of the coming Christ.
c.
In desperation, John cries out: Are you the coming One?
But John’s faith in the Lord brought him to no other source for answers to his dilemma.
B.
Jesus-’ answer: He appreciated the honest perplexity of His loyal prophet. He corrected His understanding and vindicated him completely. Notice the correction (Matthew 11:6): Tell John that although human intellect has failed to give him complete understanding of his problem, his intellect must submit to the wisdom of my methods and results. If his intellect judges my way not to be the best, it must see what I am accomplishing, even if it means turning his back upon his prejudices about what I should be doing. John must be content to say, -God’s methods are against my wisdom: I cannot understand why He does what He does, but I follow because HE leads me, for I have learned to trust Him.-'
II. THE FICKLENESS OF AN UNREASONABLE AGE (Matthew 11:16-19)
A.
John had come protesting against the falsely-inspired merriment of his age.
B.
Jesus had come refusing to sorrow over the things that made men of His age mourn.
C.
Reaction of people in general: If you are really the Holy One of God, why do you fraternize so familiarly with the rest of us? You are not saintly enough!
One reason for this reaction was the exaggeration of Jesus-’ divine character at the expense of His necessary and true humanity. Men thought that the great God would never so disturb Himself, so befoul Himself as to attend the banquet of a common sinner! Here again human intellect was at fault.
Another reason is that human emotion is falsely stimulated. Men sought the inspiration of their joys and sorrows in the wrong places.
D.
Jesus-’ answer: Human emotion must seek my inspiration, must learn to dance to my music, and mourn to my lamentation. The age must discover that the only way into the Kingdom of God is that of beginning to rejoice where hitherto there had been no joy; to mourn where hitherto there had been no mourning. Men must be done with dancing to the wrong music, with mourning over unimportant things.
E. The Lord committed to the judgment of time that age dissatisfied with wisdom contrary to its fickle tastes and capricious emotions.
III. THE IMPENITENCE OF THE MOST FAVORED CITIES (Matthew 11:20-24)
A.
Their reaction: You cannot be taken too seriously as the voice of God. We plan to run our lives much as we have been doing it before you came along!
Here is the depreciation of Jesus-’ divine authority and the demotion of the King to the level of any other human being.
Although these towns had personally witnessed Jesus-’ triumph over sin and its results that were causing the suffering in their midst, they did not recognize in His mastery a perpetual protest against their own sins. They remained rebels against God.
Here is the refusal of the will to submit to the control of God in Christ.
B.
Jesus-’ answer: Your great opportunities make you so much more responsible before God for what you know, therefore your punishment for impenitence will be so much more severe! Change your mind about what I am teaching you: turn back upon your false concepts of the Kingdom of God and submit to His rule now!
IV. THE FOLLY OF THE WISE AND THE WISDOM OF THE BABES (Matthew 11:25-30)
A.
The wise and prudent reaction: Any fool knows that yours is no way to establish a kingdom! Your program does not rhyme with any standard rabbinical formula of how the messianic kingdom has to be.
This is the refusal of human intellect to bow, acknowledging its own ignorance.
The net result is the reduction of Jesus to less than a human prophet, for the wise see in this Nazarene something less than a sage whose advice should at least be considered.
B.
The reason for this reaction is that God gives His greatest blessings only to the humble, but the human heart protests against the thought of starting all over again by being born again. People demand a religion that may be grasped as a prize for intellectual achievement; a religion that permits them to give full vent to their passions; a religion that grants them the dignity of their own self-will. But Christ demands that man surrender his darkened intellect, his vulgarized emotions and his prostituted will, so that he might begin again as a little child. .
C. Who is a little child?
He is an ignorant man asking instruction.
He is an emotional person seeking proper inspiration.
He is a will searching for authority.
He is a weak one seeking power.
He is imperfect, but looking for perfection.
He trusts Jesus to lead him to find all this and more.
V.
APPLICATION: How do people of our age look for another Christ?
A.
By letting the disappointments and failures in our personal Christian life turn us aside from the Christ who actually came:
Do we have no assurance of forgiveness and relief from our guilt and sins?
Do we fail to find the joy and brightness we expected?
- What kind of Christ did we expect? Does our image differ from the reality?
B.
By letting the general condition of the world blind us to the real Christ and His purposes.
Jesus came to save the world and yet the larger portion of it not only remains unsaved but is also growing larger in proportion to the total population. How can He let this go on?
If you look for another Christ, what kind of Messiah could alleviate the human predicament better than Jesus is now doing?
C.
We are not actually expecting the coming of another Christ that is not to be identified with Jesus of Nazareth, but the Jesus Christ whom we know will return in another form! (See Acts 1:11; Philippians 3:20-21)
When He comes, He will only seem to be another Christ different from the humble Galilean we once knew.
a.
He will be a Christ whom most men had never believed in.
b.
He will be a Christ whom most never expected to see come.
с.
But He will be the very Christ whom John the Baptist said would come in blazing glory.
But He will appear in His power and majesty to bring to a glorious conclusion the mission which He undertook in shame and weakness.
a.
He has never changed His mission: it has ever been His intention to make righteousness to triumph over sin and get God’s will done.
b.
The same Jesus who was crucified in shame, raised in glory and now reigns at the Father’s right hand, is even now perfecting His mission with an eye to that day when He will come for His saints.
D. What then is to be our reaction?
We must ask ourselves, Am I willing to admit my ignorance and ask instruction; am I willing to yield my emotional nature and take only His inspiration, dancing only to His piping, and mourning only to His lamentation; am I willing to take my will and submit it wholly to His authority; am I willing to take the place of unutterable weakness and depend upon His strength? Am I willing to confess my absolute and utter imperfection and give myself to Him for perfecting of all that concerns me?
This is the passage from proud independence to simple confession of weakness. So men enter into this Kingdom. So men find their rest.. Our very pre-eminent respectability prevents the definite daring necessary to get into God’s Kingdom. We are prone to drift upon easy seas, to admire the visions of the beautific land, consent to the beauties of the great ideal, and never enter in because we will not. consent to yield to the claim of the King..
Let this be the hour when you have done with your dilettante fooling with sacred things. Let this be the night when you translate your sickly anemic imagination into grip, force, go and determination.
(The above outline and some of its points were suggested by G. C. Morgan’s sermon The Kingdom By Violence in 26 Sermons by Dr. G. Campbell Morgan, Vol. II, p. 229ff.)
Another outline of this chapter might be:
JESUS JUDGES HIS CONTEMPORARIES AND HIMSELF
I.
John the Baptist (Matthew 11:2-15): More than a prophet!
II.
His people in general (Matthew 11:16-19): Like children!
III.
The most favored cities (Matthew 11:20-24): Damned!
IV.
The simple disciples (Matthew 11:25-30): Learned!
V.
Himself (Matthew 11:20-30): The Unique Hope of the Race!
EXPOSITORY SERMON CHAPTER ELEVEN REST IN A RESTLESS WORLD (11:20-30)
Introduction:
The newspapers of the world report riots that picture the great unrest of our world. In the great cities of the world every day is heard news of strikes, riots, protest movements, wars and famines. We wonder where this will all lead to or when it will end. Men’s hearts faint for the fear and anxiety over the things that are coming over the world. And why should that be?
There is NO REST IN OUR RESTLESS WORLD, BECAUSE THERE IS NO CERTAINTY.
One woman is uncertain, because another woman could take her husband away from her, and she is not sure that he would not like to go with the other woman!
The student is not sure that he can pass his exams, in order to find a small place in our society,
The worker can not be sure that tomorrow a machine will not take away his position and work for him.
The big industrialist can not be sure that he can hold his wealth.
The politicians can only try to establish a better government, but they can never be sure of the outcome.
In whatever other area we can discuss, there exists no rest-bringing security. We can certainly say that the one thing in our world that is certain, is our UNCERTAINTY! And our uncertainty troubles us!
But over the centuries we hear a mighty voice that says: Come to me! I will give you rest! In our dark world full of care and strife, difficulties and problems, anxieties and fear, these words bring us comfort, inspiration, encouragement and rest. Let us listen to this voice from a bit closer by. What does Jesus mean to say to us?
I
JESUS CONDEMNS THE UNBELIEVING BECAUSE THEY DID NOT REPENT (Matthew 11:20-24)
A.
Even though Jesus had fulfilled His commission in this world, yet His own people did not accept Him: they did not repent!
Even though He had done His greatest miracles in their presence, miracles that established His message as God’s personal revelation:
Even though He had revealed God’s will to them, yet they did not repent.
B.
There was no one more joyfully seen, heard and received than Jesus of Nazareth!
They were all ready to make Him their King and establish a worldly messianic kingdom.
They were willing to risk everything to follow Him, rising up against the Roman government, against the hypocritical religion of the Pharisees and chief priests, against all political authority.
They wanted to have a King who could give them bread, miracles and wealth, a place among the greatest empires of the world!
They wanted the SECURITY, that could come through His miraculous power. They wanted His providence and protection, His conquest of all enemies and His divine defence. They wanted to have all this, while THEY REMAINED UNCHANGED IN HEART AND LIFE.
C.
But Jesus sees that they have not understood Him:
He had called them to repentance; they wanted to make Him their servant.
He wanted to put God in them; they wanted Him and God in THEIR service.
Jesus-’ heart is broken over their deep need of repentance and over their unwillingness to repent.
Jesus has so strenuously, so faithfully, so unselfishly, so carefully tried to give them God! And they have neither seen it nor understood!
D.
Is this not a picture of our world?
We want God on OUR conditions: all His blessings, all His goodness, but He does not dare demand our repentance nor our obedience!
Jesus wants to bring us to reality and truth; He wants to create God in us; He wants to put real rest and peace in our heart, but UNDER HIS CONDITIONS: I tell you, unless you all likewise repent, you shall all likewise perish!
But to whom did Jesus say that?
a.
To people that thought that simply to be in the vicinity of Jesus was the same thing as faith and repentance.
b.
To people who thought that common goodness was the same as deep-felt repentance:
(1)
These were more or less better people than those of Sodom, Tyre and Sidon
(2)
But Jesus did not want to make people more or less good, but just as perfect as God Himself! (Matthew 5:48)
c.
To people who thought that culture and enlightenment were sufficient to enjoy the better life.
(1)
They had had the best enlightenment, because they could hear the Truth itself and revelation of God’s will, preached by Jesus Himself!
(2)
But the light against which we sin, will be the measure whereby we will be judged!
(3)
The greatness of the quantity of information that we have received concerning God’s truth, does not release us from the responsibility to repent and trust Jesus!
d.
To people who thought that to do nothing was as sufficient as repenting. Their sin was the sin of refusing to take a positive stand for Jesus Christ!
(1)
How many people today exalt Jesus as a Superman, a Man born before His time, perhaps a great Prophet, yes, even as God’s Son?
(2)
And yet they do nothing with Him! They take no responsibility for what they know about Jesus of Nazareth!
So why does our world have unrest, insecurity, desperation? BECAUSE WE WILL NOT TRUST JESUS AND REPENT!
Let us listen further to His words:
II
JESUS LAYS DOWN HIS OWN CONDITIONS, WHEREBY WE CAN RECEIVE GOD’S TRUST AND REST. (Matthew 11:25-26)
Even though He gives us conditions that are absolutely necessary to which we must render whole-hearted and immediate obedience, yet He gives us also His own personal example how we should understand the conditions He requires. What does He do?
A.
He thanks God and rejoices with the Father over the method whereby God chose to reveal His will. This is the grateful acceptance of the will and plans of His Father.
Even though He could not reach the unrepentant people and cities, after thousands of attempts, yet He gives God thanks that God had used this method to reveal Himself and that it was God’s idea.
Even though there were a very few simple people that truly accepted Jesus, yet Jesus THANKS the Father for them.
Jesus recognizes the universal Lordship of His Father. This too is an anchor for our souls, if we acknowledge that there is no place in this universe, no problem in our world over which our God is not fully Master and fully in charge!
Jesus praised and thanked God that His plan really works to save those people who can be taught.
B.
But what is God’s method to save the world? By revealing these eternal truths to humble seekers, to -little children.
Who are the wise and understanding of this world, from whom God has hidden His will? These are the people who are wise in their own eyes and proud of their own understanding.
So far as the world could see it was Pilate who was a greater man than Peter, but Jesus could do much more with a Peter than with Pilate! The high priest Caiaphas went far higher in the human society than Matthew, but that publican could become an Apostle for eternity, because he could forsake everything to follow Jesus!
Who are the little children, to whom God has given great revelations of His will? These are the humble people who open their lives to follow Jesus-’ leadership and accept His teaching.
a.
The doors of God’s Kingdom remain open for those who repent and become little children.
b.
These are the people who admit their ignorance, confess their sins and come to Jesus for forgiveness. (1 Corinthians 1:18-31)
Yes, this is God’s plan and Jesus thanks Him for it.
III
JESUS ACCEPTS THE MORAL RESPONSIBILITY FOR THE ENTIRE HUMAN RACE AND PRESENTS HIMSELF AS THE ONLY POSSIBLE REVEALER OF GOD (Matthew 11:27)
A.
All things have been committed to me by my Father.
Perhaps we are caused to think immediately of the glory and royalty of God’s Son, because we know that, at the end of the world, everything will be the inheritance of Jesus.
But here Jesus is not speaking about the glory and wealth that shall be His,
He understands very clearly that the weight of the sins of the whole world have been laid upon HIM!
a.
There is no arrogance here, but an honest bending of the Lord Jesus Himself to take upon Himself the gigantic weight of a lost mankind upon Himself.
b.
He had just seen people, that had had the best possible opportunity to be saved, refuse the call of God.
c.
Perhaps He is reminded of the ancient words of Isaiah: All we like sheep have gone astray;
We have turned every one to his own way;
And the Lord has laid on him the iniquity of us all. (Isaiah 53:6)
Our own unwillingness to repent was laid upon God’s Son!
d.
Yes, the government will be upon his shoulder, but the insignia thereof are not the colorful flags and marching eagles of a great empire, but the bleeding stripes by which we are healed!
Yes, all things have been committed to Jesus by His Father: the moral responsibility for all men just like they are: in their sins, their dying and in their deep need for repentance and redemption!
This is why we are not surprised about what Jesus says next:
B.
No one knows the Son but the Father!
Here is a cry that comes out of the loneliness of the Lord Jesus.
a.
There is no man on earth that realizes the greatness of the burden of the Son of God.
b.
Jesus has not found anyone who really understands how He feels among sinners, nor shares His burden.
Jesus has had thousands of followers, but very few of them continued to follow Him, even though those few themselves were deeply unaware of His mission, His purpose, and His Person. Even so late as the last week of His life, before going to the cross, Jesus had to say to them, Have I been so long with you, and you do not yet know me?
Jesus feels deeply His loneliness on earth: no one really knows or understands Him.
a.
But people must understand Him in order to be saved!
b.
But we must understand His message, in order thereby to be able to know the Father.
C.
No one knows the Father but the Son, and he to whom the Son wills to reveal Him.
Jesus finds Himself in a world where no one really knows God!
a.
This means that all the great inventors of religion are liars, if they contradict, diminish or deny the Word of Jesus!
b.
This means that all the lesser religious lights who have led men away from God’s Will are thieves and robbers! (John 10:1)
This is a world, in Jesus-’ day and in our own as well, wherein people have lost the very key to life, because they live as if God does not exist. But Jesus knows that God is the central fact of all reality, the greatest, most important fact of all.
Jesus prayed: This is eternal life, that men might know you, the only true God, AND JESUS CHRIST, whom you have sent! (John 17:3)
Only, JESUS knew God. Here Jesus expressed the longing to make God known to men.
He MUST make God known, but how can He go about the task of revealing God?
D.
Here is His method whereby He reveals the Father.
IV.
JESUS INVITES HUMBLE DISCIPLES TO COME TO HIM AND LEARN (Matthew 11:28-30)
A.
This young Jew, not more than 33 years old, invites the entire human race to come to Him to learn. He promises that every one, however great his problems might be, shall find rest for his soul! Let the stupendous nature of this invitation sink deep into your heart: feel the gigantic nature of the fraud if the claims implicit in this invitation are false. Feel the power of God’s loving mercy, if these claims are true! Here we must decide what we think about Jesus!
B.
But Jesus has to be the teacher, if we are to find rest for our souls. The only ones whom Jesus can help are the little children. We must be willing to learn EVERYTHING from Him.
Jesus has already had too many theologians and professors, who molded His ideas according to their own conceptions! He wants disciples, or followers, who are willing to follow Him and live under His discipline. The so-called great preachers, professors, priests, bishops, popes, councils, theologians and universities are not what Jesus is looking for! He seeks men and women, boys and girls who are willing to enroll themselves in His school and learn under HIM.
C.
Even though Jesus Himself is the Revealer of the eternal God, even though He Himself is the Creator of heaven and earth, even though He is the Judge before whom all must give account, yet He is gentle and lowly in heart.
He is not a teacher that His students need to be afraid of.
He does not boss His students around; they do not need to be afraid to expose their ignorance before Him.
My friend, He could become your Teacher: with Jesus you need fear no ridicule or contempt in His school.
If you are an eager student, you will find Jesus ready to help you, sharing with you the same spirit of joy in knowledge. He will help you at whatever level you find yourself, in order to bring you up to His level of full knowledge of the entire universe! You will find Him a wise and sympathetic Teacher, who will lead you into truth.
How many times has Jesus already shown Himself this kind of Teacher? How many times did the sinners and publicans come to Jesus, even though they had run away from the proud, strict Pharisees? They knew that Jesus was different, so, friend, do not put Jesus in the same class with religious leaders that you know, because He is not at all like any teacher you ever knew. He is in a class all by Himself, but you will enjoy enrolling in the class!
The publicans and sinners of Jesus-’ day felt the attraction of His gentleness, and they knew that He could help free them from sins that they had for years taken for granted.
D.
In Jesus-’ school you find SECURITY and rest for your soul!
To the tired worker, Jesus gives genuine rest for the body, nerves and mind, because Jesus gives true rest for his SPIRIT. Such a person can now sleep, because he has a forgiven conscience.
To the tired and heavy-laden worshipper, Jesus gives rest also.
a.
Tired of religious ceremonies, duties, norms and empty forms? Then, Jesus offers you devotion to a Person.
b.
Tired of defeats and disappointments in the struggle against sin? Then Jesus gives you the refreshment of forgiveness and power to overcome.
To the tired worldling who has found everything to be futile and empty, Jesus offers His fullness, all His friendship and companionship.
INVITATION:
Friend, you know your own cares, your own sins, and problems. Let Jesus take your difficulties and free you. Lay all your difficulties down at the feet of Jesus. Enroll yourself in His school: He invites you now.
EXPOSITORY SERMON CHAPTER ELEVEN LOOKING FOR ANOTHER CHRIST
Introduction:
WHY look for another Christ? Because some are disappointed in the Christ given to us! This is not so surprising in light of the experiences of the people described in this chapter:
I.
THE PERPLEXITY OF THE LOYAL-HEARTED (Matthew 11:2-15)
A.
John the Baptist: If you are really the Messiah, how is it that the world goes on more or less as before, as if you had never come?
This is the statement in other words of the problem of pain and evil: Why does not God DO something about evil in the world, especially about the wicked themselves?
It is similar to the question stabbing the conscience of our age: If you are really the Church of the living God, if you really proclaim a Gospel of salvation and moral transformation that really works, why have you not done more to eliminate evil and initiate a practical demonstration of the rule and love of God on earth? Our age just cannot ignore 2000 years of bad church history with its failures, corruptions and misrepresentations of Jesus.
As with all expressions of the problem of evil, these questions reveal an ignorance and a misapprehension of God’s plans.
a.
In the patient, merciful ministry of Jesus, God WAS doing a great deal about the injustices in the world.
b.
Human intellect had failed to decipher the designs of God.
John’s personal problem was the disproportional exaltation of Jesus-’ divine office as Judge, to the detriment of His merciful human ministry as the Son of man come to seek and save the lost.
a.
The Law, Prophets and John had prepared Israel for the glorious coming of the King.
b.
Jesus had come but apparently nothing was happening that would square with John’s understanding of the coming Christ.
c.
In desperation, John cries out: Are you the coming One?
But John’s faith in the Lord brought him to no other source for answers to his dilemma.
B.
Jesus-’ answer: He appreciated the honest perplexity of His loyal prophet. He corrected His understanding and vindicated him completely. Notice the correction (Matthew 11:6): Tell John that although human intellect has failed to give him complete understanding of his problem, his intellect must submit to the wisdom of my methods and results. If his intellect judges my way not to be the best, it must see what I am accomplishing, even if it means turning his back upon his prejudices about what I should be doing. John must be content to say, -God’s methods are against my wisdom: I cannot understand why He does what He does, but I follow because HE leads me, for I have learned to trust Him.-'
II. THE FICKLENESS OF AN UNREASONABLE AGE (Matthew 11:16-19)
A.
John had come protesting against the falsely-inspired merriment of his age.
B.
Jesus had come refusing to sorrow over the things that made men of His age mourn.
C.
Reaction of people in general: If you are really the Holy One of God, why do you fraternize so familiarly with the rest of us? You are not saintly enough!
One reason for this reaction was the exaggeration of Jesus-’ divine character at the expense of His necessary and true humanity. Men thought that the great God would never so disturb Himself, so befoul Himself as to attend the banquet of a common sinner! Here again human intellect was at fault.
Another reason is that human emotion is falsely stimulated. Men sought the inspiration of their joys and sorrows in the wrong places.
D.
Jesus-’ answer: Human emotion must seek my inspiration, must learn to dance to my music, and mourn to my lamentation. The age must discover that the only way into the Kingdom of God is that of beginning to rejoice where hitherto there had been no joy; to mourn where hitherto there had been no mourning. Men must be done with dancing to the wrong music, with mourning over unimportant things.
E. The Lord committed to the judgment of time that age dissatisfied with wisdom contrary to its fickle tastes and capricious emotions.
III. THE IMPENITENCE OF THE MOST FAVORED CITIES (Matthew 11:20-24)
A.
Their reaction: You cannot be taken too seriously as the voice of God. We plan to run our lives much as we have been doing it before you came along!
Here is the depreciation of Jesus-’ divine authority and the demotion of the King to the level of any other human being.
Although these towns had personally witnessed Jesus-’ triumph over sin and its results that were causing the suffering in their midst, they did not recognize in His mastery a perpetual protest against their own sins. They remained rebels against God.
Here is the refusal of the will to submit to the control of God in Christ.
B.
Jesus-’ answer: Your great opportunities make you so much more responsible before God for what you know, therefore your punishment for impenitence will be so much more severe! Change your mind about what I am teaching you: turn back upon your false concepts of the Kingdom of God and submit to His rule now!
IV. THE FOLLY OF THE WISE AND THE WISDOM OF THE BABES (Matthew 11:25-30)
A.
The wise and prudent reaction: Any fool knows that yours is no way to establish a kingdom! Your program does not rhyme with any standard rabbinical formula of how the messianic kingdom has to be.
This is the refusal of human intellect to bow, acknowledging its own ignorance.
The net result is the reduction of Jesus to less than a human prophet, for the wise see in this Nazarene something less than a sage whose advice should at least be considered.
B.
The reason for this reaction is that God gives His greatest blessings only to the humble, but the human heart protests against the thought of starting all over again by being born again. People demand a religion that may be grasped as a prize for intellectual achievement; a religion that permits them to give full vent to their passions; a religion that grants them the dignity of their own self-will. But Christ demands that man surrender his darkened intellect, his vulgarized emotions and his prostituted will, so that he might begin again as a little child. .
C. Who is a little child?
He is an ignorant man asking instruction.
He is an emotional person seeking proper inspiration.
He is a will searching for authority.
He is a weak one seeking power.
He is imperfect, but looking for perfection.
He trusts Jesus to lead him to find all this and more.
V.
APPLICATION: How do people of our age look for another Christ?
A.
By letting the disappointments and failures in our personal Christian life turn us aside from the Christ who actually came:
Do we have no assurance of forgiveness and relief from our guilt and sins?
Do we fail to find the joy and brightness we expected?
- What kind of Christ did we expect? Does our image differ from the reality?
B.
By letting the general condition of the world blind us to the real Christ and His purposes.
Jesus came to save the world and yet the larger portion of it not only remains unsaved but is also growing larger in proportion to the total population. How can He let this go on?
If you look for another Christ, what kind of Messiah could alleviate the human predicament better than Jesus is now doing?
C.
We are not actually expecting the coming of another Christ that is not to be identified with Jesus of Nazareth, but the Jesus Christ whom we know will return in another form! (See Acts 1:11; Philippians 3:20-21)
When He comes, He will only seem to be another Christ different from the humble Galilean we once knew.
a.
He will be a Christ whom most men had never believed in.
b.
He will be a Christ whom most never expected to see come.
с.
But He will be the very Christ whom John the Baptist said would come in blazing glory.
But He will appear in His power and majesty to bring to a glorious conclusion the mission which He undertook in shame and weakness.
a.
He has never changed His mission: it has ever been His intention to make righteousness to triumph over sin and get God’s will done.
b.
The same Jesus who was crucified in shame, raised in glory and now reigns at the Father’s right hand, is even now perfecting His mission with an eye to that day when He will come for His saints.
D. What then is to be our reaction?
We must ask ourselves, Am I willing to admit my ignorance and ask instruction; am I willing to yield my emotional nature and take only His inspiration, dancing only to His piping, and mourning only to His lamentation; am I willing to take my will and submit it wholly to His authority; am I willing to take the place of unutterable weakness and depend upon His strength? Am I willing to confess my absolute and utter imperfection and give myself to Him for perfecting of all that concerns me?
This is the passage from proud independence to simple confession of weakness. So men enter into this Kingdom. So men find their rest.. Our very pre-eminent respectability prevents the definite daring necessary to get into God’s Kingdom. We are prone to drift upon easy seas, to admire the visions of the beautific land, consent to the beauties of the great ideal, and never enter in because we will not. consent to yield to the claim of the King..
Let this be the hour when you have done with your dilettante fooling with sacred things. Let this be the night when you translate your sickly anemic imagination into grip, force, go and determination.
(The above outline and some of its points were suggested by G. C. Morgan’s sermon The Kingdom By Violence in 26 Sermons by Dr. G. Campbell Morgan, Vol. II, p. 229ff.)
Another outline of this chapter might be:
JESUS JUDGES HIS CONTEMPORARIES AND HIMSELF
I.
John the Baptist (Matthew 11:2-15): More than a prophet!
II.
His people in general (Matthew 11:16-19): Like children!
III.
The most favored cities (Matthew 11:20-24): Damned!
IV.
The simple disciples (Matthew 11:25-30): Learned!
V.
Himself (Matthew 11:20-30): The Unique Hope of the Race!
EXPOSITORY SERMON CHAPTER ELEVEN REST IN A RESTLESS WORLD (11:20-30)
Introduction:
The newspapers of the world report riots that picture the great unrest of our world. In the great cities of the world every day is heard news of strikes, riots, protest movements, wars and famines. We wonder where this will all lead to or when it will end. Men’s hearts faint for the fear and anxiety over the things that are coming over the world. And why should that be?
There is NO REST IN OUR RESTLESS WORLD, BECAUSE THERE IS NO CERTAINTY.
One woman is uncertain, because another woman could take her husband away from her, and she is not sure that he would not like to go with the other woman!
The student is not sure that he can pass his exams, in order to find a small place in our society,
The worker can not be sure that tomorrow a machine will not take away his position and work for him.
The big industrialist can not be sure that he can hold his wealth.
The politicians can only try to establish a better government, but they can never be sure of the outcome.
In whatever other area we can discuss, there exists no rest-bringing security. We can certainly say that the one thing in our world that is certain, is our UNCERTAINTY! And our uncertainty troubles us!
But over the centuries we hear a mighty voice that says: Come to me! I will give you rest! In our dark world full of care and strife, difficulties and problems, anxieties and fear, these words bring us comfort, inspiration, encouragement and rest. Let us listen to this voice from a bit closer by. What does Jesus mean to say to us?
I
JESUS CONDEMNS THE UNBELIEVING BECAUSE THEY DID NOT REPENT (Matthew 11:20-24)
A.
Even though Jesus had fulfilled His commission in this world, yet His own people did not accept Him: they did not repent!
Even though He had done His greatest miracles in their presence, miracles that established His message as God’s personal revelation:
Even though He had revealed God’s will to them, yet they did not repent.
B.
There was no one more joyfully seen, heard and received than Jesus of Nazareth!
They were all ready to make Him their King and establish a worldly messianic kingdom.
They were willing to risk everything to follow Him, rising up against the Roman government, against the hypocritical religion of the Pharisees and chief priests, against all political authority.
They wanted to have a King who could give them bread, miracles and wealth, a place among the greatest empires of the world!
They wanted the SECURITY, that could come through His miraculous power. They wanted His providence and protection, His conquest of all enemies and His divine defence. They wanted to have all this, while THEY REMAINED UNCHANGED IN HEART AND LIFE.
C.
But Jesus sees that they have not understood Him:
He had called them to repentance; they wanted to make Him their servant.
He wanted to put God in them; they wanted Him and God in THEIR service.
Jesus-’ heart is broken over their deep need of repentance and over their unwillingness to repent.
Jesus has so strenuously, so faithfully, so unselfishly, so carefully tried to give them God! And they have neither seen it nor understood!
D.
Is this not a picture of our world?
We want God on OUR conditions: all His blessings, all His goodness, but He does not dare demand our repentance nor our obedience!
Jesus wants to bring us to reality and truth; He wants to create God in us; He wants to put real rest and peace in our heart, but UNDER HIS CONDITIONS: I tell you, unless you all likewise repent, you shall all likewise perish!
But to whom did Jesus say that?
a.
To people that thought that simply to be in the vicinity of Jesus was the same thing as faith and repentance.
b.
To people who thought that common goodness was the same as deep-felt repentance:
(1)
These were more or less better people than those of Sodom, Tyre and Sidon
(2)
But Jesus did not want to make people more or less good, but just as perfect as God Himself! (Matthew 5:48)
c.
To people who thought that culture and enlightenment were sufficient to enjoy the better life.
(1)
They had had the best enlightenment, because they could hear the Truth itself and revelation of God’s will, preached by Jesus Himself!
(2)
But the light against which we sin, will be the measure whereby we will be judged!
(3)
The greatness of the quantity of information that we have received concerning God’s truth, does not release us from the responsibility to repent and trust Jesus!
d.
To people who thought that to do nothing was as sufficient as repenting. Their sin was the sin of refusing to take a positive stand for Jesus Christ!
(1)
How many people today exalt Jesus as a Superman, a Man born before His time, perhaps a great Prophet, yes, even as God’s Son?
(2)
And yet they do nothing with Him! They take no responsibility for what they know about Jesus of Nazareth!
So why does our world have unrest, insecurity, desperation? BECAUSE WE WILL NOT TRUST JESUS AND REPENT!
Let us listen further to His words:
II
JESUS LAYS DOWN HIS OWN CONDITIONS, WHEREBY WE CAN RECEIVE GOD’S TRUST AND REST. (Matthew 11:25-26)
Even though He gives us conditions that are absolutely necessary to which we must render whole-hearted and immediate obedience, yet He gives us also His own personal example how we should understand the conditions He requires. What does He do?
A.
He thanks God and rejoices with the Father over the method whereby God chose to reveal His will. This is the grateful acceptance of the will and plans of His Father.
Even though He could not reach the unrepentant people and cities, after thousands of attempts, yet He gives God thanks that God had used this method to reveal Himself and that it was God’s idea.
Even though there were a very few simple people that truly accepted Jesus, yet Jesus THANKS the Father for them.
Jesus recognizes the universal Lordship of His Father. This too is an anchor for our souls, if we acknowledge that there is no place in this universe, no problem in our world over which our God is not fully Master and fully in charge!
Jesus praised and thanked God that His plan really works to save those people who can be taught.
B.
But what is God’s method to save the world? By revealing these eternal truths to humble seekers, to -little children.
Who are the wise and understanding of this world, from whom God has hidden His will? These are the people who are wise in their own eyes and proud of their own understanding.
So far as the world could see it was Pilate who was a greater man than Peter, but Jesus could do much more with a Peter than with Pilate! The high priest Caiaphas went far higher in the human society than Matthew, but that publican could become an Apostle for eternity, because he could forsake everything to follow Jesus!
Who are the little children, to whom God has given great revelations of His will? These are the humble people who open their lives to follow Jesus-’ leadership and accept His teaching.
a.
The doors of God’s Kingdom remain open for those who repent and become little children.
b.
These are the people who admit their ignorance, confess their sins and come to Jesus for forgiveness. (1 Corinthians 1:18-31)
Yes, this is God’s plan and Jesus thanks Him for it.
III
JESUS ACCEPTS THE MORAL RESPONSIBILITY FOR THE ENTIRE HUMAN RACE AND PRESENTS HIMSELF AS THE ONLY POSSIBLE REVEALER OF GOD (Matthew 11:27)
A.
All things have been committed to me by my Father.
Perhaps we are caused to think immediately of the glory and royalty of God’s Son, because we know that, at the end of the world, everything will be the inheritance of Jesus.
But here Jesus is not speaking about the glory and wealth that shall be His,
He understands very clearly that the weight of the sins of the whole world have been laid upon HIM!
a.
There is no arrogance here, but an honest bending of the Lord Jesus Himself to take upon Himself the gigantic weight of a lost mankind upon Himself.
b.
He had just seen people, that had had the best possible opportunity to be saved, refuse the call of God.
c.
Perhaps He is reminded of the ancient words of Isaiah: All we like sheep have gone astray;
We have turned every one to his own way;
And the Lord has laid on him the iniquity of us all. (Isaiah 53:6)
Our own unwillingness to repent was laid upon God’s Son!
d.
Yes, the government will be upon his shoulder, but the insignia thereof are not the colorful flags and marching eagles of a great empire, but the bleeding stripes by which we are healed!
Yes, all things have been committed to Jesus by His Father: the moral responsibility for all men just like they are: in their sins, their dying and in their deep need for repentance and redemption!
This is why we are not surprised about what Jesus says next:
B.
No one knows the Son but the Father!
Here is a cry that comes out of the loneliness of the Lord Jesus.
a.
There is no man on earth that realizes the greatness of the burden of the Son of God.
b.
Jesus has not found anyone who really understands how He feels among sinners, nor shares His burden.
Jesus has had thousands of followers, but very few of them continued to follow Him, even though those few themselves were deeply unaware of His mission, His purpose, and His Person. Even so late as the last week of His life, before going to the cross, Jesus had to say to them, Have I been so long with you, and you do not yet know me?
Jesus feels deeply His loneliness on earth: no one really knows or understands Him.
a.
But people must understand Him in order to be saved!
b.
But we must understand His message, in order thereby to be able to know the Father.
C.
No one knows the Father but the Son, and he to whom the Son wills to reveal Him.
Jesus finds Himself in a world where no one really knows God!
a.
This means that all the great inventors of religion are liars, if they contradict, diminish or deny the Word of Jesus!
b.
This means that all the lesser religious lights who have led men away from God’s Will are thieves and robbers! (John 10:1)
This is a world, in Jesus-’ day and in our own as well, wherein people have lost the very key to life, because they live as if God does not exist. But Jesus knows that God is the central fact of all reality, the greatest, most important fact of all.
Jesus prayed: This is eternal life, that men might know you, the only true God, AND JESUS CHRIST, whom you have sent! (John 17:3)
Only, JESUS knew God. Here Jesus expressed the longing to make God known to men.
He MUST make God known, but how can He go about the task of revealing God?
D.
Here is His method whereby He reveals the Father.
IV.
JESUS INVITES HUMBLE DISCIPLES TO COME TO HIM AND LEARN (Matthew 11:28-30)
A.
This young Jew, not more than 33 years old, invites the entire human race to come to Him to learn. He promises that every one, however great his problems might be, shall find rest for his soul! Let the stupendous nature of this invitation sink deep into your heart: feel the gigantic nature of the fraud if the claims implicit in this invitation are false. Feel the power of God’s loving mercy, if these claims are true! Here we must decide what we think about Jesus!
B.
But Jesus has to be the teacher, if we are to find rest for our souls. The only ones whom Jesus can help are the little children. We must be willing to learn EVERYTHING from Him.
Jesus has already had too many theologians and professors, who molded His ideas according to their own conceptions! He wants disciples, or followers, who are willing to follow Him and live under His discipline. The so-called great preachers, professors, priests, bishops, popes, councils, theologians and universities are not what Jesus is looking for! He seeks men and women, boys and girls who are willing to enroll themselves in His school and learn under HIM.
C.
Even though Jesus Himself is the Revealer of the eternal God, even though He Himself is the Creator of heaven and earth, even though He is the Judge before whom all must give account, yet He is gentle and lowly in heart.
He is not a teacher that His students need to be afraid of.
He does not boss His students around; they do not need to be afraid to expose their ignorance before Him.
My friend, He could become your Teacher: with Jesus you need fear no ridicule or contempt in His school.
If you are an eager student, you will find Jesus ready to help you, sharing with you the same spirit of joy in knowledge. He will help you at whatever level you find yourself, in order to bring you up to His level of full knowledge of the entire universe! You will find Him a wise and sympathetic Teacher, who will lead you into truth.
How many times has Jesus already shown Himself this kind of Teacher? How many times did the sinners and publicans come to Jesus, even though they had run away from the proud, strict Pharisees? They knew that Jesus was different, so, friend, do not put Jesus in the same class with religious leaders that you know, because He is not at all like any teacher you ever knew. He is in a class all by Himself, but you will enjoy enrolling in the class!
The publicans and sinners of Jesus-’ day felt the attraction of His gentleness, and they knew that He could help free them from sins that they had for years taken for granted.
D.
In Jesus-’ school you find SECURITY and rest for your soul!
To the tired worker, Jesus gives genuine rest for the body, nerves and mind, because Jesus gives true rest for his SPIRIT. Such a person can now sleep, because he has a forgiven conscience.
To the tired and heavy-laden worshipper, Jesus gives rest also.
a.
Tired of religious ceremonies, duties, norms and empty forms? Then, Jesus offers you devotion to a Person.
b.
Tired of defeats and disappointments in the struggle against sin? Then Jesus gives you the refreshment of forgiveness and power to overcome.
To the tired worldling who has found everything to be futile and empty, Jesus offers His fullness, all His friendship and companionship.
INVITATION:
Friend, you know your own cares, your own sins, and problems. Let Jesus take your difficulties and free you. Lay all your difficulties down at the feet of Jesus. Enroll yourself in His school: He invites you now.
Matthew 11:1
Section 23
JESUS COMMISSIONS TWELVE APOSTLES TO EVANGELIZE GALILEE VII. JESUS ALSO GOES TO EVANGELIZE GALILEE TEXT: 11:1
And it came to pass when Jesus had finished commanding his twelve disciples, he departed thence to teach and preach in their cities.
THOUGHT QUESTIONS
a.
Why did Jesus Himself go alone, whereas He had sent the Twelve out in pairs?
b.
What do you think Matthew intends to say about the material that immediately precedes this verse, by affirming, When Jesus had finished commanding his twelve disciples? What does this say about the unity of the discourse that precedes this statement?
c.
What is the fundamental difference between the methods of teaching and preaching in which Jesus engaged?
d.
What psychological effect on the Twelve would the knowledge make, that Jesus, too, is engaged in the same effort as they?
PARAPHRASE AND HARMONY
At the conclusion of His instructions, Jesus sent the Twelve Apostles two by two to evangelize Galilee. Then He too set out, on a mission of instruction and gospel proclamation throughout the cities.
NOTES
Matthew 11:1 **And it came to pass when Jesus had finished commanding; his twelve disciples. **Thus Matthew draws to a definite close the ordination discourse of the Twelve. Though some feel that Matthew took bits and pieces of other sermons and wove them into the fabric of this message, thus taking great liberties and badly mixing time elements, nevertheless, let it be remembered that Matthew heard the sermon. The modern arm-chair critics did not. (See Introduction to Chapter 10 for fuller notes.) His twelve disciples, though now fledgling Apostles with all the power and authority that this grand title implies, they are still and must always be disciples, even to be true to their high mission as apostles. Ironically, is was when Judas stopped being a disciple that he forfeited all that his apostleship should have meant. What a lesson to us: we never get beyond being disciples of the Lord, however great our gifts, however long our service, however vast our knowledge. When we do think we have grown past that point, all of God’s gifts in us, intended for disciples only, will be warped as we try to press them into our own service. It is only in character as disciples whose minds are ever open to whatever the Lord reveals, whose will is submitted to His discipleship, that any of us, Apostles or not, are able to be of any use to the Master.
**He departed thence to teach and preach in their cities. **Having commissioned and empowered His Twelve disciples and divided them into six teams of two workers each, Jesus Himself goes to work on another front, thus making seven evangelistic thrusts in Galilee. Because the Apostles preached His message, shared His ministry, worked His miracles, and copied His manners, in a sense it may be said that they became twelve more Jesus Christs to confront the lost sheep of the house of Israel with the tender appeals of the Good Shepherd Himself. Good leadership, as Jesus here demonstrates, does not consist in doing the work of twelve men Himself, but in getting the twelve men to work. Recall his procedure:
He shared with all His closer disciples His vision of the task that lay before them. (Matthew 9:36-37)
He involved them personally in praying about the need for more workers. (Matthew 9:38)
He then chose the most ready among His many travel companions who had known Him, followed Him and already had some experience observing His modus operandi. (Matthew 10:2-4)
He empowered them adequately to accomplish all He required of them. (Matthew 10:1)
He explained carefully how they were to proceed and what they might expect. (Matthew 10:5-15)
He gave them a general survey of the long-range direction and purpose of their work, so they might see the specific importance of their immediate tasks. (Matthew 10:16-39)
He gave them hope of succeeding brilliantly despite temporary and seemingly impossible setbacks. (Matthew 10:40-42)
Last, but not at all least, He worked alongside them, not content to be ministered to even in this way. There is no little comfort and encouragement in the knowledge that Jesus is just over in the next town working at the same task, facing the same hardships, preaching the same message, as we are here!
It is evident that Jesus did not work in the same villages at the same time as any of the apostolic teams, because both Mark (Mark 6:30) and Luke (Luke 9:10) signal a definite coming back together as if by appointment. Even without this proof, we could still arrive at the same point, since it would be psychologically crippling to the Apostles-’ learning process if Jesus had been physically present during any of the presentations of His message, since it would have made so much more sense to them to let Him do the preaching and, reasonably, receive all the attention. Tactically, too, it would be a mistake, since He would be needlessly duplicating effort in every village where His physical presence overshadowed the evangelistic efforts of the two Apostles trying to labor there. It is more likely to conclude that, once the Twelve had been sent forth, Jesus did not intend to meet any of them again until they convened at a prearranged point sometime near Passover time. Further, He had given the instructions in this discourse what to do if persecuted, so He did not need to rescue them from difficulty. (See notes on Matthew 10:23 on till the Son of man be come.) Also, if there was a prearranged appointment, there was no need to recall them in from their labors for rest.
FACT QUESTIONS
What did Jesus do while the Apostles were busy evangelizing Galilee?
What was the practical effect of Jesus-’ sending out the Twelve in teams of two each and then going out Himself to labor in other towns?
What emotional effect would be produced on the Apostles themselves by the knowledge that Jesus, too, is working alongside them in other towns?
On what basis do we decide here that Jesus did not work in the same towns at the same time as the Apostles themselves visited them?
DO YOU HAVE THE WORD IN YOUR HEART?
Who said the following statements? On what occasion? To whom? Why did they say it? What did they mean? Are there parallel passages? variant manuscript readings? important variant translations? Are there any problems of interpretation? How or to what extent should we apply it to our lives?
Get you no wallet for your journey, neither two coats, nor shoes, nor staff.
The kingdom of heaven is at hand.
If the house be worthy let your peace come upon it: but if it be not worthy, let your peace return to you.
But go rather to the lost sheep of the house of Israel.
Ye shall not have gone through the cities of Israel till the Son of man be come.
For it is not you that speak, but the Spirit of your Father that speaketh in you.
… rather fear him who is able to destroy both soul and body in hell. .
I came not to send peace, but a sword.
It is enough for the disciple that he be as his teacher..
It shall be more tolerable for the land of Sodom and Gomorrah in the day of judgment, than for that city.
He that receiveth you receiveth me.
SPECIAL STUDY
THE COMING OF THE SON OF MAN
Cryptic statements keep cropping up in the Gospels, which speak of a coming of Jesus in His glory during the lifetime of that generation in which the Apostles lived. At first reading, one would think, however, that such notices would be interpreted with primary reference to the second coming of Christ at the end of this age of the world. In fact, some commentators have accused the early Christians, notably Paul, of mistakenly expecting the imminent return of Christ in his own era, whereas that event has not yet taken place. On the other hand, there are intriguing coincidences and factors that present quite another picture of Christian eschatology in the first century. Some of the points to be noticed are the following:
It is generally presumed that Paul died around 67 or 68 A.D., thus prior to the destruction of Jerusalem and the virtual end of the Jewish state. Thus, his references to the coming glorification of Christ during his own lifetime might be affected in part by this fact. This same observation would be generally true of most of the other writing Apostles or Evangelists, except John, if our present state of information (or ignorance) be any indication. In the cases where we have no definite dates for the death of the NT writers, it becomes necessary to depend upon their last message which expresses their views. For this reason we must found our under standing of their doctrine on the best information available to us regarding the date of their writings that have come down to us. While there is by no means unanimity of opinion among scholars about the dating of each NT book, there is reasonably general agreement that all but the Johannine books were written prior to 70 A.D. (See critical introductions to individual books in encyclopedic articles, e.g. ISBE, as well as the formal critical introductions to the NT and its books, for delineation of the traditional datings as well as the problems and arguments for dates after 70 A.D.)
While the coming of Christ back to earth in the person of the Holy Spirit (John 14:16-28) was to be an event with world-shaking consequences, yet the actual narrations of the activity of the Holy Spirit, that was witnessed from the day of pentecost onward until the conclusion of the history included in the NT, do not exhaust all the meaning of those passages which speak of a glorious appearing of the Lord in the lifetime of the Twelve. Nor yet do the strictly Pentecostal manifestations of the coming of the Spirit exhaust the prophecy of Joel (Joe 2:28-32) cited by Peter (Acts 2:16-21; see below on this text.) Those texts which seem to describe a first-century coming of the Son of man seem to be picturing an event which is to occur following, but not immediately connected with, the glorious establishment of Christ’s Kingdom in its visible manifestation as the Church. Nor yet are these passages especially connected with the final appearance of the Lord at the end of this age. (See below on Matthew 16:28.)
A third suggestion is here offered, but not adequately defined, with respect to the Apocalypse of John. It cannot be dealt with adequately here, and must be offered only as a suggestive comment to stimulate further research, since it is not the purpose of this article to deal with all the problems that arise in the interpretation of that book. However, the thorough treatment of this important subject would demand that this exegesis of John’s Revelation be made, before any certain conclusions can be drawn regarding the coming of the Son of man. This is true especially if the apocalyptic methodology of Revelation in any way touches that period covering the lifetime of the Apostles. (See below on VI, VII.)
The visions of the Revelation are specifically called apocalyptic, (from apokalypsis, Revelation 1:1). It would therefore be expected that THIS Apocalypse share something of the nature of apocalyptic literature, with the single exception that this Apocalypse, as opposed to all others, is inspired by Jesus-’ direct revelation of the visions John saw. J.E.H. Thompson (ISBE, 161-178) describes the character of apocalypses as a literary method, contrasting this with the method of prophetic books.
Both in matter and form apocalyptic literature and the writings associated with it differ from the prophetic writings of the preceding periods. while the predictive element is present in Apocalypses, as in Prophecy, it is more prominent and relates to longer periods and involves a wider grasp of the state of the world at large. Apocalypse could only have been possible under the domination of the great empires. Alike in Prophecy and in Apocalypse there is reference to the coming of the Messiah, but in the latter not only is the Messianic hope more defined, it has a wider reference. In the Prophets and Psalmists the Messiah had mainly to do with Israel.. In the Apocalypses the imperial outlook is prominent, beginning with Daniel in which we find the Messianic kingdom represented by a son of man over against the bestial empires that had preceded (Daniel 7:13) and reaching the acme of Apocalypse, if not its conclusion in the Revelation of St. John: The kingdom of the world is become the kingdom of our Lord, and of his Christ (Revelation 11:15). While the prophet was primarily a preacher of righteousness and used prediction either as a guarantee, by its fulfilment of his Divine mission, or as an exhibition of the natural result of rebellion against God’s righteous laws, to the Apocalyptist prediction was the thing of most importance, and in the more typical Apocalypse there is no moral exhortation whatever.. In the literary form employed there are marked differences between Apocalyptic and Prophecy. Both make use of vision, but in Prophecy, in the more restricted sense of the word, these visions are as a rule implied, rather than being described.. In the case of the Apocalypses the vision is the vehicle by which the prediction is conveyed.. In (Prophecy) the symbols used are natural, not, as always in Apocalypses, arbitrary. (In Apocalypses) there is no natural reason for the changes that take place, only a symbolical one.. The apocalyptists always used pure prose, without the elaborate parallelism or cadenced diction of Hebrew poetry. The weird, the gorgeous, or the terrible features of the vision described are thrown into all the higher relief by the baldness of the narrative.. (Of the works entitled Apocalyptic) they all claim to be revelations of the futurea future which begins, however, from the days of some ancient saintand then, passing over the time of its actual composition, ends with the coming of the Messiah, the setting up of the Messianic kingdom and the end of the world. There are others. in which the revelation avowedly looks back, and which thus contain an amount of legendary matter.
While the Revelation is both epistolary with regard to its readers and prophecy in its essential spirit and message, it is an apocalypse with respect to its contents. The Revelation honors apocalyptic methodology but makes it subserve genuine prophecy. (Harrison, Introductions, 431)
Thus, while this use of John’s Revelation to discuss events prior to its actual composition during the reign of Domitian during John’s exile to Patmos (c. 96 A.D.) would perhaps raise objections, since the book is also confessedly a prophecy (cf. Revelation 1:3; Revelation 22:6-7; Revelation 22:18-19) regarding things that must soon take place, i.e. after the writing of the book itself (cf. Revelation 1:1; Revelation 1:19; Revelation 4:1; Revelation 22:6-7), yet if it be assumed that John’s Revelation partook of the literary form of other apocalyptic books, a form which enclosed within its cosmic sweep the writing of history to show some purpose of God seen in the sequence of events, as well as to predict the future, then this objection would have less force. The Revelation could conceivably describe some events prior to, during, and after, the beginning of the Church, the early evangelization, the persecutions, the Jewish War, the destruction of Jerusalem and proceed right on to picture those elements signaling the beginning of the fall of the Roman empire and look out into the distant future to the end of time. It remains then, a matter of careful exegesis both of the relative Bible texts involved, as well as a careful reading of history, to determine whether or not this is, in fact, the case.
Besides the foregoing, there are a number of Matthean texts, which seem to picture the coming of the Son of man in judgment upon the Jewish nation during the lifetime of the Apostles.
I.
**When they persecute you in one town, flee to the next; for truly I say to you, you will not have gone through all the towns of Israel, before the Son of man comes. **(Matthew 10:23)
At first glance, it would seem that Jesus is speaking here of His following up the advance preparation for His coming made by the disciples. In this case, they would merely have gone ahead of Him as an advance advertising committee, in order to assure Him a large interest and popularity in the cities of Israel. Then the point of this exhortation would be haste, since it would be impossible to cover all the Jewish cities before Jesus Himself arrived. But the very context of this solemn admonition demands a graver explanation, more harmonious with the immediate context itself and with the subsequent events. The assumption here is that Jesus-’ discourse in Matthew 10 is one entire message delivered on the same occasion. (See arguments in the Introduction to chapter 10.)
The context, as well as the verse itself, describes fearful persecutions and harassment by both religious and political rulers, incomprehension within the families of His disciples, universal hatred of Jesus-’ followers, leadership of the Holy Spirit, betrayals to death and, finally, the necessity to flee, faithful endurance and open confession of allegiance to Jesus in face of certain death.
Further, the paragraph in which this admonition is found (Matthew 10:16-23) is itself repeated in the great discourse concerning the destruction of Jerusalem and the end of the Jewish state (Matthew 24; Mark 13; Luke 21). Interestingly, though Mark and Luke both record without significant variations these words contained in Matthew 10:16-23, Matthew himself, while recording the prophetic discourse in his 24th chapter, does not repeat this paragraph. Instead, he limits himself to a couple of summary sentences that are necessary for the connection of thought. Though some would give another explanation to this phenomenon, we believe that Matthew deliberately omitted to repeat this particular material (even though he does repeat some other obviously repeated events and sayings of Jesus elsewhere), not only because he had recorded this sermon in chapter 10. He probably omitted the repetition of this material (Matthew 10:16-23) because he intended to develop the theme of moral preparation required for the great cataclysmic events. This is a hypothesis developed, of course, from what he actually did. (Cf. Matthew 24:37 to Matthew 25:46) By contrast, Mark and Luke, who neither one had recorded this complete discourse in one place (however, see Luke 12:2-12), give their testimony regarding Jesus-’ great prophetic discourse and omit, or greatly abbreviate, the material Matthew includes on watchful preparation, The point is, of course, that Jesus intended for this material (i.e. Matthew 10:16-23) to be understood primarily in the framework of that period following His ascension into heaven and not in connection with the early efforts at evangelization by the Apostles or the Seventy.
Subsequent events in the ministry of the Apostles themselves as they labored under the limited commission (Matthew 10:5-15) until they were reassembled (Matthew 6:30; Luke 9:10), indicate no such difficulties as are here pictured. This indication is based solely on the information about the Apostles transmitted to us in the four Gospels. If they did in fact encounter persecutions prior to Jesus-’ crucifixion, we cannot know about it.
But lest Jesus be accused of exaggerating the trials to which the Apostles would be subjected, let it be remembered that Jesus is fully justified in preparing His men in exactly this fashion, since they must face, from the very first of their own ministry, the stubborn reality of opposition to the truth they must preach. Whether this opposition began soon or later should make no difference to them: they must steel themselves for its eventual arrival. The appropriateness of Jesus-’ warnings during His first commission is seen in the fact that He sends them out fully prepared for whatever may come, even if the worst does not appear until much later when intransigent opposition to Jesus Himself will have hardened and expressed itself in His crucifixion. Psychologically, His men will have already been inured to trouble by His many previous warnings and by their own personal experiences in the field when not under His direct supervision.
While the Apostles did not have to face the pictured trials during their early missions, they certainly did have to meet them later. And to deflate any tendency to overconfidence based upon the seemingly overwhelming successes of their first missions, Jesus repeated these warnings in His great prophetic discourse (Matthew 24; Mark 13; Luke 21) just two months before He sent them out to evangelize the entire world. At THAT time they would begin to grasp the significance behind those cryptic words uttered earlier (Matthew 10:23).
It is obvious, therefore, that the coming of the Son of man must have a direct relationship to the ministry of the Apostles AT SUCH TIME AS THEY ACTUALLY FACED THE PERSECUTIONS AND CONSEQUENT NECESSITY TO FLEE pictured in this text. Since they apparently faced the trials and difficulties, that Jesus describes, only after Pentecost and before their own deaths, which, in the case of most of them, occurred before 70 A.D., if tradition may be relied upon to furnish the dates, the coming of the Son of man must have some reference to that period. This coming of the Son of man must have relationship also to the cities of Israel; and not to the world in general. The beginning of the end of those cities of Israel as a corporate, national entity, can be dated about the same time as the disastrous Jewish War (66-70 A.D.), even though the final, bitter end did not come until the devastations by the Romans after the uprising of Bar-Cochba (132-135 A.D.) Morgan (Matthew, 106) poses the intriguing query:
Who shall say that in His Personal Form He did not guide the Roman legions as they took Jerusalem? It is quite certain that there can be no explanation of the coming of the Son of Man in this case except in the sense of judgment. His coming at the fall of Jerusalem, ended the cities of Israel, and this accounted for His urgency and haste in driving His apostles out to tell the story of the King and the Kingdom.
While it is somewhat inexact to say that the cities of Israel, meaning the existing villages and towns, came to an end with the fall of Jerusalem, yet the national identity of Judaism was completely and forever lost. The last two institutions of their distinctly national life, the Sanhedrin and the sacrifice, were abolished, never to reappear. (Dana, NT World, 105) Judaism persisted as a religion, but disassociated from any political organization or state. (Tenney, NT Times, 307)
The above considerations strongly suggest that Jesus intended to intimate to His Apostles that His coming would take place during that period of their ministry in which (1) they faced terrible persecutions; (2) while there were yet in existence the cities of Israel; and (3), in some connection with the destruction of Jerusalem and the end of the state of Israel.
II. Truly, I say to you, there are some standing here who will not taste death before they see the Son of man coming in His kingdom. (Matthew 16:28)
Needless to say, this verse and its parallels must be considered apart from the verses preceding (i.e. Matthew 16:27; Mark 8:38; Luke 9:26), which describe the second coming of Jesus in judgment of the whole world, an event which none of the Apostles lived to see, since this has not yet occurred. Therefore, what Jesus intends by the declaration in question has nothing to do with His return to earth at the end of this age: there are two specific events clearly before His mind.
A quick comparison of the parallel texts of this same saying reveals all Jesus said at that moment:
And he said to them,
Truly, I say to you, there are some standing here
Truly, I say to you, there are some standing here
But I tell you truly, there are some standing here
who will not taste death before they see the Son of man coming in his kingdom.
who will not taste death before they see
who will not taste of death before they see
the kingdom of God come with power.
the kingdom of God.
This glorious coming of the Son of man, within the lifetime of the Apostles, which is seen as a manifestation of the Kingdom of Christ and God, is susceptible of application to those events later described as the coming of Christ’s Kingdom with power. It is important to remember the larger context of this declaration is the promise that Jesus would establish His Church, an event for which He promised Peter the keys of the Kingdom. This event obviously began to occur on Pentecost 30 A.D. But this latter fact by no means signifies that the complete fulfilment of Jesus-’ promise, that the Apostles would live to see His coming in His kingdom, occurred only on that day and did not also find fulfilment in events even after that date which continued to establish the obvious rule of Christ.
The coming of the Kingdom of God with power from God certainly took place and visibly on the first Pentecost after Jesus-’ ascension into heaven. (Luke 24:49; Acts 1:3; Acts 1:8; Acts 2:1-47) But despite the marvellous manifestation of God’s power by means of the visible and audible demonstrations of the Holy Spirit’s presence, obvious to all then present in Jerusalem, this did not signal the public, definitive and final repudiation of the Jewish nation by God nor the end of the theocracy. The Jewish nation and religion continued on a business-as-usual basis at least for another forty years, during which time even the Jewish Christians maintained relatively close relations with the Temple and its rites. (Cf. Acts 21:20 b - Acts 21:26) While the Church actually came into existence and preached its message, yet the full vindication of Christ’s claims and the tangible evidence of God’s rule (Kingdom) were not so clearly seen until the permanent destruction of Jerusalem as the effective center of Judaism and the total collapse of the Temple and its ministry took place.
But if Jesus-’ promise (Matthew 16:28) be thought to refer to Pentecost, the spread of Christianity or the internal development of the Gospel in the life of the Church, it is necessary to point out that Jesus does not comfort all of His Apostles by affirming that they would all live to see these glorious expressions of God’s Kingdom. Rather, there are some standing here. (eisín times: all Synoptics) This limitation, as Plummer (Luke, 250) notes, implies the exceptional privilege of some, as distinct from the common experience of all, and provides a test regarding the time meant, a test that excludes Pentecost, the spread of Christianity, at least, as the first or primary reference of this prophecy. This, because all the Apostles and most of Jesus-’ disciples lived to see those great events, while that to which Jesus now makes reference was to be the exceptional privilege of only John and perhaps a few others of those present who lived to witness the destruction of Jerusalem, an event which signaled the end of the old dispensation and left the Church of Christ fully vindicated and identified as the only bearer of the divine oracles.
It is revealing in this connection to recall that Jesus promised that the very generation of which He was a part would live to see the fulfilment of His prophecy would be desecrated after a disastrous war. The things which took place at that time Jesus describes as the nearing of the kingdom of God. (Luke 21:31-32; cf. Matthew 24:33-34; Mark 13:29-30) But this latter prophecy cannot in any sense refer to the beginnings of the Church but has reference to the destruction of Jerusalem.
In order, therefore, to concede as much as possible to those who view Jesus-’ prophecies that His death would not hinder the establishment of the Church and that, rather, some of those then present would live to see Him come in His Kingdom with power, as having some reference to the establishment of the Church, let us admit that the fulfilment of Jesus-’ words may have included that. But it is urgent that we recall that the Kingdom of God and Christ is always greater than the Church and includes it. It is never exact to say that the Kingdom equals the Church and vice versa. It is better to define the Kingdom as the Government of God, the dominion of His laws. The Church is that group of people who willingly submit themselves to God’s Kingdom. But there are millions of people who still fall under the rule of God who neither accept that dominion nor are members of the Church. Therefore God’s Kingdom includes within its sphere of influence all the wicked, and any time God wants to make His powerful rule felt, by bringing swift punishment upon them, He can and He does. This He did in the lifetime of the Apostles and in that generation of Jews by giving sudden, shocking but deserved punishment to those who had rejected Jesus. While this was not specifically a revelation of His Church (although the Church was revealed as the authentic bearer of the divine oracles of God and finally freed from the vestigial shackles of Judaism), it was a definitive revelation of God’s Government, or, the Kingdom of God.
If we have correctly understood Jesus-’ meaning in this text, then, according to the exact wording of Mat 16:28, this entire revelation of the Kingdom of God is to be spoken of as the coming of the Son of man.
III. Therefore I tell you, the Kingdom of God will be taken away from you and giver to a nation producing the fruits of it. (Matthew 21:43)
While this passage does not speak directly of a coming of the Son of man during the generation of His earthly sojourn, its reference to the transfer of the Kingdom of God is most appropriate and interesting. Coming as it does at the conclusion of the Parable of the Wicked Husbandmen, and specifically stated as its outcome, it clarifies the entire point of the parable and sheds light on some of its terms. The historical moment suggested within the parable itself, when the Kingdom of God would be conspicuously taken from the Jews who had rejected Jesus and the messages of all the prophets, and turned over to another group that would produce the results God intended, is precisely when the Lord of the vineyard comes to His vineyard to put those wretches to a miserable death. At that historical juncture, the Kingdom of God will manifestly become the sole responsibility of a separate group of people. At exactly this point in the narrative (Matthew 21:44; Luke 20:18) the Lord summarizes two prophecies that describe the menace to the wicked represented by the Messiah Himself. (Cf. Psalms 118:22-23; Isaiah 8:14-15; Daniel 2:34-35; Daniel 2:44) He Himself is such a menace, for He is the Stone upon which those, who do not see Him for what He is, break themselves; He it is who will fall upon Israel to crush that wicked nation.
Should it be objected that the coming of the Lord of the Vineyard, to be true to the figure of the parable, refers to God, not to the Son who was cast out of the vineyard dead, it must be recalled that (1) the parable could go only so far in describing the reality without inserting the specific information that the Son then arose from the dead and reentered the vineyard, destroyed those wicked husbandmen, etc… It was Jesus-’ purpose, obvious from what He actually did say, to evoke a moral judgment from His hearers-’ sense of right. It was not His purpose to shock their minds with the resurrection, a point actually unnecessary to carry His meaning. (2) The identification of the Lord of the vineyard with His Son is certainly possible, once we understand the unique character of Jesus-’ relationship to the Father.
IV.
The king was angry, and he sent his troops and destroyed those murderers and burned their city. (Matthew 22:7)
The parable of the Marriage of the King’s Son (Matthew 22:1-14) covers exactly the same ground as the preceding one (Matthew 21:33-46), with but one major advance in thought. The two parables have two common sections:
*The Wicked Husbandmen
The Marriage of the King’s Son*
God’s dealing with Israel (Matthew 21:33-41 a)
God’s dealings with Israel (Matthew 22:2-7)
God’s dealings with the Gentiles (Matthew 21:41 b - Matthew 21:43)
God’s dealings with the Gentiles (Matthew 22:8-10)
God’s dealings with individual Christians (Matthew 22:11-14)
Notice that the turning point between the first and second sections of both parables is the same and significant for our purpose here: after God had sent many messengers to those who had a covenant with Him, i.e. those who were His subjects, and after these had rejected His longsuffering mercy, He visited judgment upon them, taking away their rights, their privileged position as His subjects. What He had intended for their blessing, He immediately turned over to others who would appreciate His bounty. A closer look at the key verse, which marks the transfer, shows that in this latter parable Jesus bares the method by which God would put those ungrateful wretches to a miserable death: He would use troops to destroy those murderers and burn their city. While it may be fairly objected that this detail is but part of the scenery of the parable, necessary to its comprehension but not to be taken literally, it is worthy of note that the literal interpretation of this detail does find an exact fulfilment of Jesus-’ words when in 70 A.D. the Roman Tenth Legion under Titus battered and burned Jerusalem to the ground.
Further, after the removal of those murderers who spurned God’s grace, God throws open the invitation to enjoy His blessings to just any and everybody, in contrast to those who thought they had most right to them, since they had been invited and should have been prepared. At a particular point in Jewish history this great transfer took place: God’s army shattered Jewish nationalism for centuries to come, releasing the Church from any further relationship to Judaism, permitting the world to see the universal character of the Church made up of believing Jews and Gentiles.
In light of these two parables, it is not surprising to hear the Master finish describing the true signs, which precede the destruction of Jerusalem, by mentioning the disastrous war in which this people will fall by the edge of the sword and be led captive among all nations, and Jerusalem will be trodden down by the Gentiles until the times of the Gentiles are fulfilled. (Luke 21:23-24) In literal language He predicts the character of the age to follow that of Jewish opportunity: it shall be a Gentile age. Not only would God use Gentiles to initiate the period by punishing the Jews, but the period would be one of gracious opportunity for the conversion of the Gentiles.
V.
**Behold, your house is forsaken and desolate. For I tell you, you will not see me again until you say, -Blessed be He who comes in the name of the Lord.-’ **(Matthew 23:38-39)
These heart-broken words of the rejected Messiah were spoken at a point in Jesus-’ last week in Jerusalem that is important to note and probably surprising to some: they were pronounced AFTER the Triumphal Entry (Matthew 21:1-11). Notwithstanding the certainty that He had already pronounced the same lament regarding Jerusalem the killer of prophets (see Luke 13:31-35), since it is uttered here at the conclusion of Jesus-’ exposure of the true character of the corrupt leaders of Judaism whose sins defied Divine Justice, this dark warning becomes the sad farewell of Israel’S-’ truest Patriot as well as the solemn sentence pronounced by Israel’s true Judge. The obvious import of His words announces the desolation and abandonment of your house. Whether this house is to be understood with reference to the Temple, to the city of Jerusalem (see Plummer, Matthew, 325), or to the people of Israel (the house of Israel), makes no fundamental difference, since they were to be desolated together. Should it be asked when this national disaster would occur, the context of this lament provides the general time-period: Upon you (will) come all the righteous blood shed on earth. all this will come upon this generation. (Matthew 23:35-36) That the expression Generation is to be taken in its literal, usual sense, and not broadly defined to mean this race or nation, will be noted later on Matthew 24:34, where the meaning is the same.
The point to notice in this warning is Jesus-’ cryptic prediction that that generation of wicked, unbelieving Jews would certainly live to see the day when He would appear to them under quite other circumstances than those under which they had brutally rejected Him Who was God’s last offer of mercy. But such an appearance does not necessitate a personal visible coming, such as He will make visible to all at the end of the world (cf. Matthew 24:27; Revelation 1:7), but rather a coming in judgment upon Palestine. Should it be objected that You will not see me until. signifies You will see me after. i.e. that this coming to Israel must be visible to the naked eye, we would respond that it was not a visible personal coming to which Jesus referred when He promised His disciples that they too would live to see the Son of man coming in His Kingdom. (Matthew 16:28)
Further, Jesus would be hidden, from the then living generation, in a certain sense and for a certain period of time which He describes as not. until you say, -Blessed be He. -’ Some feel that this pictures a future conversion of the Jews. If so, this suggestion, in effect, becomes equivalent to saying: You will truly see me for what I am: your Messiah, when you can join your voices to those who recently acclaimed me their Christ during the Triumphal Entry three days ago. That is, when the Jews were individually converted to Him, they would be able to take up this welcome. However, rather than promising any future wholesale conversion of Israel, according to some millennial theories, this is a threat! I hereby leave your house desolate. You must preserve as best you can this city and Temple which have been under Divine protection until now. You will never see me again as your Messiah, until you yourselves can take up the joyous welcome to me. My mission to you as your Savior is finished, What I have said and done for you should have been enough to convert you. From now on I personally will not disturb you. If you wish to be taught and saved by me, the initiative must come from you, This interpretation is possible, but there is another emphasis that can also be harmonized with the judgment Jesus pronounced upon the Hebrew nation: You will not see me again until that moment when I bring devastating punishment upon the house and nation of Israel. In that horrible moment from you will be wrung that cry, that confession, now willingly owned by others, for which you would even this week crucify me! I will come again in judgment and this generation will see it and acknowledge that I was truly the Messiah, but then it will be too late. Jesus has nothing to say about the willingness of those who thus make the cry He predicts. (Cf. similar cases: Philippians 2:9-11; Revelation 5:13; Revelation 6:12-17; Romans 14:11)
Since the day of grace was not yet completely over for Jerusalem and since Pentecost was yet future, some Jews actually did repent and see Jesus as Messiah, as witnessed in the book of Acts, but by no means all of them did so. This simple decision separated the obdurate from the obedient. If we have understood this text correctly, Jesus is predicting a moment when He Himself would return during that generation, a time when Judaism would behold and acknowledge as vindicated Him Whom they had rejected. It would be a moment of Divine Justice, resulting in the permanent desertion and desolation of Israel’s famous house,
VI.
So also when you see all these things, you know that he is near, at the very gates. Truly I say to you, this generation will not pass away till all these things take place. (Matthew 24:33-34)
Before dealing with this text it must be observed that there is no masculine pronoun (he) in the Greek text, as represented here by the RSV text; the he may well be substituted with it or any indefinite subject, since there is no subject expressed in Greek either in this verse or in the text of Mar 13:29. Something is very near, even at the very gates, about to take place or become visible, of which the signs Jesus had just mentioned are indications (Matthew 24:14-22 and perhaps also Matthew 24:23-31). It is Luke (Luke 21:29-32) who, in recording the same material, fills in the blank and identifies theit left unspecified by Matthew and Mark: So also when you see these things taking place, you know that THE KINGDOM OF GOD is near. The very things the disciples will have seen taking place are easily identified. They are the many false alarms preceding the universal proclamation of the Gospel for a testimony to the nations, the specific sign of Jerusalem being surrounded by armies and Jerusalem’s fall which included the crushing end of classic Judaism. This, says Luke’s narrative, is but a herald of the exceeding nearness of the Kingdom of God. The important Lucan text to remember in this connection is Luke 9:27 (see under point II above) which recorded Jesus-’ exciting promise: But I tell you truly, there are some standing here who will not taste of death before they see the KINGDOM OF GOD. Out of this similarity we detect two tempting conclusions:
That the expression this generation (Matthew 24:34; Mark 13:30; Luke 21:32) is to be taken in its natural sense, referring to the people living in Jesus-’ time. This phrase is not to be applied to the entire race of the Jews living down through the centuries to the present time, however tempting it might be to see their continued existence, despite the terrible judgments just mentioned, as a real wonder, or sign. This definition is sound since Jesus is talking about the same manifestation of the Kingdom of God during the lifetime of the Apostles. So this generation means the people living right now, in these times, i.e. the generation in which Jesus was on earth.
That a significant manifestation of God’s Kingdom would take place in Jesus-’ own generation, long after the beginning of the Church and somehow connected with the destruction of Jerusalem is also deduced from this information.
If the identification of this manifestation of the Kingdom of God with the Son of man coming in His Kingdom with power, be valid (Matthew 16:28; Mark 9:1; Luke 9:27), then that generation of Jewish people would live to see Jesus coming in punitive judgment upon those very people who would have murdered Him. Even. if they did not see Him personally coming from heaven in triumphant glory in that era, they would certainly be forced to recognize that their own divine punishment was just, that the Rule of God has passed out of their hands, that the Kingdom of God is now of another people. We who have accepted Jesus recognize that His prophetic words were true and that there is a new people of God, a new holy and royal priesthood, elect out of every nation.
Should it be objected either that all these things must include Jesus-’ prophecies concerning what may be taken to be the events surrounding His own Second Coming (i.e. Matthew 24:23-31; Mark 13:21-27; Luke 21:25-28) and therefore Jesus erroneously thought that His own return must occur within that generation, or. that all these things must include the Second Coming and therefore this generation must include all the generations of Jews down to Christ’s Second Coming, we respond that all the facts may be otherwise harmonized, rendering both-these conclusions incorrect.
J. Marcellus Kik (Matthew XXIV) has shown in his excellent exposition of that critical chapter in Christian eschatology that ALL the information in the first section (Matthew 24:4-35) can be interpreted in connection either with the fall of Jerusalem and the end of the Jewish nation or with the theological significance of those events. He considers Matthew 24:34 to be the key to the understanding of the times and seasons involved in Jesus-’ discourse, since he places all that follows that verse within the unknown time limits within which Jesus will return the second time. In the section that most assume has reference to Christ’s second coming (Matthew 24:23-31; Mark 13:21-27; Luke 21:25-28), Kik believes Jesus is using standardized apocalyptical language for completely earthly events. He feels that this apocalyptic dialect, created by Isaiah, Ezekiel, Daniel, Joel and others, was used by Jesus to convey the fundamentally theological notion that universal dominion, glory and a kingdom has been given to Him as the Son of man par excellence. (Cf. Daniel 7:13-14) Kik’s contention is that Jesus-’ coming on the clouds of heaven with power and great glory (Matthew 24:30), as well as all the other concomitant phenomena in this section (Matthew 24:27-31), may be so interpreted in light of the apocalyptic language of the OT that even this coming of Jesus, seen by the Jews of that generation, found it fulfilment in the judgment of the Jews and the vindication of Christ’s rule in the Church.
While Kik’s thesis regarding this section (Matthew 24:23-31) demands further study, it is certainly undeniable that anyone who deals with prophecies given in a Jewish context must also deal with the problem of apocalyptic language which cannot, repeat, must not, be taken literally without doing violence to the meaning intended by the author. This is true whether one is interpreting Matthew 24. the prophecies of Ezekiel or Daniel or the book of Revelation which calls itself the Apocalypse of Jesus Christ. (See above on apocalypses.) Kik has shown us a consistent interpretation of the sentences (Matthew 24:33-34) which includes all the information that precedes them (Matthew 24:4-32). Before we can refute his thesis we must see whether it is reasonable to suppose that Jesus would have inserted a full paragraph of apocalyptic dialect into a discourse made up of normal prophetic language (to be taken more or less literally). But before passing on, it is worthy of notice that this thesis posits a coming of the Son of man at the time of the destruction of Jerusalem and the end of the nation.
VII. Jesus said to him, You have said so. But I tell you, hereafter you will see the Son of man seated at the right hand of power and coming on the clouds of heaven, (Matthew 26:64)
Under oath before the whole council of the Jews, Jesus not only confessed to being the Christ, the Son of God. He added, without its being required, that a time would come when those seated there before Him, those who were almost entirely and immediately responsible for His judicial murder, would, in a certain sense, behold Him fully vindicated for the magnificent claims He had just made. These tremendous and magnificent claims are stated before the highest court in the Jewish nation. They are stated, therefore, in the most public way, not only as Jesus-’ self-incrimination in the eyes of that court, but most especially are these words Jesus-’ highest revelation of Himself, given in the most formal, public way. But what did He mean?
It is no little temptation to regard these claims literally, i.e. with reference to Jesus-’ Second Coming, especially since John repeats the latter figure in the Revelation (Matthew 1:7), a book believed to have been written long after the destruction of Jerusalem. But even John’s use of these figures in that place cannot be considered definitive, since he may be citing the OT expressions in regard to Jesus, even as Jesus Himself is apparently doing here. The point of both passages (i.e. Matthew 26:64 and Revelation 1:7) will have to be sought in the use each makes of those expressions.
In the claim itself we have two separate Messianic references:
Seated at the right hand, as an application of Psa 110:1 becomes a high claim to messiahship, since this passage was held to be messianic, (Cf. Matthew 22:43-45; Edersheim, Life, II, 720, 721) Taken also in connection with the formulation of the oath by which the high priest held Jesus obligated to commit Himself (Tell us of you are the Christ, the Son of God, Matthew 26:63), this phrase might also call to mind the great Anointed Son of God who as King would rule the nations (Psalms 2; Cf. John 1:49; Edersheim, Life, II, 716, 717).
Son of man. coming on the clouds of heaven, is a phrase which the high priest would have recognized as a reference to Daniel 7:13-14. (Cf. Edersheim, Life, II, 733, 734)
While it may be possible to view these two references as two separate eschatological events or phases of Christ’s ultimate divine majesty and coming to judgment in divine glory at the conclusion of the world, yet it would harmonize better with Jesus-’ immediate situation to interpret His admittedly apocalyptic language in literal language thus: I admit to being the Christ, the Son of God. Though you consider this blasphemy, nevertheless I can tell you that you will live to see my most daring claims vindicated! You will see my messianic majesty and greatness and dominion as spoken of by the Psalmist and Daniel. Rather than quote the entire passages in each case, Jesus chose key phrases that rapidly summarized the messianic impact of His sovereignty. Lenski (Matthew, 1066) is probably right in deciding that
Jesus adds this statement in order to bring his judges to a realization of just whom they are about to condemn to death. He is defining for them who the Messiah, the Son of God is: he whom they themselves will see in his divine power, rule and majesty.
No, those Sanhedrists were not to be through with Jesus when they had crucified Him, for just four days later God would designate Him Son of God in power. by His resurrection from the dead (Romans 1:5). Not long thereafter this same Sanhedrin had to deal with the rapidly spreading Gospel of the risen Christ preached by a handful of disciples. The chief point of the Apostles-’ preaching was let all the house of Israel know assuredly that God had designated both Lord and Christ this Jesus whom you crucified! (Acts 2:33; Acts 2:36; Acts 4:10-12; Acts 5:29-32) God’s mercy with these Jewish leaders lasted yet 36 years longer (30-66 A.D.), until the Jewish War began. It was then that the storm broke over Palestine that lashed the nation economically, politically and religiously reducing it to a smoking shambles of its former glory. It was then that Jesus came in judgment upon that people, and the Sanhedrists lived to see it.
There are several problems involved in this interpretation of this text:
Jesus does not here in the trial scene predict the fall of Jerusalem and His coming in judgment, as He had done earlier on many other public and private occasions. (Cf. Luke 13:35; Luke 19:41-44; Matthew 23:29-39) It would have been so much more convenient for the theory of His coming in judgment upon Jerusalem and Judaism, had He done so. But He did not clearly speak of this, so, so much the worse for the theory if it fails to explain the language He used.
If we believe that Jesus were using apocalyptic language derived from the Psalms and Daniel to express His meaning, then, when this same apocalyptic jargon is reduced to literal language by expressing the literal meaning of the figures usedby Daniel especiallythen there is left no literal Son of man coming on the clouds of heaven, (itself part of the vision). What is left is Jesus-’ claim to be vindicated as the reigning, glorious Messiah in the near future in a manner observable by His jurors. One cannot translate figurative language into literal, and still hope to make direct use of some part of that figure in his literal interpretation. This is having one’s cake and eating it too! This observation is not fatal to the theory sustained here, because it is not argued that Jesus appeared over Jerusalem in a manner visible to the Jews, when He punished that city and nation. So the coming (of the Son of man) on the clouds of heaven harmonizes perfectly as a concept, with the coming of the Son of man described elsewhere.
Answers to these problems may be the following: Jesus meant more than His vindication upon the Jews in the destruction of their Temple and nation, so He did not limit this appearance to the Sanhedrists to merely that single event. He meant His resurrection, the establishment of His Church, the victory of His Gospel, the validation of His claims in the Apostles-’ ministry and finally, in the generation, the total collapse of all that those Sanhedrists stood for: the Temple, its ministry, their nation and the place that these Sanhedrists held dear. (Cf. John 11:48) There is no doubting the obvious reference to Daniel 7:13-14, because of the special rage, scorn and incredulity of the high priest that Jesus would commit Himself so far, incriminate Himself so completely. What is sure is that these Jewish rulers were not to see a personal and visible coming in their generation. Rather, as Kik (Matthew XXIV, 84) puts it:
This high priest was to see Christ sitting on the right hand of power and coming in the clouds of heaven. Can this possibly refer to Christ’s second coming when the description sitting on the right hand of power precludes such interpretation? It means rather that after the crucifixion and resurrection, Jesus would ascend into heaven and take his place on the right hand of God, the Father, as described in Daniel 7:13-14.. When Christ ascended into heaven he was seated upon his Messianic throne. This is in full accord with the declaration of Christ as he was about to ascend into heaven: All power is given unto me in heaven and in earth. One of the first manifestations of the power and the glory of the Messiah was the destruction of the city that refused to accept him as King and Savior. This act of judgment gave evidence that all power had indeed been given unto him. He did come in the clouds of heaven and rained destruction upon those who had rejected and crucified him, This caused the tribes of the earth to mourn. The sign of the reigning Christ was seen in the destruction of Jerusalem. And the contemporary generation, indicated in verse 34 (i.e., Matthew 24:34), witnessed fulfilment of these things as Christ had prophesied.
Outside of Matthew, let us notice some other texts that suggest the same sort of a coming of Christ in judgment.
VIII.
The coming of the Lord is at hand. (James 5:8)
This verse has particular force, inasmuch as James, if he be identified with James the Just, is remembered by tradition as spending most of his labors in Palestine and particularly in Jerusalem. Accordingly, his death in that city prior to its destruction would lend particular force to the admonitions to patient, uncomplaining endurance, since within a few short years, historically speaking, the Lord would actually come in judgment upon Judaism, snatching away from the unbelievers among the Jews the power to persecute Christians. Objections to this view come from the text itself where the actual wording used by James may be much more technically intended than this interpretation permits. In James 5:7-8 he adopts the expression parousìa toû kurìou, a phrase almost if not always used with reference to Christ’s Second Coming.
IX.
Not neglecting to meet together, as is the habit of some, but encouraging one another, and all the more as you see the day drawing near. (Hebrews 10:25)
While this verse has no direct reference to a coming of the Son of man in the lifetime of the Apostles, it does make use of another technical term usually thought of as having reference to the great day of the Lord’s wrath and judgment, especially that to be witnessed at the end of the world. But in the same context the writer cites Habakkuk 2:3-4 with specific reference to the Messiah (Hebrews 10:37, ho erchòmenos hçxei) On this unusual rendering of the Hebrew text, Keil (Minor Prophets, II, 71) comments:
The LXX have rendered chi boh jaboh: hòti erchòmenos hçxei, which the author of the Epistle to the Hebrews (Heb. x. 37) has still further defined by adding the article, and, connecting it with mikròn hòson hòson of Isa. xxvi. 20 (LXX), has taken it as Messianic, and applied to the speedy coming of the Messiah to judgment; not, however, according to the exact meaning of the words, but according to the fundamental idea of the prophetic announcement. For the vision, the certain fulfilment of which is proclaimed by Habakkuk, predicts the judgment upon the power of the world, which the Messiah will bring to completion.
The notes of Milligan (Hebrews, 284, 292ff) may be of help here:
To what day does our author here refer? To the day of judgment, say Delitzsch, Alford, Moll and others; when Christ will come in person to raise the dead and reward every man according to his works. But this interpretation is manifestly erroneous. To me at least it seems perfectly obvious that the Apostle refers here to a day which both he and his brethren were looking for as a day that was very near at hand: a day that was about to come on that generation, and try the faith of many. And hence I am constrained to think that Macknight, Scott, Stuart, and others, that the reference is most likely to the day of Jerusalem’s overthrow. Christ himself had foretold the near approach of that event (Matthew 24:34); he had also spoken of the signs of its coming and of the great calamities that would accompany it (Matthew 24:4-41 sic: 29-31?). No doubt, therefore, the Christians in Palestine were all looking forward with much anxiety to the time when this prophecy would be fulfilled, They would naturally speak of it as the day, the day of trial; the day when seeing Jerusalem encompassed with armies, they would themselves have to flee to the mountains (Luke 21:20-22).. But to refer to it exclusively to the day when Christ will come in person to judge the world is clearly inadmissible. See notes on vers. 37..
- For yet a little while, etc. More literally: for yet a little while (that is, a very little while), He who is coming (ho erchòmenos) will come, and will not tarry. The coming One here spoken of is manifestly Christ himself. But what is meant by his coming? To what coming does our author here refer? Many say, To His second personal coming. But this is plainly inconsistent with the scope of the Apostle’s exhortation, as well as with the truth itself. His obvious design in the passage is to encourage the Hebrew brethren in their begun Christian course, on the ground that the coming of Christ was then very near at hand, when they would all be delivered from the snares, reproaches and violence of their persecutors. But how could he consistently and truthfully encourage them to do this, on the ground that the second personal advent of Christ was then very near at hand? It will not do to say with some that the Apostles themselves so believed and so taught. They did neither, but just the reverse. For when some of the Thessalonian brethren so understood Paul’s teaching (1 Thessalonians 4:15-17), he promptly addressed to them a second letter, in which he very emphatically corrected their mistake.. (2 Thessalonians 2:1-3). This, then is a clear and satisfactory refutation of the charge that the Apostles believed and taught that the second personal coming of Christ was near at hand in their own day. And so also is the book of Revelation a refutation of it.. The coming of Christ, as referred to in our text, must therefore mean, not his second personal coming but, his coming in providence most likely, to destroy Jerusalem, and so to deliver his elect from the violent persecutions to which they had long been subjected by the unbelieving Jews (Matthew 24:29-41 sic: 29-31?) To this Christ himself refers encouragingly in Luke 21:28, where, speaking of the signs of Jerusalem’s approaching ruin, he says, When these things begin to come to pass, then look up, and lift up your heads, for your redemption draweth nigh..
This view of the matter is also further corroborated by the fact that our author finds in the prophecy of Habakkuk, concerning the overthrow of the Chaldean monarchy, language so appropriate to his purpose that he here takes and applies it to his own; thereby showing that the two cases are very analogous. it will be seen that our author does not quote the exact words of God’s reply to the Prophet; but as is usual in such cases of accommodation (see Romans 10:6-8), he so modifies the language as to adapt it to the case in hand. The main lesson is, however, the same in both Hebrews and Habakkuk; viz.: that God would certainly come and execute his purposes at the appointed time: and that while the proud and self-reliant would of necessity perish under the righteous judgments of God, the just man’s faith, if it wavered not, would certainly support him under the severest trials.
This was all impressively illustrated in the fall of Jerusalem. The unbelieving Jews were all slain or taken captive; but not a Christian perished in the siege..
X.
The sun shall be turned into darkness and the moon into blood, before the day of the Lord comes, the great and manifest day. (Acts 2:20)
Did the events prophetically described by Joel (Joe 2:28-32) and cited by Peter (Acts 2:17-21) find exhaustive fulfilment on the day Pentecost, or were they not rather but the beginning of a series of events that began that day, but did not receive complete expression until the final fall of the judgment of God upon the Jewish nation, the destruction of Jerusalem and the conclusive end of the Jewish economy based upon its priesthood, sacrifices and Temple? One feature of Joel’s prophecy, yet cited by Peter, that has no apparent fulfilment at all on Pentecost is the figure of the great astronomical portents: And I will give portents in the heavens and on the earth, blood and fire and columns of smoke. The sun shall be turned to darkness, and the moon into blood, before the great and terrible day of the Lord comes. (Joe 2:30; Acts 2:19-20)
The day of the Lord, as shown by Butler (Minor Prophets, 84ff), is a technical term used in the OT with four major significations, hence, having as many different kinds of realization in the history of God’s dealings with men: (1) judgments upon the covenant people; (2) redemptions of the covenant people; (3) judgments upon the nations; (4) redemptions of the nations. Joel himself in this case describes the particular day of the Lord that must occur in his own rime, using the same apocalyptic language of judgment. Several times in his description he speaks of astronomical cataclysms (Joe 2:1-2; Joe 2:10-11; Joe 3:15) This gives a specific flavor of punitive judgment to these symbols, so that when they are used by Peter, his audience could not but shiver at the awesome threat and divine warning implied in those figures.
If we have understood Matthew 24:4-32 correctly (see above under Matthew 24:34, point VI), it may be that the celestial phenomena, described in the section most often interpreted with reference to the Second Coming (i.e. Matthew 24:29-31) have nothing at all to do with those heavenly bodies. Instead, there, as here, we may see the standard apocalyptic vision of divine judgment. As has been repeated many times before, divine judgment did actually fall on Palestine many years after Pentecost. But is it possible to apply this prophecy just to the fall of the Jewish nation? What has been said earlier about the use of apocalyptic stereotyped language might be true here, inasmuch as we have a clear example of an OT prophet cited whose own contextual information leads us to view his language as highly figurative, hence NOT intending LITERAL celestial phenomena. (Cf. Joe 1:15; Joe 2:1-2; Joe 2:10-11; Joe 3:14-15 with Isaiah 13:1-22 esp. Isaiah 13:9-10; Isaiah 5:30; Isaiah 24:21-23; Isaiah 50:3) While it is true that the Christian writers can speak of the final judgment as the great and notable day of the Lord, yet the use of this phrase in the OT makes it doubtful whether every appearance of this phrase in the NT must necessarily be applied exclusively and always to the great final judgment at the end of the world. Even the salvation of the believers here predicted (Acts 2:21) proved to be two-fold salvation, not only of their souls, but also of their lives. They believed Jesus and so were saved from their sins; they believed Jesus-’ prophecies and so were not destroyed on the great day of the Lord when Jesus judged Jerusalem and the unbelieving Jews.
XI.
The end of all things is at hand; therefore keep sane and sober for your prayers. (1 Peter 4:7)
These words were addressed by Peter to the exiles of the dispersion in Pontus, Galatia, Cappadocia, Asia, and Bithynia, (1 Peter 1:1) probably prior to 70 A.D., since traditional dating of Peter’s own martyrdom is placed prior to that date. But would this sentence have much point for the exiles of the Diaspora living in lands distant from Palestine, whose lives and security would not be materially affected by the vicissitudes in Judea? If these are primarily Jewish Christians, as the words of the inscription imply, Peter’s admonition would take on particular strength and receive special fulfilment as the nerve center of world-wide Judaism would be torn to the ground, never to rise again for centuries, if ever. The value of this exhortation to these distant Christians would be obvious, since the fall of Jerusalem and the destruction of the Temple, God’s chosen house, would probably be looked upon as almost, if not entirely incredible. It would probably be less incredible to these Christians than it was to the disciples who heard Jesus predict these events originally (Matthew 24; Mark 13; Luke 21), since the Apostles themselves could have repeated much of the Lord’s prophetic discourse to their converts. Hence, just a word of reminder, such as this exhortation of Peter’S, would suffice.
But should it be objected that Peter says The end of ALL things is at hand, it must be remembered that Jesus used similar language to describe the destruction of Jerusalem. (Cf. all these things Matthew 24:33-34 and parallels) Or if it be objected that Peter’s words, being indefinitely stated, are also capable of double entendre, this is true, but not fatal to the theory suggested here. If it be thought that Peter’s words here should be interpreted in light of his later message (2 Peter 3:8-13), then we respond that here the words are indefinitely aimed at some end near at hand, whereas Peter in the other passage addressed himself to the scornful demand made by mockers: Where is the promise of His coming (parousìa)? an obvious reference to the Second Coming.
PROBLEMS INVOLVED IN THIS THEORY OR ITS PRESENTATION
-
One of the most painfully obvious weaknesses of this study is the fact that it does not take into adequate account the various differing views of each single passage. There are certainly other passages that should be presented here, just as there are more objections to some used here. As a necessary consequence, the presentation of the evidence is quite one-sided, The justification for this presentation lies therefore in the hope that the reader is already familiar with the other views to which this presentation is but an alternative. This collection of coincidences and single texts must be examined in their contexts in their entirety to appreciate the impact they represent.
-
Another weakness, more serious to the suggestion that the special coming of the Son of man refers to Jesus-’ coming in judgment upon the Jewish nation, is the fact that none of the inspired writers ever declares this interpretation to be the theological meaning of the demise of the Jewish city and nation, This is true, unless the figures of Revelation be so interpreted. (Cf. Revelation 11) Our present state of knowledge regarding the date of NT books gives no mathematical certainty regarding the relationship between the writing of the bulk of the NT books and the date of the Jewish War (66-70 A.D.) While the conservative scholars tend to place the dates of most of them before that tragedy, yet the enigma remains when the Johannine Scriptures are considered. If John wrote considerably after the fall of Jerusalem, why did he not once mention that fact, even though he talked all around the subject of Jerusalem itself in his Gospel and in his Apocalypse could have made reference to it?
There may be other weaknesses too, but let us ask ourselves:
WHAT IS TO BE GAINED IF THIS THEORY BE ACCEPTED AS TRUE?
-
This suggestion provides a possible harmonization for other passages of the NT that contained problems that had seemed insoluble under other schemes, rendering it more difficult to accept the Gospel at face value, for those who did not see this solution. It is not necessary, on the basis of Gospel studies, to conclude that Jesus was mistaken, since He thought that His own second coming must take place shortly after the fall of the Jewish economy. Nor is it necessary to conclude that the Apostles themselves and the early Christians erroneously presumed that they would live until the Second Coming. Worse yet, is the opinion that the discourses in which the eschatological events are predicted are not factual recordings of anything Jesus ever actually said, but are the theological opinions of later ages put into the mouth of Jesus to give them greater credibility. Instead, if this solution here offered be valid, then the exegesis upon which these unbelieving conclusions were based, may need correction.
-
If this suggestion be true, that Jesus actually came in judgment upon the Jews, then, of course, many texts that were formerly considered as dealing exclusively with the Second Coming will now be subtracted from discussions of that subject. As a result, the texts that actually deal with the Second Coming will be seen much more clearly, since the confusion, created by trying to weigh texts on the destruction of Jerusalem into the conclusions about the Second Coming, would, presumably, no longer exist, since the texts about Jesus-’ judgment on Judaism would not have to be considered. Needless to say, such clarity made available for eschatological studies surrounding the Second Coming would be of great value. (Revelation 1:3) This clarity would help to place eschatological studies on a surer basis and give them respectability in the eyes of the average Christian who must throw up his hands in despair in face of the present state of confusion in the field.
-
Out of this last expression comes another conclusion. This suggestion that Jesus actually came in judgment upon the Jewish world in the first century would provide us one more reasonably clear evidence that Jesus intends to keep His Word about that future great day of the Lord when He will come personally and visibly to judge the nations. His promise would be enough for the average believer. But the certainty of His promise is driven home with redoubled force, when men realize that He has already clearly shown the greatness of His power and the dependability of His promises in the historically verifiable act of judgment upon Judaism in the events beginning with the unsuccessful Jewish Revolt and the disastrous fall of Jerusalem with all its religious consequences for all future ages of both Jerusalem and the Church. Jesus is a Gentleman who keeps His appointments! This, of course, poses an unveiled threat to every complacent person who frankly enjoys his sinful way of life. The eschatological hope of the Christians is not unfounded, wishful thinking, but rather a splendidly concrete reality already in motion, of which the smashing judgment of unbelieving Judaism and the glorious vindication of the Church’s claims was but an earnest and evidence.
-
The historical importance of the destruction of Jerusalem and the blotting out of the Jewish theocracy is inestimable to Christianity in the following ways, listed by Newman (Manual of Church History, I, 118, 119; see also Schaff, History of the Christian Church, I, 402, 403):
a.
It marked in the most unmistakable way the end of the old dispensation and the complete emancipation of Christianity from the thraldom of Judaism. It was henceforth impossible for any one to observe the ceremonial law in its fullness. No doubt the Pauline type of Christianity would ultimately have become dominant apart from this fearful interposition of Divine Providence. Judaistic Christianity was to persist in the form of sects, but catholic Christianity could no longer be Judaizing.
b.
The destruction of the city was very commonly looked upon by Christians as a divine judgment on the Jewish people for their rejection and crucifixion of the Messiah. It may safely be said that if the Jews as a body, or a large portion of them, had accepted Christ as their Saviour and had become partakers of the Spirit of Christ, the Jewish Zealots, who brought ruin upon their people, would not have arisen or would not have secured popular support.
c.
The great catastrophe may be regarded as a direct fulfilment of our Lord’s predictions as recorded in Matthew 21:43; Matthew 23:37-39 and in Luke 21:20-28.
d.
This great event is regarded by many as a fulfilment of our Lord’s prophecies regarding his speedy coming in his kingdom (Matthew 10:23; Matthew 16:28; Matthew 24:34), and of such passages in the apostolic Epistles and the Acts of the Apostles as represent the Lord’s advent as imminent. It seems harsh to associate so glorious an event as the Lord’s coming with a catastrophe so terrible; yet there can be no question but that the destruction of the city and the theocracy gave a freedom and a universality to the gospel which mark an epoch in the history of Christianity and placed the gradually advancing kingdom of Christ on a firm basis.
e.
There is no reason to think that the Roman authorities at this time discriminated carefully between Christianity and Judaism in favor of the former; but the time had past when the accusations of Jews against Christians would be heeded by the civil courts. Henceforth the Jews were without political influence and were treated with contempt by the Roman officials.
In view of the foregoing, consider the following
SKETCH OF THE ESCHATOTLOGICAL CONCLUSIONS REPRESENTED
SOME FURTHER COMMENTS ON ARGUMENTS FOR JESUS-’ DEITY AND AUTHORITY
I. HIS PRECISION AS A PROPHET
G. C. Morgan (Matthew, 104): One of the most profound reasons for trusting Christ today in the matter of all Christian service is that here and elsewhere He revealed His perfect knowledge of conditions which no man could forecast, and which yet have transpired exactly as He foretold them. What is more significant, as Morgan declares, is that the keenest of human foresight could not foresee the distinct changes of direction that history, in direct relationship to His disciples, would have taken. Let us notice that the change of conditions created by the crucifixion of Jesus, and again by the fall of Jerusalem, are self-evident. The position of these men was greatly changed after the crucifixion of Jesus; and it was greatly changed again when the principal force in persecuting them was broken. It is perfectly clear that the King foresaw these things, and that He understood perfectly the whole movement of the years that stretched before Him.
II. HIS CANDOR, HONESTY AND COMPASSION
Barclay (Matthew I, 385): Here is my task for youat its grimmest and at its worstdo you accept it?
McGarvey, (Matthew-Mark. 95): There is a contrast between Jesus and the originators of earthly enterprises, whether secular or religious. It is the custom of the latter to paint in glowing colors the brighter prospects of the causes they plead, and to conceal from both themselves and others the darker side of the picture. But Jesus presents faithfully before His disciples all of the hardships and sufferings which await them, not omitting death itselfand death, it may be, on the cross. The foreknowledge displayed is proof of His divinity, while the compassion and the candor which accompany it are such as we would expect in the Son of God.
Notice that His revelations of the brutal realities in the fearful future are not given in a brutal manner. The Lord compassionately shows the help available in time of need.
Though it is not the usual way to win followers, nevertheless Jesus appeals to that adventurer hidden in the heart of every man. In the long run, one does not attract MEN to the easy way by inducements of comfort, advancement, ease, and fulfilment of worldly ambitions. It is the honest challenge of the heroic that ultimately appeals to men. The Church softens this approach and waters her message to her peril!
III. HIS ROYAL DEMANDS
Plummer (Matthew, 157): -For My sake.-’ Again we have a claim which is monstrous if He who makes it is not conscious of being Divine. Who is it that is going to own us or renounce us before God’s judgment-seat (32, 33)? Who is it that promises with such confidence that the man who loses his life for His sake shall find it? And these momentous utterances are spoken as if the Speaker had no shadow of doubt as to their truth, and as if He expected that His hearers would at once accept them. What is more, thousands of Christians, generation after generation, have shaped their lives by them and have proved their truth by repeated experience.
IV. HIS ASSUMED AUTHORITY
Bengal, (cited in PHC, 242): Great is the authority of conferring authority. Notice how simply Jesus is reported to have done it. (Matthew 10:1) There is no great apologetic which lists reasons why Jesus should have the right to confer authority upon His disciples. Matthew says, He simply did it, and that was that!
Note His claim, everywhere implicit in the chapter, that our faith in Jesus determines our standing before God.
Other points suggested by Lewis and Booth, PHC, XXII, 245:
V.
THE CONSISTENCY OF THE SAVIORThe prayers He enjoins, the provisions He makes, the instructions He gives, are all of a piece.
VI.
THE CONSIDERATION OF THE SAVIOR.He does not set His workmen to begin at the top of the ladder. He does not ask them at first what, to many among them, will not be too easy at last. Not first apart from Him, but first by His side.
VII. THE FORETHOUGHT OF THE SAVIOR.He sets them at first to that which will help to qualify them for what has to be done at the last.
Matthew 11:2-19
Section 24
JESUS RECEIVES A QUESTION FROM JOHN AND PREACHES A SERMON ON JOHN
(Parallel: Luke 7:18-35)
TEXT: 11:2-19
Now when John heard in the prison the works of the Christ, he sent by his disciples
and said unto him, Art thou he that cometh, or look we for another?
and Jesus answered and said unto them, Go and tell John the things which ye hear and see:
the blind receive their sight, and the lame walk. the lepers are cleansed, and the deaf hear, and the dead are raised up, and the poor have good tidings preached to them.
And blessed is he, whosoever shall find no occasion of stumbling in me.
And as these went their way, Jesus began to say unto the multitudes concerning John, What went ye out into the wilderness to behold? a reed shaken with the wind?
But what went ye out to see? a man clothed in soft raiment? Behold, they that wear soft raiment are in king’s houses.
But wherefore went ye out? to see a prophet? Yea, I say unto you, and much more than a prophet.
This is he, of whom it is written,
Behold, I send my messenger before thy face, Who shall prepare thy way before thee.
Verily I say unto you, Among them that are born of women there hath not arisen a greater than John the Baptist: yet he that is but little in the kingdom of heaven is greater than he.
And from the days of John the Baptist until now the kingdom of heaven suffereth violence, and men of violence take it by force.
For all the prophets and the law prophesied until John.
And if ye are willing to receive it, this is Elijah, that is to come.
He that hath ears to hear, let him hear.
But whereunto shall I liken this generation? It is like children sitting in the marketplaces, who call unto their fellows
and say, We piped unto you, and ye did not dance; we wailed, and ye did not mourn.
For John came neither eating nor drinking, and they say, He hath a demon.
The Son of man came eating and drinking, and they say, Behold, a gluttonous man and a winebibber, a friend of publicans and sinners! And wisdom is justified by her works.
THOUGHT QUESTIONS
a.
If John is shut up in prison, how is it that he is so free in prison to send messengers to Jesus?
b.
If you had been preaching fiery judgment upon Israel, warning the people that the Messiah would come with a threshing shovel in His hand to separate the wicked from the righteous and threatening the wicked by saying that the ax is ready at the foot of the trees to hew down the wicked that produced no fruit,if this had been YOUR message, and yet the Messiah came along watering the trees, what would have been your reaction? You had preached judgment, but He proclaims mercy and the grace of God. What kind of questions would YOU have had?
c.
Some commentators feel that John was not asking this great question for himself but rather for his disciples. Do you think this is correct? If so, on what basis do you agree? If no, why not?
d.
Why, would you say, do questions hurt men worse than torture?
e.
Do you think it is God’s will to torture men with agonizing questions? If not, then why does not God answer their questions? If so, then how do you harmonize His goodness with this permission that lets such questions continue to harass the minds of His creatures, yes, even the minds of such great men as John the Baptist?
f.
How do you account for the true greatness of John the Baptist?
g.
Do you feel that people would be more godly today if they imitated John’s general manner of life, his austere food and clothing? If not, what should they imitate? If so, how would this imitation better the moral quality of society?
h.
When a man is shut up in prison for a period of time, one begins to see the real fiber of which his character is made. That confinement of his body and that limitation of the free expression of his spirit is more than many a man can bear. What expressions of faith and high moral character does John yet reveal now while in the imprisonment?
i.
What do you hold to be the secret of John’s greatness?
j.
What do you hold to be the reason why John was actually greater than other prophets?
k.
In what respect is the least in the kingdom of heaven greater than he? Explain how John, the greatest man ever born, could be less than the least in God’s kingdom.
l.
How can John the Baptist be the Elijah who is to come, whereas John himself denied being Elijah? (See John 1:21)
m.
Why do you think Jesus keeps saying in so many of His sermons: He who has ears to hear with, let him hear? Were the people of His time short on ears? Or were they just not using the equipment they had? Explain what Jesus meant by that pithy admonition.
n.
Do you think that this question John asked was painful to Jesus, since He was surrounded by multitudes who surely must have heard John’s messengers pose the question? Was it not a latent lack of confidence in the evidence that Jesus had already given of His identity and consequent authority?
o.
Explain how God’s kingdom had suffered violence and how violent men were taking it by force, even since the beginning of John’s preaching.
p.
What evidence should have already convinced John once and for all that Jesus was everything that John had predicted Him to be? What evidence did Jesus send back to John to persuade him this time?
q.
Jesus describes the personal habits of John the Baptist as those of an ascetic or a recluse, eating no bread and drinking no wine. He describes His own habits as those of one who mixed well with people eating and drinking. Now, discounting as exaggerations the slanders that the Jews levelled at John and Jesus both (He has a demon. Behold, a glutton and wine-drinker), yet is there any basis of fact in the inference drawn from Jesus-’ own statement, that Jesus certainly drank wine? On what basis do you answer as you do?
r.
How is the intended slander levelled against Jesus, a friend of tax collectors and sinners, in a higher sense, His glory and finest proof that He is really God come in the flesh?
s.
Standing this side of the cross, John Hallett can teach us to sing, There’s no disappointment in Jesus, He’s all that He promised to be. Ideally, of course, this is true. Yet, John the Baptist stood in grave danger of being disappointed in Jesus. What one ingredient, common to our human predicament, would put you personally in the prison of perplexity and cause you too to be shocked and even infuriated that Jesus is not what you thought Him to be?
t.
Now, having answered the preceding question, what is there in Jesus-’ answer to John that attenuates your perplexity too, comforts your disappointment or, at least, makes it not nearly so important as it had seemed? In what frame of reference is it possible to sing: His love and His care comfort me everywhere; He is no disappointment to me?
u.
Is it completely true that we must never become a stumbling-block for our neighbors? Jesus knew fully well that His message, ministry and manners were a terrible scandal to His own people, and yet He did not alter His program or character nor tailor His gospel on that account. To what extent then are we to adjust to our environment so as not to give an occasion of sin to our fellows without compromising our Gospel and to what extent must we never change regardless of how many fall? (Study Matthew 18:5-10; 1 Corinthians 8; 1 Corinthians 10:23-33 in contrast with 1 Corinthians 1:18-25 esp. 1 Corinthians 1:23; 1 Peter 2:4-8)
v.
Puzzle of puzzles, why did not Jesus liberate John by a blazing word of miraculous power? Why did He permit him to die what looks like a senseless death, with a silly dancing-girl and her scheming, wicked mother managing the whole thing?
PARAPHRASE AND HARMONY
It was while John the Baptist was in prison that he heard about all the things Jesus was doing. His disciples came to him and reported the deeds Jesus Christ was accomplishing. Selecting two of his followers, he sent the Lord a message by these men, asking, Are you really the Messiah, or are we to keep on waiting for and expecting someone else to be the one? So when these two men arrived where Jesus was, they repeated John’s question: John the Baptist has sent us to ask you, -Are you the one who is to come, or are we going to have to look for someone else who will do the job?-’ Right then and there Jesus cured many sick people who had all kinds of diseases and evil spirits. To many that were blind He gave their sight. Then Jesus made this reply to John’s question, You go tell John exactly what you have just seen and heard today: how the blind recovered their sight, the lame are walking again. Lepers are cleansed. The deaf can now hear. I have raised the dead to life again. Even people who could never afford to pay for it are getting to hear the Good News! John, you will be a happy man indeed, if you can trust me implicitly. Do not be shocked or hurt over what you do not understand of my ministry that does not seem to match your concept of what it should be. It was later, when the messengers of John had left to report to him this answer, that Jesus began to address the crowds concerning John the Baptist:
What spectacle drew you out into the wilderness? A reed easily bent by the wind? A weak, trembling man disturbed by the slightest rumor of danger? No? Then why did you go out there? To see someone clad in silks and satins? Of course not! The dapper dressers with their soft, elegant garments and their life of luxury are to be found in royal court circles, not in kings-’ prisons! Tell me now, why did you really go out there anyway? To see a prophet? Let me tell you this: you saw someone far more than an ordinary prophet! This is the very man about whom Malachi penned the ancient lines (Matthew 3:1):
-Behold my herald whom I am sending on ahead of you: He shall prepare your way for you.-'
I tell you this: there has never yet been born on earth the mother’s son that can excel John the Baptist! And yet, paradoxically, the humblest member of God’s Kingdom is a greater man than John!
Ever since the appearance of John the Baptist until today God’s Kingdom has been subjected to violence. Violent men, like the Zealots, try to seize control of it. Until John came, only the Law of Moses and the prophets represented God’s Word to men. However, if your mind is open to receive this information, I would say that John is the great -Elijah-’ that Malachi (Matthew 4:5) promised would come. Pay close attention to the meaning of what I am saying!
When the common people heard John, they all, even the most notoriously wicked among themeven the tax collectorsagreed that God’s plan was just. They showed this by being immersed in harmony with the rite preached by John. All the people, did this, that is, except the Pharisees and the lawyers. These latter rejected God’s eternal purpose for them, as far as they personally were concerned, because they refused to be immersed by John the Baptist. Jesus went on: But what description adequately reflects the mentality of the people of today? They are like a group of children sitting in the marketplace, protesting to their playmates, -We wanted to play wedding, so we piped to you and you refused to dance. Then we tried playing funeral. So we wailed, but you did not cooperate: you did not mourn nor weep! What DO you want to play?-’ I tell you this, because John lived an ascetic life, neither eating common food nor drinking wine like a normal person would. But you slander him, saying, -Something must be wrong with a man like that! He has a demonhe’s mad!-’ Then I came along, living the normal life, eating and drinking like anyone else, and what do you say? -Look at that glutton! He’s a drinker and a party-goer! He certainly knows how to pick his friends too: outsiders, tramps, no one with whom any respectable person should have anything to do!-’ Nevertheless, despite your unreasonableness, real wisdom is proved true and right by what it produces! The ultimate verdict about the wisdom of our different approaches lies not with you contrary critics, but with the results John and I produce,
SUMMARY
When John the Baptist learned of the merciful ministry of Jesus, he determined to learn the real meaning of the difference between his own fiery predictions and what Jesus was planning. His two messengers relayed his question to Jesus. Rather than answer them directly, Jesus continued to give evidence of His true identity by doing God’s work in the presence of John’s envoys. Then, in messianic language drawn from Isaiah’s prophecy, Jesus summarized His ministry and evidence to give John reasons to continue to trust Him. John’s messengers then reported this message back to John. After they departed, Jesus eulogized John’s greatness as God’s prophet, calling him the greatest man who ever lived, the great herald of the Messiah, the promised prophet whose coming immediately preceded the great day of the Lord. Further, those simple people who accepted John’s message vindicated God by accepting the word of His prophet in obedience, whereas the religious leaders of the nation frustrated God’s plans for them. Worse, the majority of Jesus-’ contemporaries rejected John because he was too serious, not human enough, but rejected Jesus because He was too human, not holy enough. But the course chosen by each will be vindicated by the ultimate results each achieves.
NOTES
I. CHALLENGING THE CHRIST TO CHANGE (11:2, 3)
Matthew 11:2 Now when John heard in the prison, taken as introductory to this section, does not affirm that this event has even the slightest connection with the foregoing material in Matthew’s chapter 10. The time reference is most general: **Now when John heard **(ho de Ioánnçs akoúsas). The aorist participle indicates no time relationship at all, except that related to the main verb of the sentence, eipen (said), another aorist that views the action as a mere past event without stating any connection or continuity with what preceded it. It is Luke who informs us both of the more precise chronological connections, how it was that John was informed and what specific deeds of Christ were most likely the subject of John’s musings: The disciples of John told him of all these things, (Luke 7:18) Very likely, the disciples-’ report included the curing of the Centurion’s slave and the resurrection of the son of the widow of Nain and many other signs. (Luke 7:1-17) Details of John’s imprisonment are available from many sources (Matthew 4:12; Matthew 14:3-5; Mark 6:17-20; Luke 3:19-20; cf. also Josephus-’ Antiquities, XVIII, 5, 2). Had we only Matthew’s Gospel, we would be puzzled by the very access John’s disciples had to their master who was very clearly bound in prison under lock and key (cf. édesçn and katékleisen of Matthew 14:3; Luke 3:20) by Herod who ultimately murdered him there. The enigma is solved by Mark, who, although he does not record the incident of John’s question, yet furnishes the explanation by inserting a fact in quite another context that explains John’s liberty to send the message to Jesus. Herodias had a grudge against him and would willingly have executed him but she could not do it. ,for Herod had a deep respect for John, knowing him to be a good and holy man, so he protected him. When he listened to him he was greatly disturbed, yet he enjoyed hearing him. (Mark 6:19-20) From these sources we may conclude that in Herod’s border-castle, Machaerus, near the northeast end of the Dead Sea, was the site where John spent his last days. The puppet-king Herod Antipas merely shut the wilderness preacher in the fort, but did not ill-treat him. The imprisonment, while politically necessary from Herod’s view, must have been halfhearted, because the king’s troubled conscience clearly accused him. Antipas knew where the path of truth and righteousness lay. Though he must often have conversed with the Baptist, he did not repent. (See notes on Matthew 14:1-12). In this frame of mind, he conceded John the visits of his disciples. Later, these followers were permitted to bury their leader after his execution. (Matthew 14:12)
An even greater perplexity is to be found in the expression John’s disciples. After the revelation of the Messiah’s identity at His baptism, why did not John just drop everything to become Jesus-’ personal disciple? Was it further necessary to make disciples on his own? Why did these men remain attached to John after their master had unequivocally indicated the Nazarene to be the Lamb of God, the Son of God, the Bridegroom? Further, how could John be satisfied when his understudies remain under his tutelage? Or is the answer to be found in the intermeshing of the events in their time-sequence? That is, was there too little time to conclude his own work and join Jesus before Herod got him? If so, John would be in prison almost a year now when he sends this query to Jesus. (Cf. the connections between the events recorded in Jesus-’ early ministry immediately preceding John’s arrest: Matthew 3, 4; Mark 1; Luke 3; John 2-4,) If the 40 days of Jesus-’ temptation be added to the period He spent in Galilee (John 2:1; John 2:12) before the first Passover of His public ministry (John 2:13 ff), and if His ministry in Sychar of Samaria were concluded four months before harvest (John 4:35, supposing this to be a calendar reference used as the basis for spiritual teaching), and supposing His trip north through Samaria to have been occasioned by pressure from the Pharisees (John 4:1-3) as much as by the imprisonment of John (Matthew 4:12), we conclude that there were as much as four summer months between John’s first identification of Jesus as the Messiah before his fatal imprisonment. But before we condemn John for not swinging the entire bloc of his movement behind Jesus, let us recall the state of communications of that period. While he may have been able to immerse many pilgrims from many lands on their way to the great national feasts, he would not see most of them until the next feast, nor they him. Apparently some of them never heard about Jesus even years after Pentecost, (Cf. Acts 18:24-25; Acts 19:1-4) Now if John could publish no communiques for nationwide distribution prior to his incarceration, how much less could he influence his own followers after Herod held him practically incommunicado, isolated from the center of national life and influence!
John heard in prison the works of the Christ. Matthew writes what it was that John heard described to him, but did John hear it just this way, i.e. the works are those of Jesus the Messiah? Or is Matthew’s personal faith just coming through this narrative, seen in the choice of words he uses? If John heard that Jesus was Christ known by His works, he is the more in error for forming the question he does. For, from whatever motive, who could propound such a query, once he is firmly convinced that Jesus is indeed the Messiah with all the divine authority that this involves? He who fully understands that the Messiah is to be God Himself come in human form, could hardly bring himself to presume to challenge Him about any portion of His program. But did John grasp this? As Jesus will show later (Matthew 11:11), John’s life was lived out in an era before the full-orbed revelation was given.
Before proceeding to the problem why John should have asked such a dangerous question, we must ask who is this John. in prison? Who was he as a prophet and as a man?
His own divine inspiration and calling by God cannot be doubted. (Luke 3:2; John 1:6; John 5:33)
At Jesus-’ baptism, John heard the voice of God indicating Him as the Son of God, and saw the coming of the Spirit upon Him. (Matthew 3:13-17; John 1:29-34)
His description of Jesus as the Lamb of God indicates a profound revelation of the mission of Jesus. (John 1:29; John 1:36) Did he understand what it meant to be God’s Lamb?
Further, the prophecies of the OT received significant confirmation in the revelation God made to John at the baptism of the Lord. (Cf. Psalms 2:7 with Matthew 3:17; Isaiah 61:1; Isaiah 11:1-5 with Matthew 3:16)
There is great moral comprehension of his own relative unimportance expressed in the magnanimous declaration: He must increase and I must decrease! (John 3:26-30; cf. Matthew 3:11)
Immediately prior to this question sent to Jesus, he had heard men speak of the works of the Christ, i.e. as well as His general mode of operation. (Matthew 11:2; Luke 7:18)
But John was human too. Before the word of God came to John (Luke 3:2) he had been just plain John. Before there was a man sent from God, (John 1:6) he had been a man, and that man, now trapped in Herod’s prison where his life will be tragically snuffed out, must learn a fundamental lesson facing all true prophets. Simply stated, the lesson is that once an unquestionably inspired prophet or apostle has delivered his God-breathed message, that man of God must then submit himself with faithful allegiance and unswerving personal obedience to that message, even though he may not have had revealed to him all the other explanations of God’s will that may bear directly on what the prophet already knows. God does not have to explain everything to a man, not even to a prophet. But God will always give grounds for faith that that man may trust Him, leaving the unexplained in God’s hands to reveal them as He chooses. Or, to state his quandary differently, what did John NOT know? His divine commission and past inspiration did not also guarantee him omniscience as well. John had preached a message of judgment, of threshing fans, of axes laid at the root of trees and of unquenchable fire (Matthew 3:10-12), but Jesus keeps watering the trees, trying to save them! (Cf. Luke 13:6-9) John could not see how Jesus-’ merciful ministry could fulfill his own divine predictions about that ministry. Abuses were everywhere; sin was going unchallenged. Judgment was needed! John could not see how the Christ was seeking, in the goodness of God, to sow the seeds of faith upon which the great; ultimate judgment of humanity would be based. Was John in prison meditating on Malachi 3:1 to Malachi 4:6? Was he reflecting on the messages he had thundered to the nation, shaking it out of its lethargy and indifference? Certainly the passion for righteousness still blazed like a prophetic fire in his breast.
QUESTIONS HURT MEN WORSE THAN TORTURE
a.
Remember Job’s cries, Why? Why? (see Job 3:11-23; Job 7:19-21)
b.
Consider Habakkuk’s complaint: Why are you not doing something about this wicked people, Israel? (Habakkuk 1:1-4) God answers: I am doing something! I am rousing the Chaldeans for Israel’s punishment. (Habakkuk 1:5-11) But God, how can you use vile idolaters to punish a nation more relatively righteous than they? (Habakkuk 1:12-17) God’s famous reply is paraphrased: By definition, a -righteous man-’ is one who lives by his confidence that I know what I am doing. Habakkuk, you can trust me, even though you see what appear to you to be deep, far-reaching contradictions in the arrangement of my plans! (Habakkuk 2:2-4) There is sweet submission in Habakkuk’s prayer as he admits the justice of God’s punishment upon Israel. Though it meant personal and immediate trial for him and other righteous men in Israel (Habakkuk 3:16-17), yet he can rest in God who IS Himself the answer to Habakkuk’s complaint (Habakkuk 3:18-19).
c.
Out of Paul’s experience in praying three times that his thorn in the flesh might be removed, he learned true strength. (2 Corinthians 12:8-10) With many good and sufficient justifications Paul could have importuned God by arguing how much more effective a work he could be doing without this weakness: Why, Father, must I, your Apostle to the Gentiles, be so hampered? But after revealing Christ’s message to others, Paul must also submit himself to the daily discipline as any other believer.
d.
Peter, after preaching the universality of God’s grace unto as many as the Lord our God shall call unto Him (Acts 2:39), still did not grasp the fact that this must also mean Gentiles too. (Acts 10, 11; Galatians 2)
Examples could be multiplied of divinely inspired men whose torturing, unanswered questions, which could reasonably be expected of thinking men, remained to disturb their minds. These all, John the Baptist included, could and must rest in the confidence that God knew what He was doing, even though His reasons were not immediately evident.
John’s peculiar problem probably lay in his own concepts and expectations regarding the Messiah, which, in turn, were likely not wholly uninfluenced by the popular concepts of the times, even though greatly molded by his own inspired preaching. To him had not been revealed, for example, the time-distances between the appearance of the Messiah immediately after John’s own ministry and the farther baptism by the Christ in the Holy Spirit and the still more distant judgment by fire. (Cf. Matthew 3:9-12) The burden of the prophetic message of John had depicted a Messiah that would have brought to Israel an immediate, inescapable punishment upon the wicked. But it seemed to John that Jesus was doing nothing but help the wicked, even going to the unthinkable lengths of eating and drinking with them, while trying to redeem them! Because of Jesus-’ actions, it seemed to John that He was not fulfilling the messianic concept that John himself had predicted. So he needed an explanation both of the mission and purposes of the Lord, since neither was clear to him. (Remember 1 Peter 1:10-12; Matthew 13:16-17)
Matthew 11:3 and said unto him, Art thou he that cometh, or look we for another? John’s choice of words implies Do we await one of another kind? (héteron) Although Luke (Luke 7:20) has állon (another of the same kind), despite the fact that good MSS have héteron, even állon must imply another somewhat different and not an exact twin. Otherwise, a Messiah exactly like Jesus would not accomplish all that John dreamed. He that cometh (ho erchómenos), in John’s mouth here, means the Christ. Was this a fixed phrase, or, a technical term, used by the Greek-speaking Jews, at least, to mean the Messiah? (Cf. Psalms 118:26; Habakkuk 2:3; Malachi 3:1; Daniel 7:13 with Matthew 21:9 and parallels; Matthew 23:39; Luke 13:35; John 1:15[?]; John 3:31; Matthew 6:14; Matthew 11:27; Hebrews 10:37; Revelation 1:4, or are these merely coincidences in Greek that prove nothing?) Edersheim, (Life, I, 668) thinks it not too likely, since Jewish thought ran more to the coming age ushered in by the Christ. But that John’s question rings with messianic emphasis is demonstrated by the fact that Jesus-’ answer, for those who have ears to hear it, definitely affirmed Him to be the Christ. (See below on Matthew 11:4-6)
Art thou he that cometh, or look we for another? The meaning of this surprising question is bound up in the motivation behind it, so inextricably interwoven with it that one is incomprehensible without the other. While the obvious import of John’s question is whether Jesus be the Christ in an absolute sense, on what rational basis could the Baptist even consider possible the existence of a second Coming One, somehow different from Jesus? Were two Messiahs conceivable in Jewish thought? Indeed, such a double-Messiah concept was entirely possible to any Jew who had not yet seen the full-blown revelation of the union in one person of all the many-sided characteristics to be found in the Son of God, the Son of David, the Suffering Servant of Jehovah, the Prophet, the High Priest of Melchizedek’s Order, etc. John has too much evidence to disregard, or refuse, Jesus as the Christ in at least some wonderful sense, But since He did not seem to aspire to the positions usually assigned to the Messiah by popular Jewish expectations, or even by John’s own reflections on the subject, perhaps John arrived at the alternate theory of not one unique Messiah, but two. Accordingly, Jesus would then be partially Messiah in one significant sense, because He brought to fruition some of the ancient prophecies, but (so John may have reasoned) another Coming One would be required to fulfil the balance of the prophecies. Jesus IS unique, and only a long-range view of His total ministry would have unveiled what John could not see.
But before criticizing John for having too low a view of Jesus, let us appreciate this striking paradox: the Lord of the Universe who is coming for us, will be so different from the Jesus of Nazareth remembered by any who knew Him in the flesh that we may almost describe Him as Another (of a different kind)! When we contrast His past humiliation, His lowly service, His apparent defeats with majesty and glorious judgment as King who will finally bring to pass the second phase of John’s wonderful predictions, we too begin to perceive that we also believe that the earthly history of Jesus of Nazareth is not the whole story, for we, like John, have seen only His first coming. As in the case of John, so also in ours, the time element between the first and second comings of Jesus has not been revealed. But John perished before discovering what we know, who live after Jesus-’ first coming: that Jesus did not intend to fulfil all of John’s predictions on His first coming. Ironically, we too are scanning the heavens for that very other Christ about whom John queried the Lord, that other Messiah who will one day swing the axe into fruitless trees, purge His threshing floor, gather His grain and blash the chaff with inextinguishable fire! (Cf. Philippians 2:20-21; Colossians 3:4; 1 Thessalonians 1:10; 1 Thessalonians 3:13; 1 Thessalonians 4:13-18; 2 Thessalonians 1:7-10; Titus 2:13; Hebrews 7:24-28; Hebrews 9:27-28; 1 John 3:2-3)
If that be the meaning of John’s question, what could be the motivation behind it? The Baptist’s following included widely-scattered men of deep commitments like Jesus-’ early disciples, Apollos of Alexandria and others. (Cf. John 1:35 ff.; Acts 18:24 to Acts 19:7) So the great influence wielded by John over Israel in earlier months could not now be ignored as his question is dropped like a live hand grenade in this public assembly around Jesus. (see Luke 7:21) If it be true that John and Jesus were preaching by the same Spirit, as they had led others to believe, why is it that one poses this seemingly embarrassing problem to the Other? Is this now a break in the monolithic system that these two had hitherto represented? Two authentic spokesmen for the same God cannot contradict each other or call into doubt the other’s message or identity. John’s perplexed Are you the Christor not? rumbled with ominous significance. Embarrassed disciples of Jesus must have fumed at this surprise attack from an unexpected quarter, even as embarrassed commentators today seek an explanation for this incongruous perplexity tearing at the heart of John. Why did John ask it?
Did he wish perhaps to confirm to his disciples what he himself had claimed for Jesus?
a.
One writer (PHC XXII, 265) exclaims: But even so, it is surprising that his disciples should have such doubts to clear up. To think that he should have to send them to the Saviour Himself to settle their minds about Him. What had been the aim of his preaching amongst those disciples? What the subject. power. the effect? Apparently the very message he came to teach has been so taught by him as not yet to be learned! This could be important, since his disciples had not left him to follow Jesus as they should have done long before. (See on Matthew 9:14-17) On the other hand, in fairness to them, it must be said that the fact that he continued to have disciples may only imply that he continued his work so long as he was free to make devoted followers whom he could mold for Jesus. But had they truly understood John, they would not have crystallized his movement into a permanent sect during his imprisonment. Perhaps they tended to do that earlier, but now that he is thrown into prison for his courageous preaching, his rating in their estimation zoomed to heroic proportions. Their zeal for his cause and their personal affection made it all the more imperative that they NOT leave him at this crisis. Their dogged unwillingness to leave him now, though appreciated for its human worth, marked the furthest limit of their progress and sealed his failure. His imprisonment leaves them without a shepherd capable of guiding them into further truth or checking their excessive zeal toward sectarianism. There was none but Jesus Himself who could help them now. According to this view, then, John, finding himself totally frustrated, unable to continue his converting people to follow Jesus, sends two of his most reliable men directly to the Lord in the hope that He be able to convince them to follow Him.
b.
Objections to this view have been suggested:
(1)
There is no necessary evidence that the disciples, on leaving Jesus to carry the message back to John, even understood their message. This is not to say that Jesus-’ cryptic words were incomprehensible to the average person, since we who live in the full light of His total revelation may draw colossal encouragements from them. But those who lived in a period not yet enlightened by this exposition of truth may not have grasped His meaning at all very quickly. The reply itself is better understood upon reflection and by those steeped in OT Scripture who could evaluate the evidences herein offered.
(2)
Christ’s reply was addressed not to the disciples but
(a)
Go and tell John (Matthew 11:4)
(b)
The blessing is stated in the singular Blessed is he (makáriós estin hòs. .. .), as if deliberately levelled at John. Admittedly, this singular can be a universal blessing, as the commentary below will show.
(c)
Neither Jesus nor John are pretending either to ask or answer this question. That is, this is John’s own question, not one put by him in the mouths of his followers that would express their doubts. (See Luke 7:20) Nor does Jesus pretend to go along with the game by feigning to answer John while really answering the Baptist’s representatives then in His presence.
(d)
The psychological need for Jesus-’ discourse about John (Matthew 11:7-19) demands explanation if only a few of his disciples were seeming to waver in their convictions about Jesus. Jesus-’ defense of John is only plausible on the basis that John himself needed the defense.
Was John beginning to doubt?
a.
The psychological justification for this view is strong, since a man facing death cannot afford to be tortured by questions. He must be certain. He is not afraid to die but does not intend to die for the wrong thing. Greater anguish than death is torturing his mind now. Had John become so discouraged, so humiliated by his imprisonment that he needed further proof of Jesus-’ identity that would serve to verify even his own ministry to himself? Edersheim (Life, I, 661) seems to hear those stabbing doubts.
Was this the Kingdom he had come to announce as near at hand; for which he had longed, prayed, toiled, suffered, utterly denied himself and all that made life pleasant.. Where was the Christ? Was He the Christ? What was He doing? Was He eating and drinking all this while with publicans and sinners, when he, the Baptist, was suffering for Him?. had he succeeded in anything?. What if, after all, there had been some terrible mistake on his part? At any rate the logic of events was against him. He was now the fast prisoner of that Herod, to whom he had spoken with authority; in the power of that bold adulteress, Herodias.. It must have been a terrible hour.. At the end of one’s life. to have such a question meeting him as: Art Thou He; or do we wait for another? Am I right, or in error and leading others into error? must have been truly awful.
b.
While this view is psychologically possible in light of questions that try men’s souls, nevertheless John’s stern wilderness preparation, his being inured to hardship by his lonely vigils in the wilds of Judah, compounded with the positive identification of Jesus as the Messiah by God, combine together to render the case too certain to be surrendered by doubt now, Nor is John likely to be disloyal or lose courage because he suddenly lost the freedom to stride up and down the Jordan valley preaching, since just such persecutions had awaited the great prophets before him. He was not unaware of the price for being a prophet in a wicked and turbulent age. It would be a greater psychological quirk in John to imagine that he had forgotten the events of no more than one year previous, which had signaled to him the identity of Jesus, or that these events were so utterly insignificant to him as to permit him to entertain such doubts as would mark a shattering of his faith in the Nazarene. Note:
(1)
He shows great faith by sending to JESUS for information, willing to accept whatever answer He gave.
(2)
He perhaps doubted his own conclusions and asks Jesus in real humility how his own message about Jesus could harmonize with Jesus-’ actual fulfilment of that message.
(3)
He surely knew that a false Christ would never admit to being an imposter.
(4)
John may be a bit impatient with Jesus-’ slow, gentle ministry, wishing He would make more obvious progress but John’s very approach proves John’s extreme confidence in Jesus: Jesus would answer this question well and must answer in such a way as to bring action.
(5)
John’s last public word eloquently declares his faith from his prison cell: Go ask JESUS! He knows the answers that can save us!
3
Or perhaps the Lord’s herald longed for clarification of something in the mission of Jesus that was not at all clear to him.
a.
Inspiration on some subjects, after all, does not mean omniscience on all. The possession of great visions or the ability to work miracles does not override the power to reason. This question, accordingly, is not a failure of confidence or of John’s personal faith, since John sends his disciples directly to Jesus and to no one else. The main thrust of his evangelism had been a call to repentance in view of the coming judgment at the hands of the Messiah. Jesus, although indubitably marked as God’s Anointed One, was using methods clearly (to John) contrasting with, if not contradicting, his predictions. Further, while certain features of the Lord’s first and second comings were revealed to and through John, yet the Baptist’s recorded messages give no hint that the Messiah was actually to appear two times on earth, at times separated as widely as several millenniums. (Cf. Matthew 3:1-12; Mark 1:2-8; Luke 3:1-18; John 1:19-34; John 3:25-36) If these facts were disclosed only by later revelations, it is not surprising that this caged lion did not know them, hence needed clarifications on many points. (Cf. Acts 1:6)
b.
Objection to this view is seen in the exceeding (if not, exaggerated) forcefulness of John’s phrasing. The imperious, almost judicial tone of John demands that his inquiry be interpreted as something more than a simple, gentle request for information. How could a humble, trusting disciple, like John is here supposed to be, even dare to admit his own inner turmoil by comparing Jesus with another (that cometh)? No, there is too much bite, too much ill-disguised impatience with Jesus, in that phrasing. Interestingly enough, Jesus-’ reply provides John with no new information that would clarify Jesus-’ program which had so puzzled the prisoner. Rather he calls John back to reconsider the old evidence furnished by the miracles, the ancient prophecies and the responsibility to trust God despite one’s own incomplete understanding.
Was John impatient?
a.
This is a young man’s reaction: John was burning to see some action! (He was only six months older than the Lord Himself. Cf. Luke 1:36; Luke 1:56; Luke 2:1-7) Absolutely convinced that his Cousin was God’s Messiah, John could not fathom why Jesus was not making more progress, why He was not claiming a more indisputably prominent position, why He had not yet destroyed such iniquitous chaff as Herod Antipas and Herodias. How futilely inconsistent it seemed to John for Jesus to do the works of the Christ and not establish a Messianic throne in Zion! Even though John himself had predicted the great messianic works of grace (Holy Spirit, Matthew 3:11; gather wheat into garner Matthew 3:12; show all men the salvation of God Luke 3:6), yet Jesus-’ actual service seemed all grace and no judgment, so John was impatient. Just a single word from Jesus could destroy the wicked rulers, unite the righteous, free John and usher in the kingdom of God! His question, then, may be paraphrased with the rude expression: Are you really the Christ, or are we going to have to find someone else to do the job? With this kind, of prodding, John determined to pressure Jesus into changing the fundamental nature of His program from a slow, gentle ministry of patient mercy to one of fiery judgment. This reveals John’s tactical reason for making this question and, consequently, its answer, as public as possible. Had the disciples asked Jesus the same question privately, it would not have had the same psychological pressure to force Him to answer it decisively, as it did publicly. John could foresee that both friends and critics would hear it, would be intensely interested in His reply and move in closer to see and hear how Jesus reacted. The result would be increased pressure on Jesus to declare Himself openly and, presumably, get on with the business of bringing in the messianic kingdom.
b.
Objections to this view are not easy, since this explanation combines the fierce love of John for Jesus, his total confidence in His ability, his imperious familiarity (he felt that he could talk to Jesus that way and get away with it), his zeal for God’s Kingdom and righteousness. One objection to this as the exclusive meaning of John’s question, is the fact that Jesus-’ answer is adaptable to all four possibilities in one way or another. (See below under the evidential value of this section.)
While it is not easy to reject absolutely any of these suggestions, because a plausible case can be made for each, yet the psychological probabilities lie more clearly with the last one.
EVIDENTIAL VALUE OF THIS SECTION
The significance of the presence of this very incident in the Bible lies in two directions:
The internal value: Could this narrative be the unmasking of a cunning devised fable? It would be presumed that the great messianic herald could not have become so thoroughly disappointed in Jesus as to pose Him this impatient question! Which part is true then: the narrative of John’s earlier testimony to Jesus-’ Messiahship, or this one which tells of his misgivings? But this very record, which bares the weakness of this strong man, could have no sense except in light of his previous witness to Jesus. This ignorance, this impatience is precisely what we should expect from one who said all that John had previously preached. Edersheim, (Life, I, 668) notes:
When he sent his disciples with this question straight to Christ, he had already conquered; for such a question addressed to a possibly false Messiah has no meaning.
So this astounding question harmonizes perfectly with what is known of John earlier, and the testimony of Scripture which contains both accounts stands so much stronger for including both in the narrative.
This question posed by John is our question too! Is Jesus the final revelation of God, or not? Is there someone else besides Jesus with whom we shall have to do? Whether we need help in convincing others, or whether we are plagued with doubts of our own, whether we think that we need clarification when we should rather trust Him despite our limited knowledge, or whether we are impatient for God to do something about evil in the world, whatever our perplexity, Jesus-’ answer fits our need perfectly! John’s perplexity furnished the occasion for Jesus to answer the heart-cry of all thinking men: Are you God’s last word, the ultimate reality, or must we turn to Another for the satisfaction of our soul’s deepest need?
One other detail that portrays the stark realism in this section was noticed by Foster (SLC, 1955, 404):
We do not envy those two disciples the task which had been assigned to them. As they stood in the great throng and watched the amazing miracles of Jesus and heard His thrilling sermon, they must have found it very difficult to persuade themselves to move to the front and actually ask Jesus such questions that challenged His whole campaign. But their devotion to John and the recollection of his command in prison and the certainty of his imminent death, if Christ did not come to his rescue, made them bold to speak.. These were the questions uppermost in the minds of all the people. They must have been stirred to the depths of their hearts as they heard John’s disciples ask these questions. They must have pressed a little closer to hear the discussion, for these were the very things they themselves wanted to know.
II. CHRIST CONVINCES AND CAUTIONS HIS CAPTIVE COMRADE (11:4-6)
However anguishing this question must have been to Jesus, coming as it does from a man who, given his extraordinary privileges to know more than others, should have responded better, yet with inimitable gentleness, understanding and sympathy, the Lord formed His reply to John. He grasped perfectly the torture of the Gethsemane out of which His famous cousin cried. He knew every hour of anguish John was then enduring down in the dank cell of Machaerus. Though this impatient question challenges Jesus-’ whole course of action, though curious, critical crowds by their very presence add to the pressure on Him, the Lord is Master of Himself! With consummate patience and wisdom He worded His strongly suggestive yet modest answer. As to the substance He provided a decisive conclusion to John’s query, while not directly committing Himself on this crucial issue. This fact, however, suggests another mystery: Why did not Jesus just say, Yes, John, I am the Christ and be done with it?
Because to respond directly to THIS question in the presence of THESE multitudes (Matthew 11:7), would have meant that Jesus must openly declare Himself to be the Messiah (was John counting upon that eventuality?), even though the popular crowd would not have understood the true, spiritual meaning that the Lord would have wanted to communicate by that term. The crowd would have accepted Him as Jewish Messiah and crowned Him to be such a king as they desired. But this very act would have turned Him into their slave, reducing His grand mission to a rule over a tiny, insignificant kingdom and would have made Him dependent upon their extremely restricted conception of the true Messiahship as God had intended it. Jesus could not have answered John’s question directly and openly before that mob, because to have done so would have instantly compromised His entire spiritual mission.
He did not answer John with a simple affirmation unsupported by ulterior evidences, because to have done this would still have left doubts in the mind of John. Any imposter could have claimed, Yes, I am the Christ.
Jesus answered the way He did, because John’s true need was not for an answer that would have made him believe in Jesus on the basis of a mathematical certainty. John needed to trust Jesus on the basis of the firmly established evidences already available to him. John did not at this point need intellectual debate or overwhelming argument that forced him to have a helpless confidence in Jesus-’ program. He must now stand fast, confident of the proofs already given, and so experience the real meaning of faith.
Luke, at this point, includes a striking detail that serves as background for Jesus-’ proof: In that hour He cured many of diseases, plagues and evil spirits. On many that were blind he bestowed sight. (Luke 7:21) Did Jesus do this on purpose with the specific end in view to make John’s disciples eyewitnesses? Did He make John’s disciples wait for His reply while, unperturbed, He continued His healing? If so, Jesus-’ self-mastery is thrown into even greater relief, since He deliberately lets John’s question float lazily over that excited crowd while, all unruffled, Jesus calmly goes about His work as if nothing at all had occurred, but fully knowing that the tension in the crowd is growing to fever pitch: they too must hear the full answer to that question. Instead of shouting to get their attention, as was sometimes necessary (see Matthew 15:10; Mark 8:34), He lets John’s explosive demand agitate the crowds into moving in closer and quieting down to hear. When they were fully ready He made His move:
Matthew 11:4 And Jesus answered and said unto them, Go and tell John the things which ye hear and see:
Matthew 11:5** The blind receive their sight,
and the lame walk. the lepers are cleansed, and the deaf hear,
and the dead are raised up, and the poor have good tidings preached to them.**
THIS is a fit answer for the fuming campaigner down in Herod’s prison? Here he had expected a drastic change in the Messiah’s program which would violently overthrow God’s enemies and get the Messiah’s Kingdom underway, and this is the best excuse the Messiah Himself can give for His amazing lack of progress in that direction! His response is almost anticlimactic for people who were aching for a positive statement. But let their tempers cool, let them examine the indisputable evidence to feel the force of this brilliant argumentation! Jesus-’ proof of His identity is all the stronger because He is deliberately understating His evidence! Notice further that He sends no list of philosophical arguments why John (or anyone else) should believe Him to be the unique Messiah fully in control of His proper mission. Rather, He orders the two messengers to report to John what is happening, what He himself is doing. Jesus unconditionally applies to Himself, and invites John to subject Him to, the acid test of deeds and results, a test He will later (see on Matthew 11:19 b) put into the hands of His critics. The Lord wished to be measured not only by the power of His talk. He constantly pointed to His works, His deeds which identify Him to be God’s final representative. (Cf. John 14:10-11; John 10:37-38) In other words, Jesus repeats for John the Baptist the very same evidences given to everyone. The Lord is not partial, giving to some special help not also available to any other. This fact is crucial, since the answer of Jesus will contain the all-sufficient proof that should identify Him to any man anywhere. What is this answer?
EVIDENCE of His identity and consequent right to expect unwavering allegiance: the miracles.
a.
Done in the presence of hundreds of eyewitnesses, including John’s disciples, they could not be gainsaid. (Luke 7:21) They were not a matter of hear-say evidence.
b.
Jesus claimed to work miracles. (Matthew 11:4-5; Luke 7:21-22) The fact that He states only what occurs to the afflicted, leaving it to John’s disciples to add that Jesus is actually working these prodigious miracles, does not detract from this emphatic declaration. Let those eclectics who think they believe Jesus-’ words but, ironically, reject His miracles, consider this affirmation! (See the special study on Miracles.) The impressive list of miracles cited argues how extensive and how commonly known was the proof Jesus had provided the nation as a foundation for settling just such a question as now stood before Him!
c.
The impact of this evidence lies in the fact that the miracles could only have been done by the power and with the approval of God. They became, thus, the authenticating stamp of approval upon the precise course followed by Jesus. This fact alone rebukes both doubt and impatience.
d.
For the doubters of our age it is well to remember with Plummer (Luke, 203) that
It is clear, not only that Luke and Matthew understand Jesus to refer to bodily and not spiritual healings, but that they are right in doing so. John’s messengers had not seen and heard Christ healing the spiritually blind and the morally leprous. Moreover, what need to add ptõchoi euaggenlìzontai, if all that precedes refers to the preaching of the good tidings? It is unnatural to express the same fact, first by a series of metaphors, and then literally. All the clauses should be taken literally.
e.
While it is true that the works of healing would prove no more than Jesus was a great prophet, nevertheless they were not unexplained wonders unconnected from a well-known schema of revelation that runs through the OT right up to Christ. Nor were they unconnected from what Jesus was saying about Himself. As proof, they do not make Jesus-’ claims or His teaching true, but they are the attestation of God that His claims are well-founded and His teaching God’S. Since, then, Jesus claimed to be more than merely a great Prophet, His miracles attest God’s approval of Jesus-’ affirmations about Himself. His wonders and signs are God’s way of testifying that Jesus-’ highest claims are true. (Cf. John 4:25-26; John 4:42; John 8:12; John 8:24; John 8:31-32 etc.)
EVIDENCE by implication from the nature of the miracles themselves. Because Jesus-’ miracles are directly linked to God’s preparation for His coming, worked out in the OT prophets, it is not surprising to hear Him describe His ministry by using snatches of prophetic passages. (Cf. Isaiah 29:18-19; Isaiah 35:5-7; Isaiah 61:1-3 with Luke 4:18-21) Jesus-’ choice of words are no mere recitation of facts, made more singular by the fact that He omits explicit mention of His own great part in this. His recital concludes with the most sublimely cryptic words, that would have almost no meaning for someone not in tune with OT prophecies: The poor have good tidings preached to them. But to the man well-read in Isaiah, this simple phrase speaks volumes: Reexamine what the prophets had predicted the Christ would do! By implication Jesus is saying that the OT prophets had predicted just such a ministry as that in which He was then engaged. So doing, the Lord drives John right back to his Bible to reconsider the prophets-’ message in order to see the perfect harmony between His program and their predictions concerning the Messiah.
- EVIDENCE from the unworldly nature of His ministry: The poor have good tidings preached to them. John had already heard of the miracles (Matthew 11:2) and much of His procedure (Luke 7:18), so much of Jesus-’ present answer was not new to him. But it was superbly Messianic and unfortunately new that the impoverished, the afflicted, the meek, the humble, the inferior, in short, the common people should be the special object of divine care. This concern for the weak, those who do not count, who cannot pay, whose voice is too weak to cry aloud for help, this genuine concern that brings a Royal Gospel to these without money or price, is remarkable proof of its divine origin. (Cf. Isaiah 11:4; Isaiah 29:19; Isaiah 32:7; Isaiah 55:1 ff.; Revelation 21:6; Revelation 22:17) To borrow Plummer’s vivid expression (Luke, 203), The poor, whom the Greek despised and the Roman trampled on, and who the priests and the Levite left on one side, commonly neglected or exploited as worthless and ignorant, are now, by God’s special choice and the Messiah’s efforts, brought into the Kingdom of God. (Cf. James 2:5-6; Luke 6:20) This simple phrase (the poor receive the Gospel) measures the distance that separated Jesus-’ messiahship from the common Jewish concept, and demonstrates how completely Jesus was proceeding in perfect harmony with God’s plans.
Several commentators note that Jesus-’ rehearsal of His Messianic accomplishments rises dramatically from common miracles of healing to (what would seem to us to be) the crowning miracle, resurrection of the dead. What could be higher or of more value than this? But Jesus continues in climactic fashion, finishing by estimating the proclamation of the gospel to the poor as above all miracles generally, superior even to the power to resurrect the dead! If this be correct, from an apologetic standpoint, it is most interesting. Among peoples whose sacred literature abounds in unexplained wonders and to whom miracles in legends is the rule rather than the exception, as well as among skeptical peoples who have lived to see the exposure of counterfeits and frauds, there is especially needed one other crowning proof of the divine origin of the message of Christ. Here the Master furnishes that critical proof. The sheer genius behind His choice of this evidence is the fact that, while miracles and signs can be counterfeited by any pretended prophet, it is not likely that human selfishness in the prophet himself would permit him to counterfeit a tender, long-suffering sympathy for helpless sufferers who can in no way remunerate Him. Compassion of this kind does not belong to this world. It marks itself instantly as divine. Here again, Jesus submits Himself to the test of time. He is willing not only to point to His miraculous works which already tell us so much about Him. More than this, He underlines the value of the long-range estimate of His life and ministry. It is as though Jesus had said, My miracles identify my Messiahship as truly divine; my concern for the poor marks my ministry as humane in its highest sense.
The Lord Jesus fully understood the absolute essentiality of all three proofs of the divine authenticity of His message and mission, and His Church ignores any one of them to her peril! Church history is spotted with overemphasis or crass ignorance of one or more of these evidences: miracles, prophecy or genuine humanity to man in its highest sense. Later (Matthew 15:1-20) Jesus will thunder, to the Pharisees a lesson we can learn here: No religion, regardless of its pretended origin and miraculous proofs, can call itself divine if it makes a man mean, inhuman, or indifferent to the weak!
In this answer returned to John, significant for its absence is any reference to judgment and vengeance. (Cf. Isaiah 35:4) This omission is meaningful, since John must have been straining to hear just these very words. His silence on this subject says to John, Be patient: I am proclaiming the year of the Lord’s favor now. One day I will announce the day of the vengeance of our God. But not yet. Even though He breathes not a word to John about the fiery vengeance of the Messiah upon the wicked, He not only refuses to side-step the issue, but solemnly declares Himself openly to the multitudes. (See on Matthew 11:20-24)
Matthew 11:6 And blessed is he, whosoever shall find no occasion of stumbling in me. There is something strangely ominous about this tender beatitude. While it possesses all the gentle persuasion of a blessing, its gentleness lies in its form not its content! Expressed as a benediction, its antithesis is clear: Woe be to the man who is so disappointed by me that he ceases to trust me and so is lost! So certain is Jesus that He would become a stone that will make men stumble, a rock that will make them fall, and misunderstood by the majority of the people, that He issues this warning sheathed in a blessing. (Cf. 1 Peter 2:8; Isaiah 8:14-15; Matthew 8:34; Matthew 13:57; Matthew 26:31; John 6:60-61; 1 Corinthians 1:22-25) What kind of Messiah is Jesus going to be, if not to be shocked by Him is seen as something especially blessed? But the very reason for framing His warning in the form of a blessing at this point, points to the very need of John and everyone else who would be scandalized by Jesus. Even the most satisfyingly persuasive miracle will fail to convince anyone unless his mind is open, willing to be won over, unless his prejudices are laid aside in favor of a new love. This appealing gentleness of Jesus is deliberately calculated to open the mind and close the sale. This approach is the more psychologically sound and effective because of the long-standing preconceived notions men have about what God’s Messiah has to say and be. Rather than shout and pound His fist, ramming His point home (as was sometimes the case and necessarily so), the Lord intentionally uses soft-sell, understating His evidence, weakening His cause in the eyes of all neo-Maccabeans, quietly closing with a patient refusal to change anything.
How could John the Baptist, of all people, possibly have been scandalized by Him? That this is no remote possibility is amply proven by considering what evidence John had already been given, evidence that should have sufficed to allay any doubts and calm all impatience. John is seriously tempted to ignore the clear voice of God speaking directly to him from heaven and the visible descent of the Holy Spirit upon the Master. What greater evidence could another Christ give, if these were the credentials that certified Jesus? What in John would cause such profound dissatisfaction with Jesus that lowered Jesus in his esteem to be something less than the Coming One? These perplexities may be resolved by posing another question: Why should any person be disappointed in Jesus?
The Lord failed the Zealots by not forming a liberation army against the Romans.
Jesus did not interest the rich, self-sufficient Sadducees because of His humble birth, lack of proper rabbinical accreditation and because of (ultimately) unpopular religious, social and political views.
He turned off all the popular enthusiasts, since His entire program failed to support commonly held preconceptions.
He shocked the leaders of established religion, the Pharisees, by opposing the rabbis, whose position was held in maximum reverence by the Hebrews themselves.
- He lost the ear of the grand majority by not blessing what they wanted, did not do what they pleased, nor catered to their whims.
Another (PHC, XXII, 273), adhering more closely to John’s personal problem, analyzes the reasons for being offended by Jesus:
The peculiarities of early education often give rise to this temptation of offence in Christ.. We too have the prejudices of our own special education and standpoint.
This temptation is sometimes connected with the fact that Christ seems to abandon His friends to the most cruel suffering and oppression. The unbelief that starts in suffering, rather than in a syllogism of the scribe has a special claim to sympathy and patient love.. Do we not sometimes fall into the temptation of thinking that Christ under-estimates our temporal well-being?
The limitations that hem in our love of the excitements and activities of public service often give rise to this peril.. Possibly we feel within us a capacity for effective religious enterprise, from the exercise of which we are cut off by some embarrassing condition in our lives.
This peril sometimes springs up because our knowledge of Christ comes through indirect and prejudiced channels.. This offence may arise in us because we have to view Christ, in some of His relations, through crude, ignoble, small-minded representatives.
A man will always be discouraged with Jesus if he thinks that he himself knows best. Unless we hold lightly and tentatively our views about what the Kingdom of God has to be, unless there is a definitely humble willingness to learn from Jesus, an intelligent flexibility and intellectual honesty about our own great ignorance, when Jesus Christ cuts across OUR ideas, we are in for a shock! So John, too, could have been scandalized by holding tenaciously to his own concept of the Messiah. But like any prejudice, his concept represented only a partial vision of the truth. Had John known all the truth about Jesus, he probably would not have dashed off this question. Nevertheless, it was this PARTIAL vision, this INADEQUATE understanding which would cause John to disbelieve, if he clung blindly to it. Not only John, but any man, definitely stands in danger of stumbling into the same fatal error of rejecting the claims of Jesus because they do not suit his own views.
To him and to all, Jesus would say, Though I may not seem to be moving rapidly enough in the right directions to suit the views, tastes and ambitions of many people, I know where I am going. I know best how to plan my Kingdom. I do not intend to change my pace or my course, even though this will mean that many, who are unwilling to trust me to know what I am about, will be left shaken, will walk away in disgust and never come back, Happy is the man who can stand the shock when my methods, my manners, my message and my mission collide with his opinions about them. Blessed indeed is the man who can trust me perfectly, who can see me for what I really am, accept me for what I am really doing, even though he does not understand why,who can do all that and not doubt!
This simple beatitude is a call to trust Jesus to know what He is doing, for only this unhesitating childlike confidence will keep us from falling (see on Matthew 11:25). Only a disciple can keep from falling; the wise and understanding, who know too much to accept things as Jesus presents them, will always stumble.
The Bible writers do not provide us the sequel to this incident, leaving us thus with unanswered questions: how did John react to the mysterious message repeated to him by his couriers? Did he plummet into further despair at what must have seemed (humanly speaking) to be the failure of his attempt to get answers and action out of Jesus? In light of the Judge’s praise (see on Matthew 11:7-19), it is more probable that he plunged into profounder reflection upon the whole burden of the prophetic message, and, like the very prophets themselves whom he read, bowed his head in perplexity, struggling with the meaning of it all. (1 Peter 1:10-11) In a world of limited knowledge, vast ignorance and imperfect justice, ruled by a patient God who will have all men come to repentance, John had to learn what it means to cry: Not my will but thine be done! It required a sinewy, tough-minded trust to hold John steady as he lay in his dungeon, captive, doomed and alone, yes, but blessed, and not offended by Jesus.
Offended. Jesus-’ personal example speaks volumes on the subject of causing one’s neighbor to stumble. He was the greatest stumbling-block the Jews were ever to know. (Cf. 1 Peter 2:4-8; 1 Corinthians 1:23) His mode of life, His message of mercy, the speed and direction with which He conducted His ministry, His view of the Messiahship were all good things that definitely caused many of His own people so utterly to fall that they never rose again to believe Him or follow Him further. Nevertheless, the Lord did not change one iota of His program or life-style in order to keep that from happening. No one was more sensitive to the weaknesses of the little ones than He, yet He did not swerve from the path of righteousness, even though He knew this to be a collision course with popular error. He also knew that He could not win over everyone, but this realization did not at all lessen the heartbreak nor keep Him from trying. (Cf. Matthew 7:13-14 with Matthew 23:37) But this beatitude (Matthew 11:6) by its very existence represents a hard look at the probabilities and marks as particularly blessed those remarkable individuals who trust Him enough to swallow their disappointment and remain His disciples.
III. CHRIST’S CHARITABLE COMMENDATION OF THE CONSCIENTIOUS CHAMPION (11:7-11)
Matthew 11:7 **And as these went their way, Jesus began to say unto the multitudes. ** Observe how Jesus permits John’s messengers to get well out of earshot before taking up the line of thought that follows. He may have done this deliberately for two reasons:
The multitude themselves needed to reflect deeply on (what must have seemed to them) the mysterious message sent to the Baptist. It is as if Jesus were feeding them in two courses, giving ample time to digest the information, before giving them more.
Further, had John’s messengers overheard Christ’s high praise for John and reported it to him, this might have tended to cancel the effectiveness of the evidence Jesus gave him. So it is best that they not hear this commendation. Many men are very tough-skinned against all manner of abuse or reviling, but have no effective defense against the negative effects of praise. They immediately puff up, their eyes swell shut, hindering them from seeing themselves objectively in light of that praise.
If Jesus-’ message to John contained any rebuke or suggestion that the Baptist were less praiseworthy, then Plummer’s remark (Matthew, 161) is to the point:
In society men are commonly praised to their face or the faces of their friends, and blamed behind their backs. Jesus does the opposite..
**Jesus began to say unto the multitudes concerning John. **It was John, not his disciples or anyone else in particular, who had fired that explosive question. It was John to whom Jesus returned a simple, conclusive answer. Now it is John concerning whom the Lord addresses the crowds. But why did Jesus feel He needed to speak about His herald in THIS way at THIS time?
Because John’s question might have caused the multitudes to feel that the great prophet was having a crisis of faith if he is driven to ask this question so ambiguously full of doubt. Is John himself now failing? If so, the people would certainly be tempted to reevaluate, and perhaps even reject, John’s message upon which Jesus-’ own mission was based. Although Jesus had refused to answer John’s impatient demand directly, and although His veiled rebuke might be interpreted by some to mean that the desert preacher is no longer worthy of notice or honor, Jesus immediately corrects such a notion. Although one doubt, if strongly held, can unmake a character, and although a bossy impatience can destroy childlike trust and humble service, yet neither one doubt nor zealous impatience mean that John has fallen. Jesus leaps immediately to his defense, clearing him of unwarranted suspicion. In fact, He does more: He sought to sustain their former confidence in John and rekindle their initial admiration for him.
Because Jesus needed to attenuate the apparent difference between the view of John the Baptist and His own with regard to the Messiahship. The crowds, ignorant of the real relationship existing between John and Jesus (Jesus is John’s Lord), might have tended to misinterpret this rift as merely the schism between two equal teachers. Jesus must now defend the God-given mission of John, show its limitation and its difference from His own mission, and then push the crowds to decide about both. Note how some of the implications of this text demand of Jesus that He possess absolute divine authority in order for Him to make the statements He does, This fact could not have escaped the notice of at least some in the crowd.
The impatient, somewhat critical undercurrent of the Baptist’s question could not help but stimulate people to take a serious, more critical look at John or Jesus or both. Perhaps Jesus, who knows men’s hearts could read the unfriendly criticism and honest puzzling written there: Say, John’s right: if Jesus be the Messiah, then why does He move forward so meekly, enduring the reviling and the murderous scheming of His enemies? And how could He leave John to rot in Herod’s dungeon; When is He going to get this Kingdom of God moving, claim the Messianic throne for Himself and begin to rule the world? The anguished question out of this dungeon turned the multitude to examining the claims of Jesus, since the phrasing of the question concentrates all the various aspects of the mission of Jesus into one burning issue to be resolved immediately without embarrassment or hesitation. It became an instant issue to be dealt with by visible proof and cogent argument that would justify all that Jesus had been claiming for Himself. The comprehension and conscience of the people was thus thrown into crisis, since they too needed to decide about this same issue.
Jesus could never have deprecated the mission of John without at the same time undermining His own ministry, since John’s work preparatory to Christ’s coming had been perfectly valid for its purpose. Jesus came not to destroy the law or the prophets but to fulfill them, and John was the last of the great prophets! (Matthew 11:13; see on Matthew 5:17-20) John had initiated this exciting discussion by asking, in-’ effect: Who are you? but Jesus fully answers this question before the multitudes by demanding, Who is John the Baptist? For only those who accept John the Baptist at full value can truly appreciate who Jesus is. (See on Matthew 11:14-15)
Who was John the Baptist? While many had dismissed him from their minds as an ill-dressed, brassy-voiced, low-country evangelist, the Son of God has quite another estimate. With a mighty barrage of thought-provoking questions, He provides a strong rebuttal to any criticisms of John’s person or ministry entertained by the crowds.
what went ye out into the wilderness to behold? Why did Jesus begin His message on John with a series of questions?
Because questions arouse in the listeners an interest in what Jesus will say later. An affirmation does not engross the attention quite so well as does a short barrage of questions. Yet, since these are rhetorical questions, Jesus IS making a series of most striking observations.
Even though these are rhetorical questions, yet by their very nature they make the audience take a position about John and about themselves. They ask What was it in you yourselves that prompted you to trek out into the wastelands of Judea? What was it about John that so stirred your souls?
From Jesus-’ use of past tense verbs (exçlthete, all three times, translated you went out) it becomes obvious that He is hammering on the folks-’ memory of what they saw at the time they originally went out to hear John at the Jordan River. These questions, then, refer to what John was at that time. Further, since Jesus makes no exceptions or reservations about him, He definitely implies that John never has been, or has yet become, anything else but what they have always known him to be, a towering rock of spiritual power, moral courage and unwavering godliness. It is clear that this is Jesus-’ evaluation. The mere fact that the Baptist is now perplexed about the program of the Master in no way reduces that estimate. The fact that he is in prison and is not whining for miraculous release as the price for his trust in Jesus re-doubles the force of this impression.
The Lord’s praise for the forerunner and his work, given especially at this juncture, is excellent evidence of the authenticity of the fact itself, as Edersheim (Life, I, 669) has it:
He to Whom John had formerly borne testimony, now bore testimony to him; and that, not in the hour when John had testified for Him, but when his testimony had wavered and almost failed. This is the opposite of what one might expected, if the narrative had been a fiction, while it is exactly what we might expect if the narrative be true.
The Master nurtured a deep respect for His herald, ever speaking of him with generous appreciation. (Cf. John 5:30-35) Bruce (Training, 71) comments:
John reciprocated these kindly feelings, and had no sympathy with the petty jealousies in which his disciples sometimes indulged. The two great ones, both of them censured for different reasons by their degenerate contemporaries, ever spoke of each other to their disciples and to the public in terms of affectionate respect; the lesser light magnanimously confessing his inferiority, the greater magnifying the worth of His humble fellow-servant. What a refreshing contrast was thus presented to the mean passions of envy, prejudice and detraction in other quarters, under whose malign influence men of whom better things might have been expected spoke of John as a madman, and of Jesus as immoral and profane!
But this battery of questions is most impressive. As the Lord probes for an answer, offering alternatives, He is making the multitudes answer that question: What did you go out to see? As a master orator, Jesus punches out a simple outline, eliminating unworthy alternatives: Not this, not this, but that, and even more than that. Study His outline: Who is John the Baptist?
Certainly not a fickle sycophant (Matthew 11:7)
Certainly not a dapper courtier living luxuriously (Matthew 11:8)
But rather a prophet of God (Matthew 11:9)
More than this, he’s the personal messenger of Jahveh (Matthew 11:10)
He is the greatest of the race (Matthew 11:11 a)
Transition to Jesus-’ revelations on the Kingdom: Yet he’s inferior to the humblest Christians. (Matthew 11:11 b)
So doing, He zooms in on one major worthwhile reason for commending John. Having confirmed it, He used it as a springboard from which to launch His revelations concerning the true office and ministry of the Baptist. But before He could do this, He must assure Himself of the crowd’s sharing the same footing, the same fundamental appreciation of John.
A. A CHANGELING’S CHARACTER?
His first question cracks like a rifle-shot: a reed shaken with the wind? Is Jesus flaying their present criticisms, doubts and worldly ambitions with withering scorn and sarcasm, or is this a calm, reasoned defense? Some take Jesus-’ words literally; others, metaphorically:
Literally: You would have found many such canes out there in the desert along the Jordan River, but would a tall reed waving and bent by every wind have really so attracted your attention so fixedly as to drive you out there to see it? Tall reeds are the most common sight along the Jordan River, but are not so marvellous as to lure crowds out into the wilderness. The very fact that people did go out proves the extraordinariness of John. People would hardly cross the street to see the kind of person they could meet any day, not to mention trekking miles through wilderness country.
Figuratively: The very fact that Jesus offers this obvious metaphor for weakness and instability indicates that He really advocates the opposite: No, you went out into the wilderness because you expected and found a rock of a man, a giant of unswerving fidelity and moral power in the face of great personal difficulties. No fickleness of spirit would have so commanded your attention. That man dared stand firm against the Pharisees and unmasked their hypocrisy! He fearlessly rebuked sin, though the king himself were the sinner, even when his own freedom, yes, his own life hung in the balance!
The audience’s moral sense was awakened. If John had been a man who easily yielded to popular opinion, bending with it because he has no solid convictions of his own, then why is he at this very minute down in Herod’s prison? He is there because he would not compromise, because he could not shut his eyes to what the Jewish religionists had not the moral stamina to denounce and about which the silent majority stayed silent, because they were just plain afraid.
But Jesus is not merely defending John here; His attack is also aimed at the weakness and failure of the whole nation. The whole Jewish nation was made up of reeds swaying before popular currents, but John did not sway! Here is written the quality of the moral fiber of his real faith and piety. His was a non-conformity in things that count.
B. A COURTIER’S COSTUME?
Matthew 11:8 **But what went ye out to see? a man clothed in soft raiment? Behold, they that wear soft raiment are in kings-’ houses. **While His audience is still reeling under the first salvo, Jesus rams home another. Again His words have been taken,
Literally: You might have been attracted to the wilderness to see such a man. But let’s be frank: you would not have found such a man where John was actually preaching! Dapper courtiers are to be found in kings-’ palaces, not in the badlands of Judea. Realistically, a wilderness pilgrimage is totally unnecessary for those who would see luxurious worldlings. You would not have had to go very far to observe pliant, flattering courtiers fawning before Herod. Jesus-’ sparkling figure of speech is the very antithesis of John’s actual manner: his austere diet and desert dress and personal discipline, his entire renunciation of self, even in things entirely legitimate, damn the heresy that ease of living is life’s highest expression and goal. With no thought for his own personal comfort or advancement, his whole life was concentrated on being a Voice crying in the wilderness.
Figuratively: The phrases, soft raiment, king’s houses (or courts) and live in luxury (Luke 7:25), strongly suggest a person who knows the courtier’s art of flattering kings whereby one secures to himself royal favor and promotions. The irony of Jesus-’ words would strike hard at the conscience of the wavering multitudes, since they had humbly and joyously accepted John’s coming and message precisely because John was NOT a yes-man for any earthly ruler. He stood head and shoulders above common man, attracting admiration because he could not be bought by royal favors. His unswerving fidelity to God and to His Word drove him as God’s ambassador to take up the dangerous occupation of telling the truth to kings.
The crowd knew that John had not yielded either to the popularity craze or to the craving for luxury, riches and comfort. They also knew how many self-styled spiritual leaders were even then bending in every direction of the compass as the pressure of flattery or threats was applied to them. They also knew that pliable preachers and those craving the praise of men and the riches of the world as ultimate objectives do not end in prisons as martyrs for the truth. The collective conscience of the audience must have been deeply stirred as Jesus poured searing scorn upon their own worldly dreams, because if Jesus is (by implication) praising the very opposite of what they thought fine and worthy of their ambitions, His is a challenge to the most excruciating self-examination. Who among them did not fully expect that the Messiah Himself would be clothed in soft raiment, live in luxury in kings-’ houses? Who among them did not aspire to the same sort of treatment?
С. A COLOSSAL COMMUNICATOR
Matthew 11:9 But wherefore went ye out? to see a prophet? After eliminating other unworthy alternatives, Jesus expresses the image that was forcing itself into the mind of His hearers: a prophet! As the Jews had cried for release from their oppressors and the establishment of the Messiah’s reign, they had faced the horrible possibility that God had abandoned His people, for the heavens had remained silent now for 400 years. Almost any voice that cried with the old familiar ring of the prophets could not help but cause the Hebrew pulse to race with unwonted excitement: God has again visited His people! (Cf. Luke 1:68; Luke 1:78; Luke 7:16) They had eagerly flocked to the Jordan, knowing that the Lord God will do nothing without revealing His secret to His servants the prophets. (Amos 3:7) It stood to reason that the Almighty was about to act, for there on the banks of the Jordan stood His prophet. (See notes on Matthew 3:1-12, Vol. I)
**Yea, I say unto you, and much more than a prophet. **Thus, the multitudes had been correct in their estimate of John, but they had not set their evaluation high enough. Jesus gives it as His own emphatic judgment that they had seen more than they intended to see. But how is it possible that anyone could be more than a prophet? Besides combining in himself all the usual functions of the prophetic office, John was assigned the task not only of prophesying about the Messiah, but also of preparing the way for Him and announcing Him to the world as having come, Jesus enlarges upon this declaration:
Matthew 11:10 **This is he, of whom it is written,
Behold, I send my messenger before thy face, Who shall prepare thy way before thee.**
In short, John the Baptist is the personal herald of Jehovah Himself who will shortly appear. (Malachi 3:1 to Malachi 4:6) For the Hebrew in whose heart burned Malachi’s words, Jesus-’ quiet, but terribly significant, assertion must have been His most thrilling revelation up to this point. In this restrained disclosure are inherent three assumptions:
Jesus Christ depends upon the divine origin and trustworthiness of the OT prophecy, citing it here as indirect proof of His own identity and direct evidence of John’S. For what cannot be known today of Malachi’s prophecy, we are indebted to Jesus, who does not hesitate for a moment to quote textually the ancient prophet.
Christ declares the exact fulfilment of Malachi’s words, pointing to John the Baptist as their unique fulfilment: This is he! (See also on Matthew 11:14) Not only is predictive prophecy a possibility, but we have here a specific case in point of its actual occurrence and fulfilment.
Since Jesus is the One for whom John the Baptist had prepared, He hereby declares Himself to be the Lord God in Person come to His Temple. This is equivalent to a claim to deity on the part of Christ Himself.
The earth-shaking importance of this citation of Malachi’s prophecy by Jesus can best be appreciated by studying the prophet’s own words in their context. About them Keil (Minor Prophets, II, 456ff.) notes:
To the question, -Where is the God of Judgment?-’ the Lord Himself replies that He will suddenly come to His temple, but that before His coming He will send a messenger to prepare the way for Him. The announcement of this messenger rests upon the prophecy in Isaiah 40:3 ff., as the expression (prepare the way) which is borrowed from that passage, clearly shows. The person whose voice Isaiah heard calling to make the way of Jehovah in the desert, that the glory of the Lord might be revealed to all flesh, is here described as maleâch, whom Jehovah will send before Him, i.e. before His coming. This maleâch, (messenger) is not a heavenly messenger or spiritual being. nor the angel of Jehovah kat-’exochçn (par excellence), who is mentioned afterwards and called maleâch habberith, but an earthly messenger of the Lord, and indeed the same who is called the prophet Elijah in Matthew 11:23 (Matthew 4:5 in some versions), and therefore not an ideal person, viz. the whole choir of divine messengers, who are to prepare the way for the coming of salvation, and open the door for the future grace (Hengstenburg) but a concrete personalitymessenger who was really sent to the nation in John the Baptist immediately before the coming of the Lord. The ideal view is precluded not only by the historical fact, that not a single prophet arose in Israel during the whole period between Malachi and John, but also by the context of the passage before us, according to which the sending of the messenger was to take place immediately before the coming of the Lord to His temple..
Preparing the way (an expression peculiar to Isaiah: cf. Isaiah 40:3; Isaiah 57:14; Isaiah 62:10) by clearing away impediments lying in the road, denotes the removal of all that retards the coming of the Lord to His people, i.e. the taking away of enmity to God and of ungodliness by the preaching of repentance and the conversion of sinners. The announcement of this -messenger therefore implied, that the nation in its existing moral condition was not yet prepared for the reception of the Lord, and therefore had no ground for murmuring at the delay of the manifestation of the divine glory, but ought rather to murmur at its own sin and estrangement from God. When the way shall have been prepared, the Lord will suddenly come.. The Lord (hâ-‘âdõn) is God; this is evident both from the fact that He comes to His temple, i.e. the temple of Jehovah, and also from the relative clause whom ye seek, which points back to the question, Where is the God of judgment? (ch. Matthew 2:17).. This promise was fulfilled in the coming of Christ, in whom the angel of the covenant, the Logos, became flesh, and in the sending of John the Baptist, who prepared the way for Him.
With the coming of the Lord the judgment will also begin; not the judgment upon the heathen, however, for which the ungodly nation was longing, but the judgment upon the godless members of the covenant nation..
But compare Malachi’s original words with the uniform NT quotation of them (Malachi 3:1; Matthew 11:10; Mark 1:2; Luke 7:27):
Malachi:
New Testament
Behold, I send my messenger, and he shall prepare the way before me.
Behold, I send my messenger before thy face, Who shall prepare thy way before thee.
While it may be true (and should be noticed therefore) that all the Synoptics concur on this rendering independent of either the Hebrew text or the LXX, as if they were citing a popular form of this prophecy extant in no manuscript remaining to our time, this version of Malachi’s words is interpretative. The interpretation in the mouth of Christian Apostles is not suspect, however, and could be perfectly Jewish and stereotyped in this form long before the Evangelists made use of it.
The reason for this is obvious and commonplace in prophecy; what Jehovah does through agents He may be said to do for Himself: In Malachi’s prophecy God Himself prepares to come in judgment to Israel. But even in the Hebrew text (represented in our English versions) Malachi represents God as changing from first person singular, I, my, and me, to the third person singular: the Lord whom you seek will suddenly come to his temple; the messenger of the covenant in whom you delight, behold, he is coming, says the LORD of hosts. To the attentive reader, Jewish or Christian, this change may mean a distinction in personages between the God who intends to reveal Himself and the actual Person through whom He makes Himself known. (Study what appears to be a similar case in Ezekiel 34:11-24) Therefore, in light of the distinction in Persons between Jehovah who inhabits eternity and His actual manifestation in time, a Jewish scholar might read back into God’s words the proper personal pronouns that would clarify that distinction. Further, since this interpretative translation is particularly irreprehensible in view of the distinction between the Persons of Jesus the Son and God the Father, a distinction borne out in the fulfillment of the prophecy in question, the Christian Evangelists would find this popular rendering especially suitable
The change of wording bears the stamp of approval of inspired men who quote Malachi’s words ONLY in this form, providing thus one more evidence for the conclusion we already knew from many other sources: The coming of Christ is the coming of God.
Matthew 11:11 Verily I say unto you, Among them that are born of women there hath not arisen a greater than John the Baptist. Among them that are born of women, as Plummer (Luke, 205) has it, is a solemn paraphrase for the whole human race. (Cf. Job 14:1; Job 15:14; Job 25:4) Who are the real giants of this world? Kings? Generals? Statesmen? Philosophers? How differently God measures the greatness of a man! History, too, gauges a man quite differently. Who would have ever heard of Herod today, had he not laid violent hands on John the Baptist. Pilate, too, would have been a non-entity, had he not been partially responsible for crucifying Jesus Christ. Further, had the Lord Himself polled His audience that day, seeking their responses to the one question, Whom do you consider to be the greatest man who have ever lived? the replies would have exhausted the pages of OT history: Abraham, Moses, Elijah, Isaiah, Jeremiah, Daniel! However significant a role those men may have played in the scenes of the history of God’s revelation, God’s Son places the laurel on another brow. His decision is final and inclusive: There hath not arisen a greater than John the Baptist. In the estimate of earth’s Judge, John is the greatest of the race, greater even than the prophets (more than a prophet) But in what sense?
Certainly not absolutely, since Jesus proceeds immediately to amend His seemingly universal declaration. And, if our interpretation of Mat 11:12-15 be correct, then the Lord limits John’s superiority to great men who lived before the Cross. Of those, then, he is relatively the greatest.
His personal character was positively noteworthy; humble, self-denying and courageous. God’s interest in John is a specimen of real piety and practical zeal for righteousness indicates that He is not so much interested in counting men, as in finding men who will count! In seeking men who can be what John was, God might be paraphrased as saying, I would that I had as many soldiers as I have men! Though the Father is not willing that any should perish, and so is pleased with numbers of godly men, yet His heart is touched by the concentrated power of a single-minded individual whose whole life stands out in a wilderness of indifferentism, unbelief and doubt, and who is willing to spend his whole life in God’s service, calling men back to God.
John’s superiority also lay in the function he performed in the Messianic planning. His was the unique glory of being the immediate forerunner of the Messiah. Though a great prophet like Moses and Elijah, he not only prophesied, but lived to see and point out to others the Messiah of whom he had spoken.
Note how calmly Jesus waves aside all other judgments, all other pretenders to the claim of human greatness. A man would have to be God to dare pinpoint a decision so precise, so historically justifiable as this! Jesus-’ judgments are so much more striking, because He does not often append to them a bald, apologetic statement of His right to make them. He simply acts in character as earth’s Judge, letting His signs identify to men His right to say what He does. (However, study John 5 where He outlines the evidence of His divine authority to judge.)
Yet he that is but little in the kingdom of heaven is greater than he. This bewildering amendment, attached to the foregoing encomium, is a beautiful paradox and deliberately calculated to keep His audience seeking its meaning for a long time to come. Our vantage point on this side of the Cross, the empty Tomb and Pentecost not only removes the mystery in His apparent inconsistency, but also proves the truth of His assertion. Three major questions need clarification:
- What phase of the kingdom of heaven is meant here?
a.
If by the kingdom of heaven (or of God) we mean the rule of God, then in no sense can John the Baptist be excluded from the kingdom, and it becomes nonsense to say that he was never in the kingdom, having died before its inception, for there never was a servant of God who more embodied the fundamental principle of humble service to God, upon which the kingdom of heaven was founded. But the antithesis of Jesus must be sought elsewhere than in this sense, because John’s greatness is obviously contrasted with that of the most insignificant person in the kingdom, a contrast that cannot help but suggest that, in some special sense, John is not to be considered as being in the kingdom.
b.
The kingdom of heaven, of which Jesus here speaks, is metonymy on a grand scale, the cause put for the effect. The Church of Jesus Christ is the highest earthly expression of the Government of God, so that one might well say that, wherever the Church goes, there is the Kingdom of God in action. While no thoughtful person will confuse the Church for the Kingdom, yet there is this important, undeniable sense in which the whole program of Jesus Christ, otherwise known as His Church, may, indeed, must be called the kingdom of heaven. Since, in this sense, **the kingdom **was established on the Day of Pentecost (see notes on Matthew 16:18-19; Matthew 16:28; cf. Luke 19:11; Luke 24:46-49; Acts 1:3-8; Acts 2:1-42; Acts 8:12; Acts 14:22; Acts 19:8; Acts 20:25; Acts 28:23; Acts 28:31; Colossians 1:13 etc.), then John would not, of course, have lived to participate in what would be the common privileges of anyone in the kingdom.
- Who is he that is but little in the kingdom of heaven?
a.
Some have suggested that Jesus refers to Himself. Accordingly, He would be seen as describing Himself as someone who was then less important than John, but who would soon appear in His true glory, hence far more important than he, when He would have revealed Himself as the King. Objection to this view arises from the fact that at Jesus-’ baptism, John himself recognized the immeasurable superiority of the Lord by yielding to His requests. Further, John consistently proclaimed Jesus-’ Lordly preeminence. (Matthew 3:11-12; John 1:26-34; John 3:28-36) Jesus-’ own position is not at issue here.
b.
Jesus is talking about His own disciples, those who would live to participate in the privileges and enjoy the joyous revelations that would be the common possession of any Christian.
- How is it possible for John to be inferior to the humblest Christian?
a.
His inferiority is not calculated in reference to his personal confidence in Jesus or dependence upon God, as if he were to be thought of as a man of vacillating faith merely because of his impatient question sent to Jesus. The problem here centers not around his faith but upon his function, his position in the messianic scheme of things.
b.
Plummer (Luke, 205) states the principle of distinction best: The lower members of a higher class are above the highest members of a lower class. The contrasts between the class to which John belongs and that of which Christians are members may be set forth thus:
**John the Baptist:
Any Christian**
lived and died in the era of preparation for the coming of the Christ;
Lives and dies in the era of realization of the prophets-’ messages in a present Christ;
Lived as a servant of God; Was the Bridegroom’s friend;
Lives as a son of God; Is the Bride of Christ;
For all his reflection, could not fathom truths hinted to him by prophetic insight;
Grasps these truths as elementary knowledge and as part of being a Christian;
Lived under the law and dispensation of Moses
Lives under the reign of grace, superior spiritual privileges
So the interesting paradox is true: He that is less than John is greater than John. John, though a prophet of the Almighty, hence, because of this office or function, would be more highly regarded than the common godly man, yet, because he was fated to surrender his life before the new era of the risen Christ, he would not be privileged to know the advantages of even the humblest Christian. It is as McGarvey (Fourfold Gospel, 283) has it: The least born of the Holy Spirit (John 1:12-13; John 3:5) is greater than the greatest born of women, who, for whatever hindering reason, does not know the most elementary principles of the Kingdom of God. All believers in Christ now know the great treasures of revelation given to them by God, because anyone who has lived this side of Pentecost knows of Jesus-’ great victories over disease, death, and the Devil. They know of His accession to the throne of God and coming in glory. Only in this sense may it be said that we have clearer comprehension of the Kingdom of God than any of the ancient prophets or even John himself. Barclay (Matthew, II, 7) puts this succinctly:
What is it that the Christian has that John could never have?. John had never seen the Cross, and therefore one thing John could never know was the full revelation of the love of God. The holiness of God he might know; the justice of God he might declare; but the love of God in all its fulness he could never know.. It is possible for us to know more about the heart of God than Isaiah or Jeremiah or any other of that godly company. The man who has seen the Cross has seen the heart of God in a way that no man who lived before the Cross could ever see it.
IV. CHRIST’S CONCLUSIONS ABOUT THE KINGDOM (11:12-15)
At this point in His sermon on John, Jesus turns slightly aside from defending John to make appropriate observations about the kingdom of heaven just mentioned (Matthew 11:11). He seems to be answering the burning question: If John the Baptist is so important a prophet, being the very Herald of the Messiah and harbinger of the Kingdom of God, then how is the time-schedule proceeding with the actual establishment of the Kingdom? To this question Jesus responds, in general, that this is a turbulent period for God’s Kingdom due to the violent misunderstanding of the true nature of the Kingdom and its King, but since the Messiah’s forerunner has already appeared (see on Matthew 11:14), the Messiah Himself cannot be too far behind, and with Him the kingdom comes.
Matthew 11:12 **And from the days of John the Baptist until now the kingdom of heaven suffereth violence, and men of violence take it by force. **Two views are generally held regarding Jesus-’ meaning:
In a good sense, only violent men could gain entrance to, or possession of the Kingdom of God, i.e., men who seek it with burning zeal and having found it, force their way into it. (Cf. Luke 16:16; see Arndt-Gingrich, biàzõ for bibliography.) They give all they have to enter it, a struggle that is viewed favorably by the King.
a.
On the phrase hç basileìa tõn ouranõn biàzetai, it should be remarked in favor if this view that the verb biàzomai, when taken as a
(1)
transitive passive verb, may be interpreted in a good sense to mean the kingdom of heaven is sought with burning zeal. (Arndt-Gingrich, 140)
(2)
intransitive verb, may be translated: the kingdom makes its way with triumphant force. (Arndt-Gingrich, 140) despite hindrances of every sort which are raised against it.
b.
Lenski (Matthew, 437) sees John and Jesus as the agents (biastaì) who forcefully bring forward the Kingdom:
The correspondence between biàzetai and biastaì is obvious, being a play on words. The energy and the force with which the kingdom comes (or is brought) instills a similar energy and force in those whom the kingdom wins for itself. They are not -forceful-’ by nature and thus better than others; but the kingdom itself with all its gifts, treasures and blessings puts power and courage into them -to snatch-’. it all. The trend of the entire discourse deals, not with violence against the kingdom, but with the indifference and the dis-satisfaction that hinder men from entering it with zest.
In a bad sense, the Kingdom actually suffers (undesirable) violence, is violently treated, contrary to the will or desires of the King.
a.
This comes about through hindrances raised against its establishment and continuation. Jesus would be saying, There will always be wicked men who struggle to seize control of and destroy my Kingdom through violence. (Cf. Matthew 16:18; Matthew 16:21; John 16:1-4)
b.
This comes about through the efforts of unauthorized persons who mistakenly imagined that its coming could be compelled by force, as, for example, the Zealots and all who ultimately sympathized with their philosophy of military overthrow and rule by the sword. (That the Zealots had many sympathizers is most clearly seen in the reasonable supposition that had not the Zealots represented such a strong popular undercurrent of political feeling they would not have been able to carry the nation with them in their last bid for political independence that so disastrously ended in the destruction of Jerusalem and the fall of Israel.) Although the Master could comprehend the impetuous, excited thronging about Him of multitudes full of preconceived ideas about the Messiah and His kingdom, and although He recognized in their eagerness as much unhealthy fanaticism as deep conviction, yet His understanding did not blind Him to the need to take steps to counteract the violence these impassioned disciples were doing to His Kingdom. Count the times He had to avoid the crowds and strictly forbade any publicity of His healings. (Cf. Matthew 8:4; Matthew 9:30; Matthew 14:22 with John 6:15; Mark 1:34; Mark 1:37-38; Mark 1:45; Mark 3:12; Mark 6:43; Mark 8:36, etc.) The kingdom of God suffered violence when men of violence took it by force, much as would a bud suffer at the hands of a person who in his eagerness to experience its fragrance tries with his fingers to force it to bloom. Was John the Baptist even now himself trying to force the Kingdom by means of his impatient question?
c.
This could come about by the efforts of men who try to effect an entrance into the Kingdom on their own terms, while ignoring the will of the King. (Cf. John 10:1 ff.) This is the perpetual attitude of men who, however unconscious, nevertheless in practice, say, We will not have this man to reign over us. When Luke (Luke 16:16) quotes Jesus: And every one enters it violently (kaì pâs eis autçn biàzetai), the everyone (pas) cannot mean, contrary to Plummer (Luke, 389), everyone in contrast to Jewish exclusiveness. This is rather a hyperbole for the great majority of people who are deeply interested in the Kingdom for a multitude of wrong reasons. They are simply trying to fashion the kingdom after their own preconceived notions and create the King in their own image.
Perhaps it is neither important nor necessary to choose between these two views. Barclay (Matthew, II, 9) attempts a harmony of these two concepts:
Always my Kingdom will suffer violence; always savage men will try to break it up and snatch it away and destroy it; and therefore only the man who is desperately in earnest, only the man in whom the violence of devotion matches and defeats the violence of persecution will in the end enter into it. It may well be that this saying of Jesus was originally at one and the same time a warning of violence to come and a challenge to produce a devotion which would be even stronger than the violence.
A. B. Bruce (PHC, XXII, 275ff.) extends his harmonic attempt even further:
The storming of the kingdom.In employing words suggesting the idea of violence, Jesus, though certainly not intending to express personal disapproval, did mean to point at features of the new movement which made it an object of aversion, astonishment, or at least of doubt, to others. It may be well to particularize some aspects of the work of the kingdom which would, not unnaturally wear an aspect of violence to minds not able to regard them with Christ’s eyes, though to Christ Himself they were the bright and hopeful side of an evil time.
I.
We may mention, first*,* that which most readily occurs to one’s thoughts, viz. the passionate earnestness with which men sought to get into the kingdom, heralded by John and preached by Jesus; an earnestness not free from questionable elements, as few popular enthusiasms are; associated with misconceptions of the nature of the kingdom, and, in many cases, fervent rather than deep, therefore likely to prove transientstill a powerful, impressive, august movement of the human soul God-wards. (See Luke 16:16 RV)
II.
From the volcanic bursting forth of religious earnestness in the popular mind, we may naturally pass to speak of another respect in which the kingdom of heaven may be said to have suffered violence, viz. the kind of people that had most prominently to do with it.Publicans, sinners, harlots, the moral scum and refuse of society, such were the persons, who in greatest numbers were pressing into the kingdom, to the astonishment and scandal of respectable, righteous, religious, well-conducted, and self-respecting people. Why it was a revolution, society turned upside down, as great an overturn in principle, if not in extent, as when in France, in the eighteenth century, bishops, aristocrats, princes and kings were sent adrift, and sans-culottism reigned triumphant, believing itself to be in possession of a veritable kingdom of God. What wonder if wise and prudent ones looked on in wistful, doubting mood, and sanctimonious men held up their hands in pious horror, and exclaimed, Call you this a kingdom of God? Blasphemy!
III.
The kingdom of God as it actually showed itself in connection with the work of Christ, differed widely from, did violence, we may say, to preconceived notions of what it would be.Not a few of those who actually entered the kingdom, in so far as they understood its true character, had to do violence to their own prejudices before they took the step. There were conversions, not unaccompanied with inward pain, not merely from sin to righteousness, but from ideals mistaken to rectified notions of the kingdom of God, from political dreams, noble, but destined never to be fulfilled, to spiritual realities.
IV.
The kingdom of heaven may be said to have suffered violence in so far as its coming was promoted by the use of irregular methods and agencies.In this respect John and Jesus were themselves stormers, though in different ways, to the scandalizing of a custom-ridden generation. Let us make one or two reflections, suggested by the saying we have been studying, concerning Him who uttered it.
It is very evident that the one who spoke thus had a very clear conception of the deep significance of the movement denoted by the phrase the kingdom of heaven. Christ knew well that a new world was beginning to be.
How calmly He takes it all.
Yet how magnanimously He bears Himself towards the doubters. Violencethe very word is an excuse for their doubts.
If, without violence to Jesus-’ original thought, we may reverse the order of Mat 11:12 and Matthew 11:13, and we have an interesting revelation:
13
For all the prophets and the law prophesied until John.
12
And from the days of John the Baptist until now the kingdom of heaven suffereth violence, and men of violence take it by force.
The justification for this reversal lies in Jesus-’ use of the word for which serves to introduce the rational basis for His previous assertion, hence, logically, comes first in His mind. Jesus reveals an important time-relationship here: until John. from the days of John until now. Prophesied means that the Law and Prophets spoke authoritatively for God, revealing His message to Israel. The era of the Law and Prophets finds its culmination and fulfillment in the ministry of John, the last of the great prophets, who prepares the ground for a completely new, different age, that of the Messiah. Luke (Luke 16:16) on this same subject, wrote:
The law and the prophets were until John; since then the good news of the kingdom of God is preached, and every one enters it violently.
Be this an exact parallel or not, this is the finest interpretation of our text. The days of John the Baptist are no longer a period of prophesying in the classical sense, i.e. predictive description of great events in the distant future, because John’s appearance ushered in a transition period of announcement of the near arrival of the Kingdom of God itself. Until John, as a phrase describing the authoritative prophetic revelations of the mind of God, marks a definite end to this function, inasmuch as that for which all the prophets and the law had made preparation, has now begun to arrive. Luke’s expression (Luke 16:16) must mean, then, that John’s revelations and Jesus-’ preaching (prior to His ascension) were intended to be a description of the nature and citizenship of the Kingdom and the identification of the King, since the actual ascension to the throne of God did not take place during Jesus-’ earthly sojourn. Throughout the ministry of Jesus we will notice various occasions on which Jesus made drastic, far-reaching changes in fundamental concepts that were integral parts of Mosaic Law. (See on Matthew 9:14-17; Matthew 12:1-14; cf. Mark 7:19; John 4:21-24) Further, when He fulfilled the predictions of the prophets, He took all the uncertainty from their meaning, and removed all of the expectancy created by their searching the future. All their shadowy references, when concentrated in Him who is their entire fulfillment, need be heeded no further as if some other Christ should come, identical to Jesus. So, with the fulfillment of the great purposes and predictions of all the prophets and the law came to a brilliant, successful conclusion their ministry as the (until then) unique revealers of God. Nevertheless, their functions did overlap with the ministry of Jesus and early life of the Church for two important reasons:
Jesus-’ establishment of the new rule of God, the Kingdom of God, the Church, did not take place until the coming of the Holy Spirit. (See Matthew 28:19-20; Luke 24:46-47; Acts 1:3-8; and the special study The Coming of the Son of Man after Matthew 10) Therefore His own ministry took place during the last days of the old era.
Even after the clear revelation of Jesus-’ coronation and the vindication of His rule, still many did not grasp the reality that the old system of the Law and the accrued traditions were completely done away. The Epistles bear witness to this confusion in the mind of many people both within and outside the Church.
This change in administration from that of the Law and prophets to that of the Messiah Himself is not so surprising, since such a change would have been expected by the Jews, even though they would have visualized this change in terms of Jewish categories, even as we expect heaven to reflect the limited knowledge represented in our Christian categories. This Jewish expectation is reflected in the nature of the argument Jesus offers next.
G. C. Morgan (Matthew, 114) makes the interesting suggestion that this expression (Matthew 11:13) is intended as further explication of the superior greatness of the least in the kingdom of God. The prophets and the law, including John’s ministry, represented a ministry of anticipation, not one of personal experience of the things prophesied. Just five minutes of real experience of the thing awaited is worth so much more than all the centuries of anticipating it. So it is that anyone, even the most hesitant beginner in the Kingdom walks in more actual light that was available in all the long centuries before Jesus completed His revelation. There were facts that the Law, prophets and John could not know, methods they could not fathom, primarily due to their individual position in the progress of the revelation up to their time.
Matthew 11:14 And if ye are willing to receive it, this is Elijah, that is to come. In this seemingly obscure verse, lying half-hidden among so much more famous material, rests the most fundamental issue of real religion and, ultimately, the judgment of the race: if you are willing to receive it. The willingness to be taught is the key of this entire chapter, the crux of John’s problem, (Matthew 11:1-6) the failure of the Jewish people in general (Matthew 11:16-19) and the favored cities in particular (Matthew 11:20), and finally, the only way to grasp God’s revelation (Matthew 11:25-30). Teachableness is not a matter of the understanding as though the meaning of the revelation were unclear, but a question of the will. (John 5:40; John 7:17; Matthew 23:37; Revelation 22:17 d) If ye are willing cannot mean that Jesus-’ audience could take His revelation or leave it without serious consequences, as if this declaration did not much matter. Jesus merely challenges their willingness to face the truth hereby introduced. Many would be most unwilling. But the Lord did not force them to acknowledge these truths against their will. But He warns them against neglecting this manifest fulfillment of prophecy, for, having made their choice they must then face the consequences thereof. So, it matters very much how they decide, as Matthew 11:15 demonstrates.
This is Elijah, that is to come. Reference here is Malachi’s prediction (Matthew 3:1; Matthew 4:5-6) that, in a period destitute of faith and true fear of Jehovah, God would raise up a prophet who would lead the ungodly generation back to the God of the fathers. The appearance of this great prophet must shortly precede some great and terrible day of the Lord who will come with terrible judgment upon the nation. But Malachi named that great messenger Elijah the prophet. It was at this point that the Jewish interpreter’s problem arose: does Malachi mean that Elijah himself, who had been caught up to heaven, would personally reappear on earth, or that someone else who because of his power and energy with which that future prophet would labor, would call to mind the vigorous old Tishbite? Is Malachi speaking literally or metaphorically? (That coming prophet will be another -Elijah.-’) Most of the rabbis had apparently opted for the literal interpretation. (Cf. John 1:21; Matthew 17:10) For a rapid survey of rabbinic traditions about Elijah, the forerunner of the Messiah, see Edersheim’s Life, Vol. II, Appendix VIII, 706ff. The apologetic nature of Edersheim’s article renders it extremely valuable in that he shows the wide divergence between the commonly held Jewish views about the coming Elijah, and the actual Christian Elijah seen in John the Baptist. This divergency of theory and reality once more demonstrates the fundamental difference between Judaism and the true origins of the message and views of Christ. Though Christianity was born in the bosom of Judaism, the secret of her life lay in her divine message from God, not in the perfection here and there of rabbinic views. But that the literal view was not necessary, is illustrated by Keil (Minor Prophets, II, 47Iff.):
But this view is proved to be erroneous by such passages as Hosea 3:5; Ezekiel 34:23; Ezekiel 37:24, and Jeremiah 30:9, where the sending of David the king as the true shepherd of Israel is promised. Just as in these passages we cannot think of the return or resurrection of the David who had long been dead; but a king is meant who will reign over the nation of God in the mind and spirit of David; so the Elijah to be sent can only be a prophet with the spirit or power of Elijah the Tishbite. The second David was indeed to spring from the family of David, because to the seed of David there had been promised the eternal possession of the throne. The prophetic calling, on the other hand, was not hereditary in the prophet’s house, but rested solely upon divine choice and endowment with the Spirit of God; and consequently by Elijah we are not to understand a lineal descendent of the Tishbite, but simply a prophet in whom the spirit and power of Elijah are revived.
Keil’s argument is not conclusive, since he argues from analogy, but the value of an argument from analogy is that it shows the possible existence of what seems to be a parallel case, which, in turn, should have teased Jewish minds into looking for other, different evidence that would prove the figurative nature of the great Elijah prophecy.
In all fairness to the Jews it must be remembered that God might not have given any other evidence that would have solved the quandary before its actual fulfillment with the appearance of John. Also, if the rabbinic representatives from Jerusalem knew John the Baptist’s personal name to be John, then why did they ask him if he were Elijah? (Cf. John 1:21) Did they suppose him to have two names, the one commonly known to all, the other to be revealed at some future moment? Their question, as interpreted by John himself, cannot be construed as a concession to the figurative view, since he obviously understands them to mean, Are you Elijah in person come back to earth in the flesh? and answers them accordingly.
He is Elijah (autòs estin Elìas), not literally, but indeed the person intended by Malachi. The angel who announced John’s conception promised: He will go before (the Lord their God) in the spirit and power of Elijah. (Luke 1:17) With this dramatic assertation Jesus intends to say two things:
Malachi’s prediction has been fulfilled. Any argument that Jesus could not be the Messiah, based on the assumption that Elijah must first come before the appearance of the Christ and that he had not done so, is hereby rendered invalid. The long-awaited Elijah had indeed come in the person and ministry of John the Baptist.
As a necessary consequence of this fulfillment of the great Elijah prophecy by John, the Kingdom of God must shortly appear in the person of the Christ Himself who would usher in the Messianic age. Further, since John’s great question had centered around the identity and mission of the Messiah and Jesus-’ answer clustered together proofs of His divine identity in the works of the Messiah, Jesus-’ audience should have been able to conclude, without His asserting it, that Jesus of Nazareth is indeed the Christ, and should therefore be believed for what He says about the Kingdom.
So it was that the coming of John presaged the conclusion of the OT era, since the Messiah was sure to be right behind the appearance of the coming Elijah.
But to take John seriously by recognizing him as the Elijah predicted by Malachi would mean that people would have to admit John’s right to preach his unwelcome truth. Not only had he demanded repentance and conduct consistent with it, not only had he denied that physical descent from Abraham could give special rights to admission into God’s Kingdom, but he had distinctly pointed out Jesus as God’s Son, God’s Lamb to take away the world’s sin. So, to take John seriously demands of the multitudes that they take Jesus seriously.
Matthew 11:15 He that hath ears to hear, let him hear. This exclamation implies the willful guilt of people whose ears were made to hear and understand what Jesus had been saying, but were deliberately inattentive. Sensing how much would instantly be lost through inattention and how much trouble afterwards the Jews would bring upon themselves by not having listened to Him, the Lord pleads with them to fix these ideas firmly in mind. This psychological attention-getter is good oratory, but more than this, it is a passionate cry for a hearing, arising as it does in the breast of Israel’s truest Son. He sees not only the immediate information drain that their neglect of His revelation would foster. He could discern the outcome that only the final judgment would reveal.
This is amply demonstrated by the fact that Luke (Luke 7:29-30) inserts here the following theological comment:
When they heard this all the people and the tax collectors justified God, having been baptized with the baptism of John; but the Pharisees and the lawyers rejected the purpose of God for themselves, not having been baptized by him.
Two small problems of interpretation arise:
Is this a parenthetical remark by the Evangelist himself, inserted into the middle of Christ’s words without any indication that it is a comment of Luke’s own, or is this a part of Christ’s message on John? The remark itself seems to begin as a mere historical notice, but almost instantly becomes highly theological, too theological, in fact, to be merely a historical allusion reported by Luke. Further, there is no possible way of excising it from Jesus-’ own words, inasmuch as Luke uses no device so to distinguish it. Because of its meaning, it fits admirably into Jesus-’ own argument.
What is the exact historical allusion here? What was it that the people heard? When did they hear it? And when did they justify God? In answer it should be noticed that in Luke’s Greek sentence, no object is specified (kaì pâs ho laòs akoùsas kaì hoi telônai edikaìõsan.), being left to be supplied by seeing what caused the people to act as they did. The question as to the time when they heard it is also relative to their obedience by which they justified God, i.e. when they were baptized by John.
All the people, the tax collectors, the harlots (see Matthew 21:31-32) on the one hand, the Pharisees and the lawyers on the otherall had heard the preaching of the Baptist. For the former, their accepting John’s message and his baptism meant their acknowledgement of God’s justice in making these claims upon them. For the latter, their haughty refusal to repent meant the frustration of God’s purpose to save them by granting them the opportunity to repent. God’s counsel had been delivered by his humble servant John, but the proud Pharisees had, in their rejection of the servant, also rejected John’s Lord and there would be no escaping His wrath. (Matthew 21:31-32; Matthew 23:33)
This passage, while coming before the stated conclusion of this section (Wisdom is justified by her deeds), surely serves as a fitting illustration and commentary upon that principle. Those who had rejected John could justify themselves and their conduct by the slander that no thinking man would follow a mad-man like John. Likewise, they were able to dismiss Jesus, justifying themselves all the while. (Ironically, those who accepted God’s messenger are described as justifying God!) In each case they considered the results of their decisions to be satisfactory, since in neither case did they have to make any changes in their present conduct. Unfortunately, however, it is possible for the pragmatic test to fail badly, especially if one decides on the workability of a given conclusion before all the evidence is in. Worse yet, thinking that all the evidence has been weighed, when in reality one has seen only a small portion of it, will deceive one into relaxing, confident of his own wisdom. But the far-sighted Lord looks into the judgments of eternity and declares the final verdict on these choices made on earth: The people, the tax collectors justified God; the Pharisees and lawyers rejected and frustrated the purpose of God for themselves! (Cf. Proverbs 12:15; The way of a fool is right in his own eyes, but a wise man listens to advice. In the long run, who were the wise here?) It is just better not to be so wise in (our) own eyes (Romans 12:16 b), i.e. so sure of our own conclusions that we no longer remain open to correction by the force of the evidence that is offered us to cause us to change. The so-called ignorant masses, the notorious sinners admitted that God was right, knew that they needed whole-souled moral reformation and did what was necessary to begin it. They did not choke on their respectability and rationalizations, as did the learned doctors of the law. Jesus-’ observation merely puts into words John’s experience (and that of any other experienced personal evangelist): One just cannot save those who, determinedly unaware of their peril, refuse to be rescued.
V. CHRIST CONDEMNS THE CONTRARY CRITICS-’ CONTEMPTUOUS CARICATURES (11:16-19)
A master speaker, Jesus outlines this portion of His message on John thus: First, He describes a picture easily understood by any parent or child in His audience, making a brief parable of it by saying, This generation is like this. Next, the Lord supplies two antithetic illustrations of the parable’s meaning. Concluding this portion of His message, He enunciates a principle that not only rightly concludes the foregoing remarks, but also becomes a subtle warning to those who were guilty of repeating the very insults Jesus brings into the open here. The principle becomes also the test by which any man who has not yet decided about John and Jesus may come to a right conclusion.
A. A CAMEO (11:16, 17)
Matthew 11:16 And whereunto shall I liken this generation? It is like children sitting in the market-places, who call unto their fellows and say, We piped unto you, and ye did not dance; we wailed, and ye did not mourn. The cameo-like quality of this illustration lies in the fact that Jesus drew the outline of the features clearly while leaving the details, depth and dimension somewhat unclear and puzzling. His meaning is clear: You people are impossible to satisfy, since you do not recognize the divine wisdom under which John and I follow different manners of life and work, but in both cases our diverse methods of operation are certain to be justified by the end result of each. Interpreters have puzzled over which group of children represent the men of this generation and which represent John and Jesus, as well as the resultant meaning of the refusal to play the games suggested. It is generally presumed that Matthew 11:18 and Matthew 11:19 are Jesus-’ own application of this germ-parable, since He begins the application with a conjunction used to express cause, inference, or to explain: For (gàr). But Jesus-’ order in those verses must be noticed, since He mentions John first and then Himself. Is the Lord Himself following a normal order, applying the first part of His parable, then the second, or is He, on the other hand, reversing the application hence, using a chiastic order? Graphically, the problem is this:
The problem is just when do we apply the chiasm to determine Jesus-’ meaning behind His story? Do we take His application and use it to interpret the parts of His story, even if it requires a chiastic order? Or do we interpret first the story and then go on to Jesus-’ application? Or, to put the problem another way, who is doing the piping and to whom? who wails and to whom? There are two groups of children who try to suggest games to their playmates (Cf. Matthew’s tôis betérois and Luke’s allélois). Which children are here blamed by Jesus? Commentators suggest two ways:
Following the normal order of the text, the neighborhood children playing in the square, who pettishly criticize their companions, are the Jews. John had come to them with his severe mode of life and his stern call to repentance, but they demand that he drop his austerity and join them in the gaiety of festive occasions. When it became clear that he refused to surrender his ascetic severity, they petulantly nag him: We piped to you and you did not dance! Accordingly, when Jesus appeared among them as a normal individual with a wholesome enjoyment of life, who could delight in a pleasant meal and relish the company of any person, the Jews contended that He ought to be playing at funerals, i.e. fasting (cf. Matthew 9:14), rigorous Sabbath observance (cf. Matthew 12:1-14; John 5:1-18), etc. But when He maintained His own course, they howl: We wailed and you did not mourn!
a.
This interpretation offers two advantages:
(1)
It sees the men of this generation (cf. Luke 7:31), i.e. the Jews, as the fickle children who complain and are not satisfied to let others follow their own chosen course.
(2)
It also lists the two objections in chronological order, not only in order of Jesus-’ application (Matthew 11:18-19), but also in order of John’s and Jesus-’ actual appearance on the scene in Israel.
b.
But this interpretation ignores the fact that ye and you in the mouth of the children is plural, hence, out of place when directed only at John alone and then at Jesus alone, unless the children’s plural ye refers to John and Jesus as a group of two, while the specific complaints refer first to the one and then the other. Consider Edersheim’s (Life, I, 670) comment:
The children of that generation expected quite another Elijah and quite another Christ, and disbelieved and complained, because the real Elijah and Christ did not meet their foolish thoughts.. -We have expected Messianic glory and national exaltation, and ye have not responded (-we have piped unto you, and ye have not danced-’); we have looked for deliverance from our national sufferings, and they stirred not your sympathies nor brought your help (-we have mourned to you, and ye have not lamented.-’)
Or, if we may not read so much into the children’s expressions as Edersheim feels to be there, at least we may hear them complaining to God’s messengers as a group, first to John and then to Jesus. This would allow the plural to stand.
Following the chiastic order (i.e. applying first what came second in the story, and what came first, second, thus forming an X or Greek Chi, rather than parallels), we see the children, who suggest to the others to play with them first joyously and also at mournful games, stand for Jesus and John. Their fellows, who contrarily resist becoming involved in either game are the Jews who follow the lead of their own religious hierarchy. (Cf. Luke 7:29-30) The quoted words then become those of John and Jesus, taken as a committee of two, representing God’s call to righteousness: Whatever our approachwhether deep-felt sorrow for sin or the joyous freedom of the Gospelyou refused both.
a.
This interpretation has
(1)
the advantage of harmonizing more satisfactorily the plural pronouns, we and you, since they much more suitably describe two well-defined groups, whereas the other view tries to apply these plurals to individuals.
(2)
the advantage of reflecting the historic facts involved. It is McGarvey (Fourfold Gospel, 285) who notes that it was
God in His messengersHis prophets and His Sonwho came to set the world right. It was these messengers who took the initiative and who demanded the changes. It was the people who sulked and refused to comply with the divine overtures. The whole tenor of Christ’s teachingthe parables of the suppers, etc.represents the Jews as being invited and refusing the invitation. It was John and Jesus who preached repentance, but there is no instance where any called on them to (change).
(3)
Though the story does not follow the chronological appearance of first John, and then Jesus, as does the application in either view (Matthew 11:18-19), it may be urged that chronological order might not have been uppermost in Jesus-’ mind anyway. Thus, He presented Himself first in the story, but second in the application, placing John second in the story but first application. The reason for this emphasis on Himself is to be found in the fact that the question of the day is Are you the Christor do we expect another? and Blessed is he who is not offended in me. Jesus will conclude this message by drawing maximum attention to Himself, to His identity and ministry to the whole race.
b.
The disadvantage of this view is that, while it has been astutely argued by McGarvey (Fourfold Gospel, 285) that Jesus means that the men of this generation are like the entire picture presented and does not intend that they shall be taken as the subjects of the leading verbs of the sentence, yet this is not what Luke wrote. The version of Luke clearly asserts that they (the men of this generation) are like children seated in the agora. (Luke 7:32) Is it proper under this latter view to exclude John and Jesus from that comprehensive phrase the men of this generation? To include them in the meaning of this phrase would indeed free the true meaning of this story from appearing to be at variance with its opening words. Under either view, Jesus and John are two of the children seated in the agora. Even McGarvey admits that Jesus and John were the children who urged their companions to join them first in dances and then in dirges. Since it is highly unlikely that Jesus would have included Himself and John among the men of this generation, in light of His usual condemnation of this group (cf. Matthew 12:39; Matthew 12:41; Matthew 12:45; Matthew 16:4; Matthew 17:17; [Matthew 23:36; Matthew 24:34?]; Mark 8:38; Mark 9:19; Luke 9:41; Luke 11:29-32; Luke 17:25; see also Acts 2:40; Philippians 2:15; Hebrews 3:10), one would wonder how it be justifiable to think of His having included Himself here. The answer may be that the men of this generation create the same sort of situation as that faced by children playing in the marketplace who scold their fickle playmates.
Despite the tortuous attempt at getting at the proper interpretation of Jesus-’ parable, its meaning is evident. It is a picture of that selfish stubbornness, or stubborn selfishness, that always wants its own way. The Pharisees, scribes and their followers were fundamentally unwilling to act upon the ideas and leadership of another. They wanted to rule, not surrender the government of their lives. This is the basic explanation for their exterior fickleness and is the cause of it. They could not be satisfied with what was offered, not because of the character of the game suggested, but because they were determined to make no response. When this is the case, people sit sullenly and obstinately unresponsive, regardless of what offer is made them. Barclay reminds us that
The plain fact is that when people do not want to listen to the truth, they will easily enough find an excuse for not listening to it. They do not even try to be consistent in their criticisms; they will criticize the same person and the same institution from quite opposite grounds and reasons.
The fault of the people’s dissatisfaction lay, not in the fact that Jesus or John offered questionable alternatives, but in the fact that anything that varied from the preconceived notions of their detractors was suspect. Thus it was easy to question whether John be a real prophet of God, or whether Jesus be the Christ, since neither neatly fit into the common prejudices.
This simple illustration brilliantly demonstrates how shrewd a grasp Jesus had of His age. The smiling, applauding crowds did not deceive Him. Although He did not intentionally annoy them by refusing to go along with their wishes, He knew that these fickle crowds would ultimately oppose Him, because He would not merely please, entertain and feed them indefinitely. This bright little picture of children sitting in the village square makes us ask how often had Jesus Himself played these children’s games as a boy? This is probably not just a good illustration, but an experience lived by this keen Observer of children. Jesus had time to stop to watch children’s play. Had He heard these same complaints uttered by His brothers and sisters?
B. A CONTRAST IN CARICATURES (11:18, 19)
Here Jesus exposes their fickleness by showing how they required of John what they condemned in Him and demanded of Him what they had condemned in John.
Matthew 11:18 For John came neither eating nor drinking, and they say, He hath a demon. Luke (Luke 7:33) has eating no bread and drinking no wine. Since these items were the common food of common people, these who object to John are complaining about his abstinence from things entirely normal and legitimate. Eating no bread but only what he could scrounge from the wilderness itself, nor drinking any normal beverage, just water. (See on Matthew 3:1; Matthew 3:4) But this ascetic way of life was John’s sagacious adaptation of himself to his particular mission to bring repentance to Israel. Before Jesus-’ revelation of the compatibility between deep-felt repentance and carrying on a normal life, perhaps the popular mind in Israel would not have been willing to accept John’s stern message from a man who, himself, were a person living a normal life, eating common food. This very striking difference, to which Jesus had alluded earlier, had caught and held the nation’s attention. And for a short while, John too had been the idol of the populace. In those days his hardy life, his simple, course garments and his desert fare had not at all hurt his public image; rather, it would have tended to enhance it. Later, however, though people had streamed to him in droves, they slunk away rather than repent. Their comment: Too strait-laced for us!
He has a demon. (cf. John 7:20; John 8:48-49; John 10:20 later said of Jesus) This violent slander is what is necessary to justify those who utter it to cover their rejection of God’s counsel. It is not too likely that anyone really thought John to be actually possessed by a demon. This vilification probably only means to discredit John as a crank or a fanatic. One of the master strokes of Jesus-’ style is to state the accusation in its most blatant form. He does not even try to offer any defense against so infamous a charge. The lives of both John and Jesus were so above reproach that these low vilifications were doomed to topple of their own weight.
Matthew 11:19 **The Son of man came eating and drinking, and they say, Behold, a gluttonous man and a winebibber, a friend of publicans and sinners. **The psychological impact of this application of Jesus-’ parable of the playing children lies in the fact that it ends with Jewish rejection of Jesus, for this is the real issue. Although their repudiation of John held a menace to their ultimate salvation, since they were likely to reject John’s God-inspired testimony to Jesus, still the final judgment is decided, not on What will you do with John the Baptist?, but What will you do with Jesus? Putting Himself last in the application, the Savior leaves this latter question in the mind of His audience, stabbing their conscience.
Eating and drinking could be taken two ways, depending upon the mentality of those who laid this objection to Jesus:
From the standpoint of the extremely ascetic themselves, or of those whose view of piety would have been affected by them, the fact that Jesus ate normal food (bread and wine of Mat 11:18; cf. Luke 7:33) would be offensive, since piety, in their view, must express itself in frequent fasts. (Cf. Matthew 9:9-17 and parallels)
From the point of view of those living a normal life themselves, i.e. eating normal food, going to feasts and associating with common people, this accusation labels the Lord as a constant party-goer, known by the company He keeps.
During the entire course of His earthly mission, Jesus is recorded as having gone to a number of banquets, parties, and private meals. (Cf. The Cana wedding, John 2:1-11; Matthew’s farewell, Matthew 9:10-13; Luke 5:29; The Pharisee Simon’s house, Luke 7:36 ff.; Another Pharisee, Luke 11:37 ff.; A Pharisee Ruler, Luke 14:1-24; Zacchaeus, Luke 19:1-10) Even if these are merely a few of His many social contacts, He is damned by the carping detractors for not being holy enough.
Ironically, there was just enough truth in the sneers of the crowds to make these insults plausible: the libel lay in the exaggeration each phrase represents:
gluttonous man. (phágos) As indicated above, Jesus ate normal food and appreciated a pleasant meal. Since His mission was aimed at not one area of human life, but addressed to all aspects, Jesus could not follow habits peculiar to only one area. Rather, His manner of life reflected an even balance in all things, including His food and drink.
winebibber. (oinopótçs) Did Jesus drink wine? He says He did. This is no great surprise. The greater surprise, especially in THIS context, would be to learn that He did NOT drink! The conduct of Jesus is thrown into deliberate contrast with that of a man who, for religious reasons, deliberately abstained from this very thing. The very affirmation, that the Son of man has come eating (bread) and drinking (wine), is found in a context where His moderation is neatly placed half-way between both extremes,with teetotal abstinence in John’s case, and with excess in the slander that He was a wino among other things. (See special study: Should Jesus Drink Wine?)
Should anyone object that any wine that Jesus might have drunk would have been a non-alcoholic drink made of water mixed with cooked grape syrup, then the objector must explain the accusation of Jesus-’ critics. While it is true that the most unreasonable charges can be levelled against a man who has no dealings at all with that on which the charges are supposedly based, yet there has to be some shred of truth (however badly distorted) that makes the charge even credible. If the wine here referred to is merely a non-alcoholic beverage, then what is the point of calling Jesus a soft-drink man? After all, the oinos of Luke 7:33, which Jesus says He drinks, and the oinos of oinopòtçs in Matthew 11:19, of which the slanderers say He takes too much, is the same oinos.
friend of publicans and sinners. The slanderers insinuated that a man is known by the company he keeps. But what the opposition intended as detraction, Jesus transformed into one of His most glorious titles. Because Jesus is, in the highest and best sense, the friend of publicans and sinners, He is able to help untold millions of us publicans and sinners! (See notes on Matthew 9:12-13)
C. A CONFIDENT CONCLUSION (11:19b)
And wisdom is justified by her works. (Luke 7:35: Yet wisdom is justified by all her children.) Without seeking an allegory behind these words, whereby Wisdom is seen as a divine mother who produces children which, in turn, represent the faithful minority who have welcomed the Baptist and the Christ, or even these two themselves, it is much simpler to see Jesus as applying the pragmatic test to the ministries both of John and of Himself. He is saying, then, The wisdom of any course of action is tested and approved, or justified, by the results it produces, the deeds issuing from it, its natural fruit or offspring. While there were critics enough who stood around ready to sneer at the different approaches used by John and Jesus, the Lord is willing to submit both to the judgment of ultimate results and final fruits. Thoughtful men over the centuries have recognized the real wisdom behind the differing, but inwardly harmonious, courses of action followed by Jesus and John, so harshly and, ultimately, foolishly, censured by their contemporaries. The very number of transformed lives, because John had been willing to be nothing but a Voice crying in the wilderness, and because Jesus was the friend of sinners, justifies beyond a shadow of a doubt the wisdom of their chosen course. But the natural result of this pragmatic success of the separate ministries of John and Jesus is the conclusion that they who rejected them are fools! Men of real wisdom justify the two great men of God. Feel the real tragedy of Joh 1:11-13, as well as its triumph.
is justified. Lenski (Matthew, 444) feels that, because this verb is aorist (edikaiõthç), Jesus refers to actions performed in the past, John’s career now ended and Jesus-’ deeds now slandered. However, though the verb is aorist passive, it need not be taken merely as a past tense, since it can be interpreted as a gnomic aorist, stating a general truth: Wisdom is (and always will be) vindicated by her deeds, works, outcome, results, etc. The same view is arrived at, following the approach of Plummer, (Matthew, 163): It is certain to be justified. the event is regarded as so sure to happen that it is spoken of as past. The pragmatic success of John and Jesus is noted by Barclay, (Matthew, II, 11):
The Jews might criticize John for his lonely isolation, but John had moved men’s hearts to God as they had not moved for centuries; the Jews might criticize Jesus for mixing too much in ordinary life and with ordinary people, but in Him people were finding a new life and a new goodness and a new power to live as they ought and a new access to God.
While the pragmatic test is not a final one whereby men, limited as they are by time and space, may know the truth or falsity of philosophy, since they cannot know ALL the long-range effects of the theory, yet, given all other evidences for the validity of a theory, it is of no use whatever unless it also works! Jesus is not pinning the ultimate truthfulness of His entire message on its workability, since its authenticity is proved by His signs, or miracles. (See on Matthew 11:4-5) But if the proof of the pudding is in the eating, then the real significance of Jesus-’ ministry lies in His ability really to make men over. Should it be possible that His miracles identified His message as divine and yet that message fail to give men transforming power, of what use would the miracles be? Worse still, His message would be suspect, worse than useless. But the best part about the ministry of John who prepared the way, and that of Jesus, is that they did not merely flash their divine authority to speak, but actually produced the results that they were sent to accomplish. John actually brought men to repentance and to Jesus. Jesus actually brought men to forgiveness and the new birth, and made them fit for the presence of God.
FACT QUESTIONS
How did John in prison learn about the deeds of Jesus?
According to Matthew, about what, exactly, did John heat? the works of _______
In what general context does Luke place this incident? What were some of the deeds of Jesus to which Luke thus alludes? Why, then, does Matthew place this incident in some other context? Harmonize this apparent contradiction in fact.
State the exact point of John’s question to Jesus. Affirm or deny the following proposition and tell why: John in prison was weakening in faith in Jesus as the Messiah.
State the reasons why John may have propounded such a question to Jesus.
State and explain the answer that Jesus sent back to John. Show how Jesus-’ answer fulfills prophecies regarding the Christ, hence identifies Jesus as the Messiah to all who had eyes to see it.
State the evidence that Jesus gave John. Was this evidence different in kind from the evidence Jesus provided other people? What does your answer to this question indicate about the nature of the evidence that God gives to help all people believe Him?
What Old Testament prophet did Jesus cite in reference to John?
Give specific illustrations of Jesus-’ miracles to which He made reference in His answer to John. For example, name some of the dead raised to life prior to the arrival of John’s question.
Explain the traits of character referred to in the figurative expressions: a reed shaken with the wind, a man clothed in soft raiment.
What is meant by the phrase: the kingdom of heaven suffers violence, and men of violence take it by force? Are there other possible translations of this expression, that would affect the interpretation? What are the problems of interpretation? Write the sentence in such a way as to show which way you interpret and apply what Jesus meant.
Explain how John the Baptist both was and was not the Elijah who was to come. (See Luke 1:17; John 1:21)
In Jesus-’ illustration of His generation, to what games of children does He make reference? What is the exact point of comparison in the illustration to which He draws attention?
Explain how wisdom is justified by her works (or children). To whose wisdom does Jesus refer: His own, John’S, or that of the Jews of His day?
What two outstanding proclaimers of God’s Kingdom suffered violence during their life and ministry and whose lives ended in violent death?
What did the Jews of Jesus-’ day do with the message of John and Jesus? Be careful, they did not all do the same thing.
Did Jesus eat bread and drink wine, like any other Jew of His time? Some object to the idea that Jesus drank wine. What does this passage say regarding Jesus-’ personal practice, if anything? State what you know of Jewish customs of that period that might help answer this question.
SPECIAL STUDY: SHOULD JESUS DRINK WINE?
Without hesitation many Christians respond in the negative without examining the reasons for their conclusion. If pushed for a reason, they might reply, The Bible forbids its use. To this a skeptic might raise the challenge: Always? Unconditionally? At this point the teetotaler might object, But Jesus is my example, and I KNOW that. He would not drink. For me, His example is conclusive. But is the presupposition on which this conclusion is drawn a correct one? That is, is it true that Jesus would not drink? Instead of supposing what a person might or might not have done, is it not better to ask the person himself, to learn what his practice really was? Why not ask Jesus, Lord, what is your personal practice regarding wine? How does your practice compare with that of your contemporaries, or how does it differ?
To this, Jesus made reply: John the Baptist came eating no bread and drinking no wine; and you say, -He has an evil spirit.-’ The Son of man has come eating and drinking, and you say, -Look! A greedy fellow and a drinker, a friend of tax-collectors and sinners.-’ Yet wisdom is proved right by all her children. (Luke 7:33-35)
The life-style of Jesus revealed in this text is probably quite different from that expected of Him by ascetics of every age. Yet what this text actually says proves that their desire to use the Son of man as a champion for the cause of total abstinence on the question of alcohol is based on other considerations and not on the example of Jesus. Note the importance of this text as it relates to this question:
Jesus affirmed that He normally and habitually drank wine. This is not a conclusion drawn by scholars or the consensus of critics, but the unabashed statement of the Lord Himself as He comments on His own way of life. The question at issue in this context is the immediate contrast between the fundamental wisdom behind the way of life practiced by John the Baptist and Jesus, and the fundamental folly of those who perversely refused to accept the life, message, ministry and mission of either. However, it is worthy of note that Jesus did not change His life-style merely because it laid Him open to the criticism of being a glutton and a wine-bibber, a friend of publicans and sinners.
Jesus affirmed that He habitually drank wine and said so in a context where His meaning is clear, His practice being sharply contrasted with that of the abstainers on the one hand, and that of the drunkards on the other.
a.
Jesus was not an abstainer, as evidenced by the contrast with the life-long habits of John the Baptist whose well-known asceticism was common knowledge and the basis for the baseless criticism of him by fickle people.
b.
Jesus was no drunkard or glutton, since He Himself borrows these slanders from the mouth of His detractors, not from those who objectively try to describe His real manner of life. His matchless life and sinless character unmask these vilifications for what they are.
c.
Therefore, Jesus-’ practice, by His own statement, clarified by His stated antitheses, stands exactly halfway between both extremes. His is neither the teetotaler’s abstinence nor the drunkard’s excess, but the moderate’s evenness of balance in all things.
Jesus affirmed that He habitually drank wine, saying so to a people accustomed to think of wine as a blessing.
a.
That the Jews knew wine and other strong drink to be a dangerous curse, goes without saying, as many texts testify. (Cf. Proverbs 20:1; Proverbs 21:17; Proverbs 23:10; Proverbs 23:21; Proverbs 23:29-35, etc.)
b.
But the Jews knew wine to be the generous blessing from the Lord. (Genesis 27:28; Psalms 104:15; Isaiah 55:1; Hosea 2:8-9; Hosea 2:22; Joe 2:19-24; Amos 9:13-14)
(1)
They spoke of bread and wine as the staple articles of diet. (Genesis 27:25; Genesis 27:37; Deuteronomy 11:14; Numbers 6:20; Judges 19:19-21; 2 Samuel 16:1-2; 2 Chronicles 11:11, etc.)
(2)
Consequently, they were required to put wine on the grocery list of provisions for the priesthood (Numbers 18:12; Deuteronomy 18:4; 1 Chronicles 9:29, etc.)
(3)
Wine appeared as a normal expression of ordinary hospitality. (Genesis 14:18; Judges 19:19-21; 1 Samuel 16:20; 1 Samuel 25:18; 1 Chronicles 12:40; John 2:3-10)
(4)
Wine was commanded as a drink offering to God (Exodus 29:40; Leviticus 23:13; Numbers 15:5; Numbers 15:7; Numbers 15:10), probably because it was in common use and therefore had practical value to the Jews. This made it a proper thing that could be offered in sacrifice to God.
(5)
Wine was consumed by the Israelites even at their religious festivals. (Deuteronomy 14:22-26; Deuteronomy 12:17-18; Isaiah 62:8-9)
(6)
The Jews knew of its value as an anesthetic (Proverbs 31:6-7; Luke 10:34) as well as its necessity in case of bad water or stomach infirmities (1 Timothy 5:23)
c.
So, for Jesus to confess to eating bread and drinking wine to a Jewish audience, is no more than to confess to living a quite normal life. As an accurate reading of the circumstances in this text (Luke 7:33-35 and Matthew 11:18-19) will show, it was this very normalness about Jesus-’ conduct that drew fire from the cynics. In collision with the popular view as to what a holy man should be, Jesus wore no hair shirt, fasted so secretly that no one ever knew about it (if He ever did), ate common food, drank common drink and made no extraordinary effort to let His real holiness appear in a superficial manner. But His real character was so well attested, that He did not need to dignify the accusation of being a winebibber and a glutton by even bothering to answer it. The facts people knew about His life spoke for themselves.
So, the real question is not Should Jesus drink wine? as our tongue-in-cheek title would have it, for, as a matter of fact, He did. But this is not the point to be discussed with the modern Christian, disturbed by the excess in certain areas surrounding the use of wine or other forms of alcohol. The question is really Should a Christian follow his Lord’s example in drinking wine today?
Although the apostolic doctrine is replete with stern denunciations of drunkenness wherein is riot and excess, yet the Apostles do not enjoin unconditional and perpetual abstinence as the way around over-indulgence. Theirs too is the route of habitual moderation in all things (1 Corinthians 9:25), since they are suspicious of any doctrine that promotes rigor of devotion, self-abasement and severity to the body through negative regulations that God did not give. Such prohibitions might have an appearance of wisdom, but ate of no value in checking the indulgence of the flesh. (Colossians 2:16-23)
Beyond his dispraising of drunkenness and other forms of excess connected with the attitudes and activities under the influence of alcohol, the Apostle Paul, for instance, can find no rational basis for abstaining either from meat or wine in normal practice, since he knows that all God’s gifts (the context is food) are to be received with thanksgiving. (1 Timothy 4:1-5) However, under special circumstances Paul could conceivably dispense with ANY given food, for instance, if it caused a brother to stumble. (Romans 14:21) But contextually, it is obvious that the Apostle viewed this abstinence only as necessary in reference to the weaker Christian who had some scruple against that particular food. (See Romans 14:1 to Romans 15:7; 1 Corinthians 6:12-20; 1 Corinthians 8 all; Matthew 10:23-33) This is a necessary conclusion, since Paul could delineate no objective or absolute principle whereby wine or any food should be proscribed under any and all circumstances.
Further, in seeking qualified personnel for the highest tasks in the Church, the Apostle demanded that no excessive drinkers be tolerated in the eldership or in the diaconate. (1 Timothy 3:3; 1 Timothy 3:8; Titus 1:7) In giving directions for producing Christlike piety in the Church, he only urges Titus (Matthew 2:3) to bid older women not to be slaves to drink. However, in neither case does he suggest abstinence as a necessary quality. Rather, when he felt called upon to give his advice to a young abstainer, Paul counselled Timothy specifically in favor of wine, as opposed to water. (1 Timothy 5:23)
Should Jesus Drink Wine? may be an amusing question, but it will stand for serious reflection. Jesus was a Jew living in first-century Palestine. Out of proper moral consideration for the needs and views of His people, He ate and drank the food common to His people. It is a fair question whether He would follow His first-century practice while living, say, among twentieth-century Americans, whose history and attitudes toward alcohol may well be quite different than that of first-century Jews. But here it may be objected that twentieth-century Americans may need instruction by the Son of God, so that their (mistaken?) conscience be edified, i.e. formed along entirely different lines.
WHEN IN ROME, DO AS THE ROMANS?
Lest some, caught up in the confusing currents of a relativistic age and maddened by the spineless morality of situation ethics, mistake this position taken here to be the same drivel, let it be vigorously denied that situation ethics has anything to do with Christianity. The assertions made earlier that Jesus did in fact drink wine in His own situation in the first century, primarily because He chose to conform His practice with that of His own people, the Jews, cannot be construed in any fashion to justify the character-rotting influence of that immorality passing under the current name of situation ethics. Situation ethics, as I understand the phrase in its popular use, refers to a life guided by NO ABSOLUTE moral principle. There is no absolute morality, that is, except for the pervasive rule of thumb that each situation must be dealt with as a separate entity without any necessary reference to any other situation. According to its various practitioners, each moral decision must be made without reference to the (im)moral standard of reference of the individuals involved, be it hedonism, opportunism or whatever.
There is a chasmic contrast between this view of ethical decisions and that practiced by Jesus of Nazareth and expected of His disciples. Whereas situation ethics has no fixed code of absolutes within the sphere of which ethical judgments are made, Christ’s doctrine proclaims a rigid standard of inflexible righteousness. This standard outlines clearly what is meant by drunkenness, fornication, theft, lying, etc. By forbidding these and commanding their ethical opposites, i.e. temperance, purity, integrity, etc., Jesus unveiled a code of absolutes as demanding as the very character of God Himself! (See Jesus-’ Purpose For Preaching This Sermon, notes on the Sermon on the Mount, Vol. I, 188ff.) What is NOT spelled out in regard to these standards is how they are to be applied in every case. To a certain degree every situation faced by Jesus-’ disciple will be different from every other. So, instead of writing new rules of conduct for each new situation, Jesus placed into the hands of His disciple a few simple directives by which he may decide how to act ethically in each situation. (There directives may be gleaned from great blocks of Scripture on this subject, such as Romans 14:1 to Romans 15:7; 1 Corinthians 6:12-20; chap. 8; Matthew 10:23-33; Matthew 16:14; 1 John 3, etc.)
Thus it is that the Christ and His disciples are armed, not with some self-seeking, self-serving philosophy, but girded with the revelations of the living God in an enlightened conscience, face each situation and decide what each must do (1) to please the Father, and (2) to serve his fellow man best in that situation, and (3) what will achieve his own highest goal. Now to return: should Jesus (or His disciple) drink wine? But to ask this question is to see another: what other moral considerations were weighed into His decision which brought Him to act as He did in that given situation? If we fail to see these, we should badly interpret why He pursued that course, and, as a natural consequence, we would misapply His example in our own period. He drank wine in an age that knew no automobiles racing along a narrow ribbon of concrete within a cubit of oncoming traffic. He drank wine in a society not yet pressed for time, where the need for ready reflexes to operate fast-moving machinery was small. He lived in an age that moved in terms of the sun, not the timeclock. His was an era of walkers, not riders, to whom sedentary living was less a problem. But He also lived in an age as profligate as any other, an age that sought its amusements in the arms of Bacchus, an age when many a party devolved into revelry. Even so, Jesus could trace a clear line of godly conduct between asceticism and excess. In our own highly industrialized machine age, common sense considerations of safety may cause the Lord to counsel against alcohol in any situation where consideration for others and one’s own safety is compromised by slower reflexes. In light of Jesus-’ practice, another interesting, if unsolvable, puzzle is the question why the Lord did not concern Himself greatly with the long-term effect of alcohol on the brain about which modern research has so much to say. Is it possible that Jesus-’ answer to this query might be: Do not drink to excess, and you need not fear the adverse effects of alcohol on your brain? After all, is not His practice somewhat indicative of the conclusion that a moderate use of alcohol by a God-oriented man need not fear long-range negative effects on any part of his body, presuming that this man eats, sleeps and exercises normally? Or to state the problem differently, would not Jesus, Revealer of God and Creator of man, surely have revealed something of the lethal danger of drinking what is held to be a poison? Is it too much to argue that His silence on the subject and His personal practice, taken together, argue that our body chemistry can absorb and profitably use a certain amount of alcohol?
IS ALCOHOLISM A SICKNESS?
Another ramification of the conclusion that Jesus Himself drank wine, though never to excess (a conclusion drawn from His unanswerable denunciation of drunkenness as sin and from His own unimpeachable character, John 8:46; Hebrews 4:15), is the dilemma: should we consider the alcoholic a sinner or a sick man? To put the question in other terms: did Jesus escape alcoholism by righteousness (moderation), by maintaining a healthy body, or both?
While modern research has tended to demonstrate the direct connection between long-term embibing and many mental and physical debilities, sicknesses to which both psychological and medical cures must be applied, what is the meaning of the statement: The alcoholic is a sick man? This declaration, while declaring an objective reality, is often made with emotional overtones that suggest that the alcoholic can no more be charged with the responsibility for his condition than would a child suffering from measles. On the other hand, some religionists talk as if the alcoholic could be transformed into a proper citizen simply by immediate and permanent swearing off of alcohol, without any recourse to medical or psychological help to repair the damage that has been done to his body, mind, life, as if correcting the alcoholic’s responsibility for his weakened condition were the whole of his rehabilitation. Before we hasten to decide whether the alcoholic is either a sick or a sinful man, let us remember that some dilemmas are badly stated, including this one. There is a third alternative: the alcoholic may be both a sick and a sinful man. His sin has made him a sick man. Forgiveness of his sin will not make him a well man. Making him a well man in body and mind, insofar as modern science is able to effect this, will not make him acceptable to God. He must be both saved and healed. His rehabilitation in both these respects may require much time and may witness many set-backs, but it must take place in both areas, i.e. healing of the body and purifying the conscience and reinforcing the will, if the whole man is to be brought back to normalcy.
There is one sad, tragic fact that may face the alcoholic which, repent as he might, he cannot change: damage to his body as the natural consequence of alcohol’s ruinous effects. A man may repent a thousand times of his carelessness in handling a power saw, but his tears and his undoubted change for the good cannot give him back his right arm sawn away in the accident. If this analogy applies to the alcoholic in any way, it becomes a stern warning to any who drink, that alcohol is capable of bringing upon him a blight that no amount of repentance can correct.
Numerous are the instances where Jesus performed this very healing of both body and soul by curing the body and forgiving the sin. He not only purified the conscience but also provided the Gospel whereby the whole man can be transformed into a strong, stable character. What is most remarkable is that Jesus held all sinners responsible for the mess into which they get themselves (Cf. John 5:14; Matthew 12:45), especially drunkards (Luke 21:34; Romans 13:13; 1 Corinthians 5:11; Galatians 5:21; Ephesians 5:18). Accordingly, if people were merely sick due to some physical weakness related to causes not dependent upon their choice, then, presumably, Jesus could not justly hold them responsible for the bad results of their actions. So, the fact that He judges men responsible for their drunkenness, lays the charge for failure, not merely upon constitutional weaknesses, but upon the quality of the heart of the individual. Rather than become a scientist or a doctor to heal all mankind by giving out useful remedies or advice on physical health, He dealt with man’s fundamental problem: his relation with God and man. If THIS problem be not solved, physical or mental healing if only to live a few more years in constant danger of being corrupted again, solves nothing.
HOW DID JESUS ESCAPE BECOMING AN ALCOHOLIC?
As completely out of place as this query may seem, yet to answer it may lead us to grasp something of the answer to our other question, Should Jesus-’ disciple drink wine? How is it possible to harmonize the potentially catastrophic danger that alcohol represents both to the individual and to society, with Jesus-’ practice of taking wine? The secret lies in being guided by all the moral directives that prompted Jesus. By taking His view of the world, by having a conscience molded by the will of God and by showing the same forthright obedience to the Father as did He, by knowing no other dependence than upon the daily provision of the Father, one will be pleased to learn that he is not troubled by those diseases that excess and indulgence bring in their wake.
EXPOSITORY SERMON CHAPTER ELEVEN LOOKING FOR ANOTHER CHRIST
Introduction:
WHY look for another Christ? Because some are disappointed in the Christ given to us! This is not so surprising in light of the experiences of the people described in this chapter:
I.
THE PERPLEXITY OF THE LOYAL-HEARTED (Matthew 11:2-15)
A.
John the Baptist: If you are really the Messiah, how is it that the world goes on more or less as before, as if you had never come?
This is the statement in other words of the problem of pain and evil: Why does not God DO something about evil in the world, especially about the wicked themselves?
It is similar to the question stabbing the conscience of our age: If you are really the Church of the living God, if you really proclaim a Gospel of salvation and moral transformation that really works, why have you not done more to eliminate evil and initiate a practical demonstration of the rule and love of God on earth? Our age just cannot ignore 2000 years of bad church history with its failures, corruptions and misrepresentations of Jesus.
As with all expressions of the problem of evil, these questions reveal an ignorance and a misapprehension of God’s plans.
a.
In the patient, merciful ministry of Jesus, God WAS doing a great deal about the injustices in the world.
b.
Human intellect had failed to decipher the designs of God.
John’s personal problem was the disproportional exaltation of Jesus-’ divine office as Judge, to the detriment of His merciful human ministry as the Son of man come to seek and save the lost.
a.
The Law, Prophets and John had prepared Israel for the glorious coming of the King.
b.
Jesus had come but apparently nothing was happening that would square with John’s understanding of the coming Christ.
c.
In desperation, John cries out: Are you the coming One?
But John’s faith in the Lord brought him to no other source for answers to his dilemma.
B.
Jesus-’ answer: He appreciated the honest perplexity of His loyal prophet. He corrected His understanding and vindicated him completely. Notice the correction (Matthew 11:6): Tell John that although human intellect has failed to give him complete understanding of his problem, his intellect must submit to the wisdom of my methods and results. If his intellect judges my way not to be the best, it must see what I am accomplishing, even if it means turning his back upon his prejudices about what I should be doing. John must be content to say, -God’s methods are against my wisdom: I cannot understand why He does what He does, but I follow because HE leads me, for I have learned to trust Him.-'
II. THE FICKLENESS OF AN UNREASONABLE AGE (Matthew 11:16-19)
A.
John had come protesting against the falsely-inspired merriment of his age.
B.
Jesus had come refusing to sorrow over the things that made men of His age mourn.
C.
Reaction of people in general: If you are really the Holy One of God, why do you fraternize so familiarly with the rest of us? You are not saintly enough!
One reason for this reaction was the exaggeration of Jesus-’ divine character at the expense of His necessary and true humanity. Men thought that the great God would never so disturb Himself, so befoul Himself as to attend the banquet of a common sinner! Here again human intellect was at fault.
Another reason is that human emotion is falsely stimulated. Men sought the inspiration of their joys and sorrows in the wrong places.
D.
Jesus-’ answer: Human emotion must seek my inspiration, must learn to dance to my music, and mourn to my lamentation. The age must discover that the only way into the Kingdom of God is that of beginning to rejoice where hitherto there had been no joy; to mourn where hitherto there had been no mourning. Men must be done with dancing to the wrong music, with mourning over unimportant things.
E. The Lord committed to the judgment of time that age dissatisfied with wisdom contrary to its fickle tastes and capricious emotions.
III. THE IMPENITENCE OF THE MOST FAVORED CITIES (Matthew 11:20-24)
A.
Their reaction: You cannot be taken too seriously as the voice of God. We plan to run our lives much as we have been doing it before you came along!
Here is the depreciation of Jesus-’ divine authority and the demotion of the King to the level of any other human being.
Although these towns had personally witnessed Jesus-’ triumph over sin and its results that were causing the suffering in their midst, they did not recognize in His mastery a perpetual protest against their own sins. They remained rebels against God.
Here is the refusal of the will to submit to the control of God in Christ.
B.
Jesus-’ answer: Your great opportunities make you so much more responsible before God for what you know, therefore your punishment for impenitence will be so much more severe! Change your mind about what I am teaching you: turn back upon your false concepts of the Kingdom of God and submit to His rule now!
IV. THE FOLLY OF THE WISE AND THE WISDOM OF THE BABES (Matthew 11:25-30)
A.
The wise and prudent reaction: Any fool knows that yours is no way to establish a kingdom! Your program does not rhyme with any standard rabbinical formula of how the messianic kingdom has to be.
This is the refusal of human intellect to bow, acknowledging its own ignorance.
The net result is the reduction of Jesus to less than a human prophet, for the wise see in this Nazarene something less than a sage whose advice should at least be considered.
B.
The reason for this reaction is that God gives His greatest blessings only to the humble, but the human heart protests against the thought of starting all over again by being born again. People demand a religion that may be grasped as a prize for intellectual achievement; a religion that permits them to give full vent to their passions; a religion that grants them the dignity of their own self-will. But Christ demands that man surrender his darkened intellect, his vulgarized emotions and his prostituted will, so that he might begin again as a little child. .
C. Who is a little child?
He is an ignorant man asking instruction.
He is an emotional person seeking proper inspiration.
He is a will searching for authority.
He is a weak one seeking power.
He is imperfect, but looking for perfection.
He trusts Jesus to lead him to find all this and more.
V.
APPLICATION: How do people of our age look for another Christ?
A.
By letting the disappointments and failures in our personal Christian life turn us aside from the Christ who actually came:
Do we have no assurance of forgiveness and relief from our guilt and sins?
Do we fail to find the joy and brightness we expected?
- What kind of Christ did we expect? Does our image differ from the reality?
B.
By letting the general condition of the world blind us to the real Christ and His purposes.
Jesus came to save the world and yet the larger portion of it not only remains unsaved but is also growing larger in proportion to the total population. How can He let this go on?
If you look for another Christ, what kind of Messiah could alleviate the human predicament better than Jesus is now doing?
C.
We are not actually expecting the coming of another Christ that is not to be identified with Jesus of Nazareth, but the Jesus Christ whom we know will return in another form! (See Acts 1:11; Philippians 3:20-21)
When He comes, He will only seem to be another Christ different from the humble Galilean we once knew.
a.
He will be a Christ whom most men had never believed in.
b.
He will be a Christ whom most never expected to see come.
с.
But He will be the very Christ whom John the Baptist said would come in blazing glory.
But He will appear in His power and majesty to bring to a glorious conclusion the mission which He undertook in shame and weakness.
a.
He has never changed His mission: it has ever been His intention to make righteousness to triumph over sin and get God’s will done.
b.
The same Jesus who was crucified in shame, raised in glory and now reigns at the Father’s right hand, is even now perfecting His mission with an eye to that day when He will come for His saints.
D. What then is to be our reaction?
We must ask ourselves, Am I willing to admit my ignorance and ask instruction; am I willing to yield my emotional nature and take only His inspiration, dancing only to His piping, and mourning only to His lamentation; am I willing to take my will and submit it wholly to His authority; am I willing to take the place of unutterable weakness and depend upon His strength? Am I willing to confess my absolute and utter imperfection and give myself to Him for perfecting of all that concerns me?
This is the passage from proud independence to simple confession of weakness. So men enter into this Kingdom. So men find their rest.. Our very pre-eminent respectability prevents the definite daring necessary to get into God’s Kingdom. We are prone to drift upon easy seas, to admire the visions of the beautific land, consent to the beauties of the great ideal, and never enter in because we will not. consent to yield to the claim of the King..
Let this be the hour when you have done with your dilettante fooling with sacred things. Let this be the night when you translate your sickly anemic imagination into grip, force, go and determination.
(The above outline and some of its points were suggested by G. C. Morgan’s sermon The Kingdom By Violence in 26 Sermons by Dr. G. Campbell Morgan, Vol. II, p. 229ff.)
Another outline of this chapter might be:
JESUS JUDGES HIS CONTEMPORARIES AND HIMSELF
I.
John the Baptist (Matthew 11:2-15): More than a prophet!
II.
His people in general (Matthew 11:16-19): Like children!
III.
The most favored cities (Matthew 11:20-24): Damned!
IV.
The simple disciples (Matthew 11:25-30): Learned!
V.
Himself (Matthew 11:20-30): The Unique Hope of the Race!
EXPOSITORY SERMON CHAPTER ELEVEN REST IN A RESTLESS WORLD (11:20-30)
Introduction:
The newspapers of the world report riots that picture the great unrest of our world. In the great cities of the world every day is heard news of strikes, riots, protest movements, wars and famines. We wonder where this will all lead to or when it will end. Men’s hearts faint for the fear and anxiety over the things that are coming over the world. And why should that be?
There is NO REST IN OUR RESTLESS WORLD, BECAUSE THERE IS NO CERTAINTY.
One woman is uncertain, because another woman could take her husband away from her, and she is not sure that he would not like to go with the other woman!
The student is not sure that he can pass his exams, in order to find a small place in our society,
The worker can not be sure that tomorrow a machine will not take away his position and work for him.
The big industrialist can not be sure that he can hold his wealth.
The politicians can only try to establish a better government, but they can never be sure of the outcome.
In whatever other area we can discuss, there exists no rest-bringing security. We can certainly say that the one thing in our world that is certain, is our UNCERTAINTY! And our uncertainty troubles us!
But over the centuries we hear a mighty voice that says: Come to me! I will give you rest! In our dark world full of care and strife, difficulties and problems, anxieties and fear, these words bring us comfort, inspiration, encouragement and rest. Let us listen to this voice from a bit closer by. What does Jesus mean to say to us?
I
JESUS CONDEMNS THE UNBELIEVING BECAUSE THEY DID NOT REPENT (Matthew 11:20-24)
A.
Even though Jesus had fulfilled His commission in this world, yet His own people did not accept Him: they did not repent!
Even though He had done His greatest miracles in their presence, miracles that established His message as God’s personal revelation:
Even though He had revealed God’s will to them, yet they did not repent.
B.
There was no one more joyfully seen, heard and received than Jesus of Nazareth!
They were all ready to make Him their King and establish a worldly messianic kingdom.
They were willing to risk everything to follow Him, rising up against the Roman government, against the hypocritical religion of the Pharisees and chief priests, against all political authority.
They wanted to have a King who could give them bread, miracles and wealth, a place among the greatest empires of the world!
They wanted the SECURITY, that could come through His miraculous power. They wanted His providence and protection, His conquest of all enemies and His divine defence. They wanted to have all this, while THEY REMAINED UNCHANGED IN HEART AND LIFE.
C.
But Jesus sees that they have not understood Him:
He had called them to repentance; they wanted to make Him their servant.
He wanted to put God in them; they wanted Him and God in THEIR service.
Jesus-’ heart is broken over their deep need of repentance and over their unwillingness to repent.
Jesus has so strenuously, so faithfully, so unselfishly, so carefully tried to give them God! And they have neither seen it nor understood!
D.
Is this not a picture of our world?
We want God on OUR conditions: all His blessings, all His goodness, but He does not dare demand our repentance nor our obedience!
Jesus wants to bring us to reality and truth; He wants to create God in us; He wants to put real rest and peace in our heart, but UNDER HIS CONDITIONS: I tell you, unless you all likewise repent, you shall all likewise perish!
But to whom did Jesus say that?
a.
To people that thought that simply to be in the vicinity of Jesus was the same thing as faith and repentance.
b.
To people who thought that common goodness was the same as deep-felt repentance:
(1)
These were more or less better people than those of Sodom, Tyre and Sidon
(2)
But Jesus did not want to make people more or less good, but just as perfect as God Himself! (Matthew 5:48)
c.
To people who thought that culture and enlightenment were sufficient to enjoy the better life.
(1)
They had had the best enlightenment, because they could hear the Truth itself and revelation of God’s will, preached by Jesus Himself!
(2)
But the light against which we sin, will be the measure whereby we will be judged!
(3)
The greatness of the quantity of information that we have received concerning God’s truth, does not release us from the responsibility to repent and trust Jesus!
d.
To people who thought that to do nothing was as sufficient as repenting. Their sin was the sin of refusing to take a positive stand for Jesus Christ!
(1)
How many people today exalt Jesus as a Superman, a Man born before His time, perhaps a great Prophet, yes, even as God’s Son?
(2)
And yet they do nothing with Him! They take no responsibility for what they know about Jesus of Nazareth!
So why does our world have unrest, insecurity, desperation? BECAUSE WE WILL NOT TRUST JESUS AND REPENT!
Let us listen further to His words:
II
JESUS LAYS DOWN HIS OWN CONDITIONS, WHEREBY WE CAN RECEIVE GOD’S TRUST AND REST. (Matthew 11:25-26)
Even though He gives us conditions that are absolutely necessary to which we must render whole-hearted and immediate obedience, yet He gives us also His own personal example how we should understand the conditions He requires. What does He do?
A.
He thanks God and rejoices with the Father over the method whereby God chose to reveal His will. This is the grateful acceptance of the will and plans of His Father.
Even though He could not reach the unrepentant people and cities, after thousands of attempts, yet He gives God thanks that God had used this method to reveal Himself and that it was God’s idea.
Even though there were a very few simple people that truly accepted Jesus, yet Jesus THANKS the Father for them.
Jesus recognizes the universal Lordship of His Father. This too is an anchor for our souls, if we acknowledge that there is no place in this universe, no problem in our world over which our God is not fully Master and fully in charge!
Jesus praised and thanked God that His plan really works to save those people who can be taught.
B.
But what is God’s method to save the world? By revealing these eternal truths to humble seekers, to -little children.
Who are the wise and understanding of this world, from whom God has hidden His will? These are the people who are wise in their own eyes and proud of their own understanding.
So far as the world could see it was Pilate who was a greater man than Peter, but Jesus could do much more with a Peter than with Pilate! The high priest Caiaphas went far higher in the human society than Matthew, but that publican could become an Apostle for eternity, because he could forsake everything to follow Jesus!
Who are the little children, to whom God has given great revelations of His will? These are the humble people who open their lives to follow Jesus-’ leadership and accept His teaching.
a.
The doors of God’s Kingdom remain open for those who repent and become little children.
b.
These are the people who admit their ignorance, confess their sins and come to Jesus for forgiveness. (1 Corinthians 1:18-31)
Yes, this is God’s plan and Jesus thanks Him for it.
III
JESUS ACCEPTS THE MORAL RESPONSIBILITY FOR THE ENTIRE HUMAN RACE AND PRESENTS HIMSELF AS THE ONLY POSSIBLE REVEALER OF GOD (Matthew 11:27)
A.
All things have been committed to me by my Father.
Perhaps we are caused to think immediately of the glory and royalty of God’s Son, because we know that, at the end of the world, everything will be the inheritance of Jesus.
But here Jesus is not speaking about the glory and wealth that shall be His,
He understands very clearly that the weight of the sins of the whole world have been laid upon HIM!
a.
There is no arrogance here, but an honest bending of the Lord Jesus Himself to take upon Himself the gigantic weight of a lost mankind upon Himself.
b.
He had just seen people, that had had the best possible opportunity to be saved, refuse the call of God.
c.
Perhaps He is reminded of the ancient words of Isaiah: All we like sheep have gone astray;
We have turned every one to his own way;
And the Lord has laid on him the iniquity of us all. (Isaiah 53:6)
Our own unwillingness to repent was laid upon God’s Son!
d.
Yes, the government will be upon his shoulder, but the insignia thereof are not the colorful flags and marching eagles of a great empire, but the bleeding stripes by which we are healed!
Yes, all things have been committed to Jesus by His Father: the moral responsibility for all men just like they are: in their sins, their dying and in their deep need for repentance and redemption!
This is why we are not surprised about what Jesus says next:
B.
No one knows the Son but the Father!
Here is a cry that comes out of the loneliness of the Lord Jesus.
a.
There is no man on earth that realizes the greatness of the burden of the Son of God.
b.
Jesus has not found anyone who really understands how He feels among sinners, nor shares His burden.
Jesus has had thousands of followers, but very few of them continued to follow Him, even though those few themselves were deeply unaware of His mission, His purpose, and His Person. Even so late as the last week of His life, before going to the cross, Jesus had to say to them, Have I been so long with you, and you do not yet know me?
Jesus feels deeply His loneliness on earth: no one really knows or understands Him.
a.
But people must understand Him in order to be saved!
b.
But we must understand His message, in order thereby to be able to know the Father.
C.
No one knows the Father but the Son, and he to whom the Son wills to reveal Him.
Jesus finds Himself in a world where no one really knows God!
a.
This means that all the great inventors of religion are liars, if they contradict, diminish or deny the Word of Jesus!
b.
This means that all the lesser religious lights who have led men away from God’s Will are thieves and robbers! (John 10:1)
This is a world, in Jesus-’ day and in our own as well, wherein people have lost the very key to life, because they live as if God does not exist. But Jesus knows that God is the central fact of all reality, the greatest, most important fact of all.
Jesus prayed: This is eternal life, that men might know you, the only true God, AND JESUS CHRIST, whom you have sent! (John 17:3)
Only, JESUS knew God. Here Jesus expressed the longing to make God known to men.
He MUST make God known, but how can He go about the task of revealing God?
D.
Here is His method whereby He reveals the Father.
IV.
JESUS INVITES HUMBLE DISCIPLES TO COME TO HIM AND LEARN (Matthew 11:28-30)
A.
This young Jew, not more than 33 years old, invites the entire human race to come to Him to learn. He promises that every one, however great his problems might be, shall find rest for his soul! Let the stupendous nature of this invitation sink deep into your heart: feel the gigantic nature of the fraud if the claims implicit in this invitation are false. Feel the power of God’s loving mercy, if these claims are true! Here we must decide what we think about Jesus!
B.
But Jesus has to be the teacher, if we are to find rest for our souls. The only ones whom Jesus can help are the little children. We must be willing to learn EVERYTHING from Him.
Jesus has already had too many theologians and professors, who molded His ideas according to their own conceptions! He wants disciples, or followers, who are willing to follow Him and live under His discipline. The so-called great preachers, professors, priests, bishops, popes, councils, theologians and universities are not what Jesus is looking for! He seeks men and women, boys and girls who are willing to enroll themselves in His school and learn under HIM.
C.
Even though Jesus Himself is the Revealer of the eternal God, even though He Himself is the Creator of heaven and earth, even though He is the Judge before whom all must give account, yet He is gentle and lowly in heart.
He is not a teacher that His students need to be afraid of.
He does not boss His students around; they do not need to be afraid to expose their ignorance before Him.
My friend, He could become your Teacher: with Jesus you need fear no ridicule or contempt in His school.
If you are an eager student, you will find Jesus ready to help you, sharing with you the same spirit of joy in knowledge. He will help you at whatever level you find yourself, in order to bring you up to His level of full knowledge of the entire universe! You will find Him a wise and sympathetic Teacher, who will lead you into truth.
How many times has Jesus already shown Himself this kind of Teacher? How many times did the sinners and publicans come to Jesus, even though they had run away from the proud, strict Pharisees? They knew that Jesus was different, so, friend, do not put Jesus in the same class with religious leaders that you know, because He is not at all like any teacher you ever knew. He is in a class all by Himself, but you will enjoy enrolling in the class!
The publicans and sinners of Jesus-’ day felt the attraction of His gentleness, and they knew that He could help free them from sins that they had for years taken for granted.
D.
In Jesus-’ school you find SECURITY and rest for your soul!
To the tired worker, Jesus gives genuine rest for the body, nerves and mind, because Jesus gives true rest for his SPIRIT. Such a person can now sleep, because he has a forgiven conscience.
To the tired and heavy-laden worshipper, Jesus gives rest also.
a.
Tired of religious ceremonies, duties, norms and empty forms? Then, Jesus offers you devotion to a Person.
b.
Tired of defeats and disappointments in the struggle against sin? Then Jesus gives you the refreshment of forgiveness and power to overcome.
To the tired worldling who has found everything to be futile and empty, Jesus offers His fullness, all His friendship and companionship.
INVITATION:
Friend, you know your own cares, your own sins, and problems. Let Jesus take your difficulties and free you. Lay all your difficulties down at the feet of Jesus. Enroll yourself in His school: He invites you now.
EXPOSITORY SERMON CHAPTER ELEVEN LOOKING FOR ANOTHER CHRIST
Introduction:
WHY look for another Christ? Because some are disappointed in the Christ given to us! This is not so surprising in light of the experiences of the people described in this chapter:
I.
THE PERPLEXITY OF THE LOYAL-HEARTED (Matthew 11:2-15)
A.
John the Baptist: If you are really the Messiah, how is it that the world goes on more or less as before, as if you had never come?
This is the statement in other words of the problem of pain and evil: Why does not God DO something about evil in the world, especially about the wicked themselves?
It is similar to the question stabbing the conscience of our age: If you are really the Church of the living God, if you really proclaim a Gospel of salvation and moral transformation that really works, why have you not done more to eliminate evil and initiate a practical demonstration of the rule and love of God on earth? Our age just cannot ignore 2000 years of bad church history with its failures, corruptions and misrepresentations of Jesus.
As with all expressions of the problem of evil, these questions reveal an ignorance and a misapprehension of God’s plans.
a.
In the patient, merciful ministry of Jesus, God WAS doing a great deal about the injustices in the world.
b.
Human intellect had failed to decipher the designs of God.
John’s personal problem was the disproportional exaltation of Jesus-’ divine office as Judge, to the detriment of His merciful human ministry as the Son of man come to seek and save the lost.
a.
The Law, Prophets and John had prepared Israel for the glorious coming of the King.
b.
Jesus had come but apparently nothing was happening that would square with John’s understanding of the coming Christ.
c.
In desperation, John cries out: Are you the coming One?
But John’s faith in the Lord brought him to no other source for answers to his dilemma.
B.
Jesus-’ answer: He appreciated the honest perplexity of His loyal prophet. He corrected His understanding and vindicated him completely. Notice the correction (Matthew 11:6): Tell John that although human intellect has failed to give him complete understanding of his problem, his intellect must submit to the wisdom of my methods and results. If his intellect judges my way not to be the best, it must see what I am accomplishing, even if it means turning his back upon his prejudices about what I should be doing. John must be content to say, -God’s methods are against my wisdom: I cannot understand why He does what He does, but I follow because HE leads me, for I have learned to trust Him.-'
II. THE FICKLENESS OF AN UNREASONABLE AGE (Matthew 11:16-19)
A.
John had come protesting against the falsely-inspired merriment of his age.
B.
Jesus had come refusing to sorrow over the things that made men of His age mourn.
C.
Reaction of people in general: If you are really the Holy One of God, why do you fraternize so familiarly with the rest of us? You are not saintly enough!
One reason for this reaction was the exaggeration of Jesus-’ divine character at the expense of His necessary and true humanity. Men thought that the great God would never so disturb Himself, so befoul Himself as to attend the banquet of a common sinner! Here again human intellect was at fault.
Another reason is that human emotion is falsely stimulated. Men sought the inspiration of their joys and sorrows in the wrong places.
D.
Jesus-’ answer: Human emotion must seek my inspiration, must learn to dance to my music, and mourn to my lamentation. The age must discover that the only way into the Kingdom of God is that of beginning to rejoice where hitherto there had been no joy; to mourn where hitherto there had been no mourning. Men must be done with dancing to the wrong music, with mourning over unimportant things.
E. The Lord committed to the judgment of time that age dissatisfied with wisdom contrary to its fickle tastes and capricious emotions.
III. THE IMPENITENCE OF THE MOST FAVORED CITIES (Matthew 11:20-24)
A.
Their reaction: You cannot be taken too seriously as the voice of God. We plan to run our lives much as we have been doing it before you came along!
Here is the depreciation of Jesus-’ divine authority and the demotion of the King to the level of any other human being.
Although these towns had personally witnessed Jesus-’ triumph over sin and its results that were causing the suffering in their midst, they did not recognize in His mastery a perpetual protest against their own sins. They remained rebels against God.
Here is the refusal of the will to submit to the control of God in Christ.
B.
Jesus-’ answer: Your great opportunities make you so much more responsible before God for what you know, therefore your punishment for impenitence will be so much more severe! Change your mind about what I am teaching you: turn back upon your false concepts of the Kingdom of God and submit to His rule now!
IV. THE FOLLY OF THE WISE AND THE WISDOM OF THE BABES (Matthew 11:25-30)
A.
The wise and prudent reaction: Any fool knows that yours is no way to establish a kingdom! Your program does not rhyme with any standard rabbinical formula of how the messianic kingdom has to be.
This is the refusal of human intellect to bow, acknowledging its own ignorance.
The net result is the reduction of Jesus to less than a human prophet, for the wise see in this Nazarene something less than a sage whose advice should at least be considered.
B.
The reason for this reaction is that God gives His greatest blessings only to the humble, but the human heart protests against the thought of starting all over again by being born again. People demand a religion that may be grasped as a prize for intellectual achievement; a religion that permits them to give full vent to their passions; a religion that grants them the dignity of their own self-will. But Christ demands that man surrender his darkened intellect, his vulgarized emotions and his prostituted will, so that he might begin again as a little child. .
C. Who is a little child?
He is an ignorant man asking instruction.
He is an emotional person seeking proper inspiration.
He is a will searching for authority.
He is a weak one seeking power.
He is imperfect, but looking for perfection.
He trusts Jesus to lead him to find all this and more.
V.
APPLICATION: How do people of our age look for another Christ?
A.
By letting the disappointments and failures in our personal Christian life turn us aside from the Christ who actually came:
Do we have no assurance of forgiveness and relief from our guilt and sins?
Do we fail to find the joy and brightness we expected?
- What kind of Christ did we expect? Does our image differ from the reality?
B.
By letting the general condition of the world blind us to the real Christ and His purposes.
Jesus came to save the world and yet the larger portion of it not only remains unsaved but is also growing larger in proportion to the total population. How can He let this go on?
If you look for another Christ, what kind of Messiah could alleviate the human predicament better than Jesus is now doing?
C.
We are not actually expecting the coming of another Christ that is not to be identified with Jesus of Nazareth, but the Jesus Christ whom we know will return in another form! (See Acts 1:11; Philippians 3:20-21)
When He comes, He will only seem to be another Christ different from the humble Galilean we once knew.
a.
He will be a Christ whom most men had never believed in.
b.
He will be a Christ whom most never expected to see come.
с.
But He will be the very Christ whom John the Baptist said would come in blazing glory.
But He will appear in His power and majesty to bring to a glorious conclusion the mission which He undertook in shame and weakness.
a.
He has never changed His mission: it has ever been His intention to make righteousness to triumph over sin and get God’s will done.
b.
The same Jesus who was crucified in shame, raised in glory and now reigns at the Father’s right hand, is even now perfecting His mission with an eye to that day when He will come for His saints.
D. What then is to be our reaction?
We must ask ourselves, Am I willing to admit my ignorance and ask instruction; am I willing to yield my emotional nature and take only His inspiration, dancing only to His piping, and mourning only to His lamentation; am I willing to take my will and submit it wholly to His authority; am I willing to take the place of unutterable weakness and depend upon His strength? Am I willing to confess my absolute and utter imperfection and give myself to Him for perfecting of all that concerns me?
This is the passage from proud independence to simple confession of weakness. So men enter into this Kingdom. So men find their rest.. Our very pre-eminent respectability prevents the definite daring necessary to get into God’s Kingdom. We are prone to drift upon easy seas, to admire the visions of the beautific land, consent to the beauties of the great ideal, and never enter in because we will not. consent to yield to the claim of the King..
Let this be the hour when you have done with your dilettante fooling with sacred things. Let this be the night when you translate your sickly anemic imagination into grip, force, go and determination.
(The above outline and some of its points were suggested by G. C. Morgan’s sermon The Kingdom By Violence in 26 Sermons by Dr. G. Campbell Morgan, Vol. II, p. 229ff.)
Matthew 11:20-30
Section 25 JESUS CONDEMNS UNBELIEVING CITIES AND INVITES BABES TO COME TO HIM
TEXT: 11:20-30 I. HEARTBROKEN CONDEMNATION
Then began he to unbraid the cities wherein most of his mighty works were done, because they repented not.
Woe unto thee, Chorazin! Woe unto thee, Bethsaida! for if the mighty works had been done in Tyre and Sidon which were done in you, they would have repented long ago in sackcloth and ashes.
But I say unto you, it shall be more tolerable for Tyre and Sidon in the day of judgment, than for you.
And thou, Capernaum, shalt thou be exalted unto heaven? thou shalt go down into Hades; for if the mighty works had been done in Sodom which were done in thee, it would have remained until this day.
But I say unto you that it shall be more tolerable for the land of Sodom in the day of judgment, than for thee.
II. HEAVEN’S AUTHORITY
At that season Jesus answered and said, I thank thee, О Father, Lord of heaven and earth, that thou didst hide these things from the wise and understanding, and didst reveal them unto babes:
yea, Father, for so it was well-pleasing in thy sight.
All things have been delivered unto me of my Father: and no one knoweth the Son, save the Father; neither doth any know the Father, save the Son, and he to whomsoever the Son willeth to reveal him.
II. HEARTFELT COMPASSION
Come unto me, all ye that labor 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 ye shall find rest unto your souls.
For my yoke is easy, and my burden is light.
THOUGHT QUESTIONS
a.
How did God reveal things to babes and hide them from the wise? If God hides truth from anybody, is that not partiality? Prove your answer.
b.
How is Jesus-’ yoke easy?
c.
What kind of labor and burdens do you think Jesus was promising to relieve?
d.
Why and how will it be more tolerable in the judgment for Sodom than for Capernaum?
e.
What do you think Jesus expected of the people in Capernaum to do, that they did not do, which, in turn, moved Him to upbraid them for not repenting?
f.
What is repentance?
g.
Have you ever wished that you could have been personally present with Jesus during His ministry in those happy, golden days in Capernaum along the shores of blue Galilee? What grand illusions does this particular section shatter, bringing such dreaming back to reality and prepares us for eternity and judgment?
h.
Do you think that this section teaches us to believe that there will be degrees of punishment for the wicked? On what basis do you answer as you do? If you say yes, then does that not picture God as showing favoritism in judgment, using one standard for Tyre and Sidon and Sodom while requiring another of the privileged cities of Galilee? If you say no, then how do you interpret the words more tolerable?
i.
Should we revise our theology and our hymns that teach us, Jesus never fails. It appears that Jesus has clearly failed to win these famous Galilean cities for God’s Kingdom, even though most of His time and work had been spent within their precincts. How do you explain this failure?
j.
Is Jesus meaning to say that not a single soul in these three cities had repented? Give proof for the answer you give.
k.
In what way can a city or a people be exalted to heaven? In what way can they be brought down to Hades? Where is Hades?
l.
Jesus thanks God for hiding important truth from the wise and understanding. It would seem to some that this is putting a premium on ignorance and degrading the advancement in knowledge and culture. This is a long-held charge laid against Christianity. How would you interpret these words of Jesus in such a way as would show that, in reality, Jesus actually holds no brief for ignorance and unwillingness to seek truth?
m.
Even though a man may be very well-developed intellectually, when he views God’s way of saving the world as nonsense, what then should we say about him and his wisdom? Should we reject all the truth that he knows, even though he rejects the gospel we know? Is he a fool for rejecting the gospel? If so, how far has he lost the key to truth, i.e. can he continue learning truth about nature? Will he be hampered in learning the fundamental truth about himself and human nature? How far will he err or fail to grasp the fundamental truths of psychology or sociology?
n.
Do you think that Jesus accepts the possibility that the people He describes as wise and understanding really are wise and understanding? What makes you say that?
o.
What is there so praiseworthy about people whom Jesus describes as babes?
p.
Should we get excited or be upset by the attacks upon Christianity launched by the intelligentsia of our day? If so, in what way? If not, why not?
q.
What fundamental attitude is Jesus requiring before participation in His Kingdom is even possible?
r.
Why should Jesus be thankful to God that some folks are actually unable to see the truth (I thank you that you have hidden these things from the wise.)? How can any sane person be thankful for this?
s.
If Jesus be only a mere man, what must we conclude about the grandiloquent claims He is making for Himself in this section? If Jesus be God come in the flesh, what must we do about the claims He makes upon us in this section?
t.
After reading the Sermon on the Mount and Jesus-’ other sermons on the high cost of discipleship (for example, Luke 14:26-33), can we still take Him seriously, when He claims that His yoke is the easy one, HIS burden the light one? If so, how?
PARAPHRASE AND HARMONY
Jesus began then to censure those cities where He had done most of His miracles, simply because they remained apathetic and unrepentant. How sorry I am for you, Chorazin! You too are to be pitied, Bethsaida! For if the wicked cities, Tyre and Sidon, had seen the miracles performed to demonstrate God’s authority that you have seen, their people would have turned to God long ago, wearing the sackcloth of shame and with ashes on their head to show their humility. But let me tell you that it is going to go easier on judgment day for those wicked cities than for you! And you, Capernaum, do you suppose that I will exalt you to a position of imminence, power and importance, simply because I have preached in your midst? No! As a city you shall die! Had the miracles taken place in the vilest city you can think ofeven Sodom, that I have performed in your streets, yes, even Sodom would still be standing today! But I can assure you that it will go much easier for the whole land of Sodom than for you! At that time Jesus prayed, Father, Lord of heaven and earth, thank you for hiding the truth from those who suppose themselves to be learned and wise, and for showing it to humble, teachable people. Yes, Father, I thank you that you were pleased to do it that way. My Father has turned everything over to me. No one really knows me, except the Father, and no one really knows God but me! And I am willing to reveal God to anyone I want to. So, come to me, all you who are worn-out and loaded down with impossible burdens. I will give you real rest. Here: wear my yoke: let me teach you. You will find me gentle with you and genuinely humble. You will actually find the soul refreshment you are seeking. Last but best, in the final analysis, you will find that, of all the yokes you will ever know, my yoke is the easy one; my burden is really the light one.
SUMMARY
Jesus denounced those privileged cities where He had spent the major part of His earthly ministry, because they remained undecided and unwilling to turn to God after all His efforts and evidences given to convince them. Wicked cities with less opportunity will not be so severely condemned as those reasonably good cities that had refused to take a positive stand for Jesus. Then, in rapid-fire order, Jesus expresses the rigorous judgment of the Judge Himself, His exultation over the Father’s choice of method. Next He makes the highest possible claim to the knowledge of God by excluding all others. Upon the basis of this claim, He makes the deepest, most sympathetic invitation to the whole human race, while asserting the most incredible humility. He concludes by making the astounding claim that, after all, His way is best.
NOTES
Matthew 11:20 Then began he. Luke (Luke 10:13-16) records this same denunciation pronounced upon the three Galilean cities, however with several noteworthy differences, in connection with the mission of the Seventy. Because of this fact, the chronological unity of Matthew’s chapter has been doubted. That is, is this condemnation of these cities situated in its proper chronological place? While it is true that Matthew often links together in the same chapter harmoniously organized material from different situations, weaving them into one closely-woven whole, the following suggestions tend to argue that in this case he did not do so:
Matthew’s version of the denunciation is given in some loose connection with Jesus-’ Galilean ministry, while Luke makes it clear that the Mission of the Seventy, and the instructions given in connection with it, were given after Jesus had definitely left Galilee for Jerusalem. (Cf. Luke 9:51-52; Luke 10:1 after this)
In the commission of the Seventy, the significant omission of the injunction not to enter either Gentile or Samaritan territory (cf. Matthew 10:5-6) may point to the evangelization of an area containing mixed populations, such as Perea with its Decapolis, without excluding Judea. If this is, in fact, the case, then a different audience for Jesus-’ remarks, especially this denunciation in Luke 10:13-15, would naturally permit Jesus to repeat what He had said earlier (Matthew 11:20-24)
The fact that Jesus-’ actual commission of the Seventy includes Luke 10:16, shows that Luke intended to include the denunciation as an integral part of that commission. This is all the more significant in light of the fact that Luke 10:16 was also said to the Twelve before their mission in Galilee (Matthew 10:40), a fact that tends to confirm the conclusion that Matthew and Luke record similar words spoken on two separate occasions.
That they are similar, but not identical expressions, will be seen from the following arrangements:
Matthew:
Luke:
a.
Chorazin and Bethsaida; Tyre and Sidon; facts and fate compared.
a.
Sodom and any city rejecting the Apostles; fate not connected in any way with Capernaum.
b.
Capernaum and Sodom: facts and fate compared.
b.
Chorazin and Bethsaida; Tyre and Sidon; facts and fate compared.
c.
Capernaum’s fate, not compared with that of Sodom.
Therefore, this condemnation of the unrepentant cities is in its chronological places both here in the Sermon of Matthew 11 as well as in the commission of the Seventy in Luke 10, In that place it is in order for two important reasons:
Since His great Galilean ministry would already have been concluded, His words become a warning to any other cities in the virgin territory to which He would send the Seventy, that to reject Jesus or any of His messengers is to invite the same dreadful judgment pending for the Galilean cities that had remained impenitent.
Precisely because Jesus would not be permitted the leisure to develop the same friendly rapport with other cities in Palestine, as He had with Chorazin, Bethsaida and Capernaum, the people of other cities might be tempted to feel themselves particularly neglected and, hence, at a great disadvantage because they would not be able to witness so many miracles at first hand. So, by uttering, both in Galilee and elsewhere, this fiery judgment upon those privileged towns, Jesus serves notice both to the privileged and underprivileged cities alike that no amount of first-hand acquaintance with Him can take the place of genuine repentance! The miracles, and the proof of them, are important, but not at the expense of the real point of Christ’s mission: God was in Christ endeavoring to bring men to their knees in surrender of their lives.
But even having said that this condemnation was uttered in Galilee within earshot of some of the inhabitants of the very cities in question, does not also argue that this chapter is one continuous sermon, since then began he may be taken, not as a note of time (the very next thing Jesus said was.), but could well be Matthew’s means of transition from one subject to another. (Then another thing Jesus said in this same general connection was.)
I. INVINCIBLE UNBELIEF (11:20-24) A. IMPENITANCE = UNBELIEF (11:20)
Then began he to upbraid (oneidìzein, to reproach justifiably, Arndt-Gingrich, 573). Upbraid means to rebuke, censure, blame; to charge, accuse or reprove reproachfully. Bur why would the usually quiet, gentle Jesus be so disturbed? We must feel the ironic contrast in Matthew’s introduction: God’s part in seeking to save these cities had been mighty works done by Jesus. Men’s reaction: they repented not! Whose conscience would not be deeply indignant at this obstinate refusal of divine mercy! In Jonah’s ministry to Ninevah, the warning of imminent total disaster and the terrifying judgment of God was sufficient to bring vicious pagans like those Assyrians to tremble on their knees before God. By contrast, even the riches of His kindness, forbearance and patience, by which Jesus-’ message of mercy and ministry of generous helpfulness were intended to encourage men to change their lives, could not move God’s own people! Jesus scolds them, because He knows that a refusal to repent constitutes defiance of the living God! (Cf. Romans 2:3-6) They were so very unforgivable, for they rejected evidence that would have persuaded some of the wickedest cities in the world! Whereas this same gentle Jesus had spoken many precious promises and would yet offer many yearning invitations to these people, they must now hear the other side of the question: the fiery condemnation and the fearful warnings. They must face what Lenski calls the mighty and terrible Jesus.
Surprisingly, as Jesus sounds these awesome warnings, we realize that we are standing in the presence of the very Messiah that John the Baptist had been seeking! This entire section (Matthew 11:20-30) is Jesus-’ own claim to be the Judge Himself who would one day take up the winnowing shovel to separate the wheat from the chaff. The day would come when He would actually seize the ax to cut down fruitless trees. And the first among the worthless to go down would be these very cities who had had the finest opportunities to know the truth of God and live by it! In this one stroke, Jesus justifies the OT predictions of the Messiah’s justice, clarifies what John longed to see Jesus undertake now and gives us all fair warning, by asserting that He would bring this all to pass. But by His great invitation, He teaches us that the day of mercy and of God’s long-suffering is still in effect.
Cities wherein most of his mighty works were done. A phrase like this proves to us once more how very little we know of all that Jesus did. (Cf. John 21:25) Even after a close examination of the recorded incidents in that tri-city area, we must admit that great selectivity has been exercised in eliminating all but the few stories we do have. And though the Evangelists-’ impression is that these narratives are representative of the rest, yet our knowledge of the samples does not permit us to presume we know all there is to know even about the earthly ministry of our Lord.
Most of his mighty works (hoi pleîstai dunàmeis autoû). Though pleîstos is superlative in form, yet in koiné Greek, as in modern popular English, the superlative is used with a much more relative sense than the form suggests. It is used for emotional emphasis (elative use) where we would translate it very, or many. (See Robertson-Davis, Short Grammar, 206; Arndt-Gingrich, 696; Dana-Mantey, 121) To get a quantitatively precise picture of the miracles wrought there and, at the same time, be faithful to koiné usage, we should translate it many of His works. The word most however, carries its proper emotional impact and, simultaneously, vouches for the authenticity of Matthew’s work. If he were inventing his story and altering to avoid possible mistakes, he would be unlikely to admit that most of the great miracles of his Messiah resulted in the failure to win those who witnessed them. Yet, if he did consciously say that the major part of Jesus-’ miracles produced no more than this, then we may rest assured that he is not counterfeiting, and his story true. We must search elsewhere for the explanation behind this admission (that Jesus-’ works failed to secure repentance in significant-’ cases),
Jesus-’ ministry there was two-pronged, consisting of action and preaching. (Cf. Acts 1:1: His doing came before his teaching.) Jesus first established His right to say what He came to reveal, then He preached it.
- Incidents in the tri-city area:
a.
Jesus moved there with His family and disciples. (John 2:12)
b.
At Cana in the first year of His ministry, He healed the nobleman’s son who was dying at Capernaum. (John 4:46-54)
c.
Miraculous catch of fish, called four fishermen, healed many (Matthew 4; Mark 1; Luke 5).
d.
In Capernaum the man with the unclean demon liberated on the sabbath in the synagogue (Mark 1; Luke 4).
e.
Peter’s mother-in-law healed that afternoon (Matthew 8; Mark 1; Luke 4).
f.
That evening, whole city gathered at door for healing.
g.
Paralytic borne by four men was cured (Matthew 9; Mark 2; Luke 4).
h.
Centurion’s servant healed (Matthew 8; Luke 7).
i.
Stilling the tempest, with other little boats from cities also present on the lake with Jesus (Matthew 8; Mark 4:36; Luke 8).
j.
Jairus-’ daughter raised from dead (Matthew 9; Mark 5; Luke 8).
k.
Woman with hemorrhage cured (Matthew 9; Mark 5; Luke 8).
But mere mighty works alone cannot produce faith, if they are divorced from what the miracle Worker says of Himself. Jesus-’ miracles could be verified by these very townspeople, but they failed to see that these signs pointed to Jesus-’ identity. These mighty works were in themselves a word from God, saying, This is my Son: listen to Him!
- Some of Jesus-’ greatest messages were delivered in this area:
a.
Perhaps the Sermon on the Mount was preached close enough to these cities that at least some of the inhabitants could have heard it.
b.
The Sermon on the Bread of Life (John 6:59).
c.
Probably also the Message on Human Traditions (Matthew 15; Mark 7).
d.
The Sermon on True Greatness, Stumbling-blocks, Mistreatment and Forgiveness (Matthew 18).
What is the connection between Jesus-’ miracles and the result He anticipated, i.e. the repentance of these Galileans? His miracles served to lead men to change their lives, by demonstrating Jesus-’ right to demand that they repent. Since His miracles were evidence of the nearness of the Kingdom of God (Matthew 11:28), the paradox was true: though the Kingdom of God had come nigh to them, yet they remained far from the Kingdom! (Cf. Luke 10:9-12 with Mark 12:34) Their continued impenitence, even in the presence of the best evidence of a divine break-through into human history, is the best answer for those who would insist upon the supreme necessity of miraculous manifestations today for convincing the impenitent skeptics. We must not depend upon mighty works to convince and convert men today, if the Gospel attested by Christ’s own miracles was rejected by men of the same mentality in His day. To paraphrase Abraham’s response to the tormented rich man: No, if they hear not Christ and the Apostles, neither will they be convinced if some one should rise from the dead or work other marvelous miracles.
They repented not is a tragic epitaph! What could have been the motives that induced these privileged Galileans to justify their failure to repent? Some of the fatal assumptions may have been:
Proximity to the Lord is as acceptable as faith. Physical nearness to Him did not guarantee their repentance nor strengthen their faith. The more distant ministry of John the Baptist had stirred multitudes throughout the nation, but not even Jesus-’ ministry right in their midst had been able to bring these cities to their knees. In fact, the sheer commonness of their fellowship with Him may have dulled their sensitivity to His message and to His mission on their behalf. It is foolish to think that faith would necessarily have been excited in us, or would be stronger than it is, had we been immediate neighbors of the Master and thus witnesses of His life and work, (Analogous cases: John 11:47; John 12:37) Here is the moral exception to the proverb: Seeing is believing. This area had seen many wonders but did not believe the moral significance of them sufficiently to submit to the message based on them.
Morality may be substituted for repentance. The relative morality of these cities seems to have been higher than that of Tyre, Sidon and Sodom. They may have even been priding themselves on their relative respectability. Perhaps they even sneered at Jesus-’ demands that they bow with other common sinners, that they too be born again, repent deeply and sincerely seek the redemption and leadership He offered. They were generally good people: they at least did not try to stone or crucify Jesus. In fact, one could say that they accepted Jesus up to a point. But, for Jesus, that certain point cannot exist: He wants all or nothing. He teaches that the greatest sin man can commit is to refuse to believe in Him. And, as far as the so-called good morality is concerned, it is not really good after all. A person or a city that retains itself for itself and does not give itself to the Lord, is really wicked! They were too confident that they already pursued the proper course, with God. Their good conscience was their most blinding fault. Jesus was not trying to make people more or less good; He was endeavoring to lead them to trust Him to make them perfect! We too may shudder at the sins of others and at the punishment they have incurred, and yet be far more guilty ourselves of crime against God. We may not be violent, sensual people, ready to ridicule or oppose the work of Christ. And yet our own self-righteousness and complacency will cause us to be indifferent to Him, dulling the influence of His ministry, letting Him produce no change in us. Though externally our lives may be more eminently respectable than those whose conduct is openly disreputable, we may be ungodly in a far more deadly way.
Education in godliness, or information, is as good as faith. These cities had enjoyed the distinct opportunity to be educated directly at the feet of the Master Himself, whom to know was to know the very mind of God! But the mere fact that they had heard many messages and were informed on the nature of God’s plans did not release these Galileans from the necessity of trusting Jesus! For, according to the measure of light against which they sinned, so will their judgment be! They enjoyed the utmost opportunity. Now they must face the utmost in responsibility. They forgot the responsibilities of privilege.
They may even have supposed that sympathy with the Master’s work were equal to repentance. Surely had they lacked some faith in His miraculous power or had they begrudged Him some understanding of His intentions, He would have done no mighty works there. (Cf. Matthew 13:58; Mark 5:6) But mere sympathy with His general program to the extent of rejoicing in the evidences of the blossoming of righteousness, or to the extent of agreeing that Jesus was on the right track in bringing God close to men, without submitting to the spiritual demands of His message, is to remain uncommitted, and, in Jesus-’ sight, ultimately against God. (Cf. Matthew 12:30) The sympathy that men show for Jesus-’ work and their agreement that His Gospel is the best view of life may help us to open their hearts to submit to His rule, but sympathy is not repentance.
Failure to repent is as good as repentance. Christ was relegated to the realm of indifferent. They did not care enough about Him to react. Theirs was the sin of inaction. Many a man’s defense before God is no more than this: But I did not do anything! But this may be his condemnation, for Jesus had outlined a plan of action. He blamed these favored cities because they repented not.
One cannot help wondering whether Jesus-’ piercing description of that last great Day were not most directly true of these cities: Then you will begin to say, -We ate and drank in your presence, and you taught in our streets.-’ But He will say, -I tell you, I do not know where you come from; depart for me, all you workers of iniquity! (Luke 13:26-27)
Because they repented not. To bring these cities to repentance was the Lord’s grand desire and the practical goal of His labor. Even though He had lavished blessings upon them and caused much rejoicing, His toil appeared comparatively wasted, because He could be satisfied with nothing short of repentance, He did not aim to leave His audiences merely richer, only better educated, perhaps more adequately adjusted socially, materially more comfortable. We must notice how little emphasis Jesus put upon the externals of religion, Even though great multitudes from these cities followed Him, they did not surrender their will to that of God. What great emphasis we tend to put on church buildings, budgets, numbers in attendance at worship, in short, mere trappings of religion, even though the people themselves, who are brought into contact with our religion, do not feel the heavy burden of their responsibility for what they have had the opportunity to know of God! They must never be the same after hearing the voice of God speaking through Jesus! Do men actually hear this voice in our gospel proclamation? So, in our work for Him, we too must not rest content with results that did not please the Lord when He worked at the same task.
Implicit in His reproaches is the rigorous judgment pronounced by the Judge Himself:
By implication He claims to know the past more perfectly than any, by declaring what men of ancient cities WOULD HAVE DONE with better opportunities. Only omniscience could guarantee accuracy at this point.
By implication He claims to know with unshakeable certainty the outcome of the yet future judgment, an issue which only God could know.
And because these presuppositions are merely implied, not asserted or defended (as He does, in fact, do elsewhere, John 5:22; John 5:27; cf. Acts 10:42; Acts 17:31), the positive boldness with which Jesus speaks is the more awesome.
B. OPPORTUNITY = RESPONSIBILITY (11:21-24)
Matthew 11:21 Woe unto thee (oud soi) is an interjection denoting pain or displeasure (Arndt-Gingrich, 595), but in what sense does Jesus mean it here?
An as expression of grief, as if the Master is pained to reveal the fate of so many friends? This makes excellent sense here, because of Jesus-’ sorrowing sympathy for these who stumble on in their wilful blindness with no real conception of their impending doom. This idea is perfectly in harmony with the known character of our Lord, who is merciful even to the hardest sinners whose wilful unbelief demands additional signs when so many had already been given. (Cf. Matthew 12:38-42) Woe may be so interpreted. (Cf. Matthew 24:19; Matthew 26:24; Revelation 8:13; Revelation 12:12; Revelation 18:10; Revelation 18:16; Revelation 18:19) Barclay (Matthew, II, 13) is certainly in order to notice:
This is not the accent of one who is in a temper because his self-esteem has been touched (nor) of one who is blazingly angry because. insulted, (nor) a passion of hatred at men. It is the accent of sorrow,. of one who offered men the most precious thing in the world and who saw it completely disregarded. (He is) watching a tragedy being played out and. is powerless to stop men rushing on to ruin.
In condemning judgment? Jesus hates sin, He cannot but expose it, even if it means scorching rebuke aimed at friends among whom He was a well-known and appreciated companion, for they had proudly refused God’s grace. This suggestion is probably the right one, since, contextually, Jesus is clearly pronouncing the destiny of those who continued to reject His representation of God’s mercy.
Chorazin is an otherwise unknown city probably located about two miles to the north of Capernaum, now utterly desolate, its very existence being yet attested by extensive ruins. (ISBE, 614a)
Bethsaida. Two cities bore this name and were both situated at the north end of the Sea of Galilee on opposite sides of the mouth of the Jordan River. A critical study of the following texts reveals them to be Bethsaida in Galilee (John 12:21; Mark 6:45; John 6:17; near Capernaum) and Bethsaida Julias (Luke 9:10; cf. John 6:1 on the other side of the Sea of Galilee from Capernaum; Mark 8:22, a blind man was healed there on the other side, Mark 8:13, after the discussion at Dalmanutha Magadan on the west bank, Matthew 15:39 b; Mark 8:10 b) That two similarly-named cities, located so close together, should not be thought strange, since Bethsaida, etymologically, may mean nothing more than house of fishing (ISBE, 451b), hence refer to the water-front fishing villages so-called from the occupation of their inhabitants.
The mighty works done in you. Although we have no record of miracles worked in Chorazin and Bethsaida (however, see notes on Matthew 8:14), yet in every part of the Gospel narratives are found evident summaries of much vaster extent of Jesus-’ labors. (Cf. Matthew 9:35; Matthew 4:23-25; Jn. 20:35; 21-25) Nevertheless, due to the proximity of these towns to Capernaum, the scene of much of Jesus-’ activity, as well as the headquarters of His Galilean campaigns, the many miracles done in the city limits of Capernaum would have had repercussions in those other two adjoining communities located but a short walk away. On the other hand, if the great day of miracles (Matthew 8:14-17; Mark 1:21-34; Luke 4:31 b - Luke 4:41) ended at Bethsaida in Galilee, rather than in Capernaum, then we have an excellent sample of the mighty works done in Bethsaida, since Peter and Andrew, at whose home that day was concluded, were originally from there and perhaps still lived there. (John 1:44)
If. (they) had been done in Tyre and Sidon means that no such ministry of any of God’s prophets had actually been carried out in those cities. While it is true that God’s men had thundered against Tyre and Sidon time and again (cf. Isaiah 23; Jeremiah 25:22; Ezekiel 26:1 to Ezekiel 28:26; Amos 1:9-10; Zechariah 9:2-4), yet apparently God sent no prophet to bear the warnings of their destined judgment. The case of Nineveh and Jonah seems to have been the exception rather than the rule. The above-mentioned prophecies were delivered, then, for local consumption among the Jews themselves, as God gave them evidence of His planning. By declaring His counsel prior to its execution, He provided written proof that He is the Lord of history and ruled nations. Nevertheless, it was not His purpose to do mighty works in those pagan cities. To the Jews, then, the mention of these two Phoenician cities called up the image of typical pagan cities, ignorant of God’s revelations and, as a consequence, morally degraded. Tyre and Sidon were geographically close enough to Palestine for their notorious wickedness to be generally proverbial among the Jews.
Foster (SLC-1957, 49) submits the interesting suggestion that Jesus may not have been looking at the ancient pagan cities in their own historical context, but rather was alluding to the modern cities of His day. However, if the Lord intended a parallel between Tyre and Sidon on the one hand with Sodom (Matthew 11:23) on the other, in approximately the same sense in which He mentioned Capernaum, Bethsaida and Chorazin together, then it becomes evident! that He had only the ancient cities in mind, since Sodom had never been rebuilt and was no longer existing in the time of Christ.
They would have repented long ago. This is no hypothesis contrary to fact, notwithstanding the possibility that anyone could have levelled this objection to Jesus-’ affirmation. His assertion remains above challenge, if we admit the identity of the One who asserts it. Only God’s omniscience could comprehend in its scope all possible actions, as well as what people actually do. The Master does not hesitate to reveal what the wicked ancients would have done, and, by so doing, reveals His own identity even further. This impression is made the more evident by the solemn introduction prefixed to His pronouncement: But I say unto you. This is the authoritative voice which will pronounce the sentence on the day of judgment. These words encourage the vilest sinner to believe that, if these cities might have escaped their horrible fate by thorough-going repentance, there is hope for him too if he but repent.
Repented in what sense?
Does Jesus mean that full conversion to God that was expected of the chosen people? That would depend upon the precise nature and requirements of the message those pagan cities would have received. If that preaching were equal to the message supported by the mighty works done in Bethsaida, Chorazin and Capernaum, then the Master means nothing short of full transformation.
If, however, He meant a message geared to the actual degree of maturity (or lack of it) at Which those ancients lived, then He probably refers to that leaving off of their more heinous sins for which they had grown notorious. In this case God would not have destroyed them, even as He tolerated the continued existence of other relatively ungodly cities, until the times were right to provide them more complete revelations. (Cf. Acts 17:30) It may be safe to decide this, since, in light of Jesus-’ principle, responsibility is equal to one’s opportunity. For if these cities had no special revelation on the basis of which they could be deeply transformed, as had the Jews, then it could not be expected of them that they produce that of which they were psychologically incapable. (Cf. Romans 10:14)
Sackcloth and ashes. The wearing of a rough, prickly hair-shirt next to the skin and the covering of one’s head with annoying ashes (or also sitting in them) was the ancient way of expressing extreme sorrow and genuine repentance. (Cf. Isaiah 58:5; Daniel 9:3; Jonah 3:5-10; Esther 4:3; Revelation 11:3) This bodily discomfort harmonizes well with the contrite attitude of one’s spirit. Because it was obvious to all, it became a public recognition of one’s contrition.
Matthew 11:22 More tolerable in the day of judgment than for you, does not mean that these ancient, corrupt cities will get off scot-free at the judgment, in the sense that they would not be punished, or that they would be assured a place in God’s paradise. The rule still stands: responsibility equals opportunity. (Cf. Luke 12:47-48; John 15:22-24; John 9:40-41; Romans 2:12-16; Romans 3:23-25) So there is no favoritism with God here, as if the corrupt Gentile cities might be thought to be judged by one standard and the Jews by another. The one standard for all is that of opportunity to know the truth and act upon it, So a man is responsible not merely for what he actually knows, but for what it was possible for him to know, but he chose not to recognize. (Cf. Romans 1:18-28) One of the most excruciating parts of Hell is the burning within the conscience which screams to the suffered how much opportunity he had to receive God’s loving grace. (Cf. Luke 16:25) As a consequence, Jesus is not teaching that all the unsaved will suffer punishment of the same severity, since the gravity of guiltiness will vary with the opportunity.
Who would have supposed that judgment would reveal such a reversal of popular standards and upset estimates so commonly held? The jarring surprise caused by Jesus-’ declaration could not have been greater! One would have thought that of all people, surely those good Galilean neighbors of the Lord would be first in the Kingdom. What a lesson: the relative degree of a sinner’s guilt may not come to the fore here on earth, and should never be used as a standard for measuring the guilt of others. Only the judgment of God will reveal the depth of one’s guilt, since only then will the facts be bared that show how much opportunity one had to know and do God’s will. This is a judgment upon an attitude toward Jesus-’ message, but not absolutely irrevocable in the case of individuals, since some of these very townsmen could yet be won. This solemn declaration, then, is a fearful warning of a fate too dreadful to be conceived, deliberately worded to shake the complacent back to a sense of reality, calling them to repent before the hour of opportunity had elapsed.
Matthew 11:23 And thou, Capernaum, shalt thou be exalted unto heaven? Is this a question or an affirmation?
Affirmation (KJV: Thou, Capernaum, which are exalted unto heaven ., .) Capernaum would naturally feel honored as a city whose face would soar to the gates of heaven itself, inasmuch as she could consider God’s Son her most illustrious citizen. But taken in juxtaposition with the following phrase, this affirmation becomes ironic, since her temporal fame is not matched by eternal glory.
Question (ASV, RSV). This suggests that Jesus was verbalizing Capernaum’s self-estimate: You did not suppose that my mere presence among you would guarantee your eternal fame and glory, did you? Wait till you hear your sentence read!
The problem lies in the reading of the manuscripts, since E, G. phi and other Greek MSS as well as ƒ and q among the Latin, the Siniatic and Peshitta Syriac have And you, Capernaum, which art exalted unto heaven, where K, M, and other Greek MSS and h Latin have a similar variant: And you, Capernaum, the one which has been exalted unto heaven. But contrary to these two variant readings, Aleph, B, D, W, Theta, C, many Latin MSS, the Vulgate; the Curetonian Syriac, the Sahidic, Bohairic and many other ancient translations have: And you, Capernaum, you will not be exalted to heaven, will you? (mé héõs ouranoû hypsõthçsç;). Since in the best judgment of the editors of the critical text, the latter reading has the best MSS support, this is a question expecting a negative answer.
Thou shalt go down into Hades. Hades most often refers to the unseen world of the dead, the tomb. Moreover it can also connote the fate of those dead whose punishment is sure, having been so destined by their passage beyond the realm of further opportunity to change. (Cf. Luke 16:23) For this reason **Hades **may sometimes be used as a synonym for Hell. Which is it here, merely the obscurity of the grave and the oblivion in the dust of the centuries, or a fiery threat of eternal punishment?
- The grave, historical oblivion.
ISBE, 1315b: As in the OT Sheol is a figure for the greatest depths known (Deuteronomy 32:22; Isaiah 7:11; Isaiah 57:9; Job 11:8; Job 26:6), this seems to be a figure for the extreme of humiliation to which that city was to be reduced in the course of history. It is true that ver. 24, with its mention of the day of judgment, might seem to favor an eschatological reference to the ultimate doom of the unbelieving inhabitants, but the usual restriction of Hades to the punishment of the intermediate state. is against this.
In this connection note also Isaiah 14:13-15; Ezekiel 26:20. So, without denying the threatened punishment of any who rejects Jesus, it may be possible to interpret figuratively heaven and hades in this verse, since in Jesus-’ mind they represent proper antitheses. Thus, in the same way that the exaltation of Capernaum’s citizens probably did not mean that they would all go to live in heaven, so their humiliation in hades need refer to no more than the material ruin of the city. Capernaum would lose her glory and privileges, falling to a level as far below other cities as she had been honored above them. The Jewish wars with Rome so thoroughly destroyed the city, that one might almost believe that those who overthrew it were bent on proving Jesus right.
- Hell. Foster (SLC-1957, 50 argues that
The reference as to what will happen to Sodom in the day of judgment makes it plain that Jesus was not threatening Capernaum with a mere return of its fine buildings to rubble and its people to the grave. As a matter of fact, this was the fate of these cities within the scope of about a generation, but the warning of Jesus carried a more solemn import. What would be the point in saying that unrepentant men shall be brought down to the grave? Where else would dying men go? The fate of these cities is determined by no other factor in this context than the obdurate indifference to repentance and faith. Temporal oblivion is too good for anyone who turns thumbs down on God’s Son!
Go down into Hades. Though there is reasonably good manuscript evidence for the reading: You shall be brought down to Hades (katabibasthçsç), a reading which suggests the active punitive justice of God, the reading chosen for the text is well supported. It raises the instructive problem in what sense unrepentant cities** go down into Hades. **God’s judgment is often passive in its function. When men would have expected Him to rain fire from heaven upon the wicked, thus giving a world-shaking indication of His justice, sometimes He gives no sign at all, almost as if He were happily unconcerned. Why is He silent? Since He did not destroy Capernaum, Chorazin and Bethsaida for their refusal to repent, as He did in the case of the sins of Sodom and Gomorrah, how could He be just? Often He simply withdraws His blessing after men prove themselves disinclined to appreciate them, thus leaving them to fend for themselves. When He thus abandons men to the logical consequences of their own choices, He is actually delivering them up to their own damnation. (Cf. Romans 1:18-32, esp. Romans 1:24; Romans 1:26; Romans 1:28) Further, it may well be that in the very hour, in which God’s patient silence is interpreted by rebels as a motive for relaxing in their false security, God is mixing for them a cup of wrath. Either way, the apparent silence of the Judge is fully as ominous as if He had taken immediate action. Men must not confuse God’s long-suffering for weakness or forget-fulness.
To what city does Jesus compare His adopted hometown? Sodom, with the opportunities offered Capernaum, would have remained until this day. Out of this affirmation arise four truths:
A reminder of the appalling end of those wicked cities of the Plain. (Cf. Genesis 19:24 ff.; Matthew 10:15; Luke 10:12; Luke 17:29) The historical ruin of these metropoli naturally lent itself to their proverbial use as symbols of divine punishment. (Cf. Isaiah 1:9; Romans 9:29; 2 Peter 2:6; Jude 1:7; Revelation 11:8)
A solemn affirmation of the dreadful doom awaiting the Sodomites at Judgment. If they thought their earthly punishment had been terrible, they miscalculated God! This future justice is not, as some suppose, because the Sodomites rejected the angels sent to them, for God did not send them to save Sodom, but to retrieve Lot and his house. Sodom had already been condemned for sinning against the knowledge of God and righteousness it possessed.
A divine announcement that with the same challenge to know the truth given to Capernaum, Sodom would have repented and so never would have been cremated alive. This is no hypothesis contrary to fact, given the divine superhuman knowledge of the One who declares it. He who read the hearts of the Sodomites, now reads the consciences of these Galileans.
An encouraging hope: if Sodom would have been spared, despite the heinousness of her sin, there remains a chance for the vilest sinner who accepts the very Gospel that would have saved Sodom!
Matthew 11:24 It shall be more tolerable for the land of Sodom in the day of judgment, than for thee. (See on Matthew 10:15) This proposition contains several other presuppositions that deserve consideration:
Though Sodom had been extinct for almost two millennia before His coming, Jesus points out yet another day on which Sodom must stand with Capernaum to give account before God.
Death itself is not, therefore, all the punishment an individual can expect for his sins. After death there is also a judgment.
Though cremated alive for their sins, the Sodomites await yet future judgment. This means that punitive judgment on earth for one’s sin is not the final satisfaction of absolute justice. That kind of summary vengeance may only mean that God speeded up the time left until death, immediately thereby eliminating the opportunities to continue sinning with apparent impunity.
Though horribly punished with death on earth, the Sodomites were not thereby annihilated. They are yet alive somewhere facing the final vindication of God’s righteousness and their final sentence.
The fearful instruction of this section (Matthew 11:20-24) is that while men still breathe, they are the absolute masters of the citadel of their heartstheir emotions, their intellect, their conscience and their will. God Himself in Jesus Christ chose to leave men absolutely free to throw open the gates of the fortress and surrender, or resist divine mercy clear to the bitter end. This means, of course, that in the present, Jesus is willing to let each unbeliever’s private kingdom remain invincible. This also means that in the light of time, Jesus appears to be beaten, since He refuses to force man’s surrender. But the Master knows that the few pages, necessary to tell anyone’s entire life story, do not include the final denouement, for every man, rebel or friend, will one day bow the knee to Jesus and confess that Jesus Christ is Lord. (Philippians 2:9-11) Then it will be decided who was really invincible. Jesus can wait.
II. UNCONQUERABLE SUBMISSION (11:25-30) A. JOYOUS THANKSGIVING (11:25, 26)
A superficial reading of the previous section, as suggested above, might tempt us to shake our heads in discouragement, since even the Son of God is apparently failing even to hold His own with the most favorable opportunities among the best contacts as He ministers among His own people. And if He fail there.. ? But the Master is anything but beaten. Matthew leads us to a closer examination of what he himself learned to appreciate, i.e. how the Christ reacted to frustrating heart-crushing disappointments. Instead of flailing out or becoming bitter or accusing others of blundering and failure to evangelize properly, Jesus turns to God. The paradox is especially true of the Son of God: though invincibility and submission usually mutually contradict each other, in Jesus they are nicely matched. He absolutely refuses to permit anything to hinder Him (here is His unconquerable spirit), turning Him aside from His responsibility to do exactly what His Father sent Him to do even if that means personal disappointments to Him (here is His real meekness and submission). Jesus knows that the secret of ultimate invincibility lies in submissions-immediate, unhesitating, willing and continuous submission to the Father’s desires. Would that we could learn that self-rule and invincibility are the real opposites!
Matthew 11:25 At that season (en ekeínõ tô kairô) is a most remarkable wording if Matthew is adhering to a strict chronological presentation in this chapter, for kairos (season) often refers to a longer period of time than just a moment on the day when this discourse would have been presented. Further, Luke (Luke 10:21), in an almost exact parallel passage has in that same hour (in autê tê hórà), as it were, to express the precise moment when Jesus prayed the very prayer here reported by Matthew in a loose general connection. Matthew knows how to be precise when the occasion calls for precision. (Matthew 8:13; Matthew 10:19; Matthew 18:1; Matthew 26:55) And He can speak loosely as necessary. (Matthew 12:1; Matthew 14:1; Matthew 11:25?) Perhaps the publican-Apostle has taken Jesus-’ prayer and observations from the Mission of the Seventy, which he does not intend to include, and uses it here because of its suitability to close this section in which he has illustrated the varying effects of the Lord’s ministry upon those who came into contact with it.
Jesus answered and said, To whom or what is He making answer?
Is He responding to His own reflections upon the ignorance, unbelief and rejection found in the most favored cities. Only if these two parts of this section (i.e. Matthew 11:20-24 and Matthew 11:25-30) are chronologically connected.
Or is His answer a grateful response to the deep confidence in Him manifested by many humble disciples who were willing to come to Him, confessing, Lord, you know everything I need to know. Teach me? In this case, chronological connection is not so important, since the Lord is viewed as responding to a general situation. Matthew, then, sees the Lord as expressing His own answer to the climate of unbelief all around Him, contrasted with some evidences of simple trust.
Or, is it merely an introductory formula common in Hebrew narrative as an enlarged equivalent for -said-’? (Plummer, Matthew, 165; cf. Matthew 17:4; Matthew 28:5; Deuteronomy 21:7; Job 3:2; Isaiah 21:9 in ASV)
I thank thee (exomologoûmai soi). Since the verb exomologoûmai means primarily to confess, admit; acknowledge and, the connotative meaning, to praise (See Arndt-Gingrich, 276), one might wonder why many English translations have it: I thank thee. But when it is remembered that, by nature, our thanks is an acknowledgement of some favor or kindness received, a confession of our gratitude, this connection becomes more natural. Further, exomologoûmai in the LXX period had already begun to include the more general sense of praise. (Compare the following especially in the LXX; Genesis 29:35; 2 Samuel 22:50; 1 Chronicles 29:13; Psalms 86:12 [Psalms 85:12 LXX]; Psalms 118:28 [Psa. 117:28 LXX]; Psalms 18:49 [Psa. 17:50 LXX]; Psalms 35:18 [Psalms 34:18 LXX]; Sir. 51:1) In all of these passages the idea of giving thanks is easily substituted with the idea of praise and vice versa. Vine (EDNTW, IV, 122) has it I make thankful confession or I make acknowledgement with praise. In our dealings with God, the dual force of this word (exomologoûmai) is most appropriate, since the nature of His gifts and loving care is such that we feel that we may confess our dependence upon him, praise Him for His graciousness and thank Him for His gifts almost all in one breath! It should not be surprising that pious Greek-speaking Hebrews should have found the one word that beautifully expresses all these ideas!
In addition, if Jesus feels the exuberant joy here, that is described by Luke, then it is more than psychologically credible that all these ideas be united in His mind. He is in high spirits, rejoicing as completely as if a great victory had just been won, even though He is realistically and frankly facing failure. The Lord has failed to win over those cities wherein most of His labor had been expended, and yet He gives thanks? Carver (Self-Interpretation, 91ff.) senses this:
Jesus is frankly facing relative failure in His preaching of the Kingdom of Heaven to the people. Not that we are to suppose He was surprised, and in that sense, disappointed. The actual fact and experience of failure is, however, upon Him; and there is no prescience or preparation that can take away the grief and sting of failure to do the good to people to which one had devoted all his energy. Yet few would have agreed with Him that He was failingprobably not one would have agreed. He had never been more popular. multitudes seek Him out on every opportunity,. They are ready to risk all and follow Him in revolt against all authority, religious and political.
Therein appears His superior insight. Here was for Him the mark of His failure. The people were missing the point of His appeal. They wanted a bread king. They wanted His miracle personality to perform in miracles of provision and protection, deliverance and defense while, unchanged in heart and life, they would enjoy a physical, a material Messianic reign. How it all wrung His soul and drove Him to prayer. He was calling them to repentance, they wished to follow Him to power. He wanted to get God into them, they wanted to get Him and God into their service. His soul is wrung in deep anguish, because of their deep need of repentance and their persistent unrepentance. He has tried so hard, so faithfully, unselfishly, so perfectly tried to give them God, and they have not seen it.
And yet, Jesus refuses to be downed by the failure implicit in His judgment of those cities. Instead He has a high heart and nothing but words of praise for God! What an exquisite expression of the very meekness He will shortly claim! This is no mere acquiescence: I accept your wisdom, since I have no other alternative. There is no sorrowful, but dutiful, submission that whines, I conform, because I feel that I should. Rather there is joy and satisfaction with God’s plans: I thank youI praise you! The depth of His meekness becomes evident when we examine who it is that stands here rejoicing despite the heartaches in being so limited: the only One who truly knows God and is perfectly understood by God, the One to whom the Father entrusted everything! (Matthew 11:27) Despite these divine prerogatives that might have seemed to guarantee Him the right to expect better treatment and greater success, He accepts being limited this way as part of His mission and the most excellent course.
The things which cause the Lord Jesus to rejoice and give thanks, should give us reason to reflect upon what pleases us. His strange thanksgiving challenges us to inquire into our easy satisfaction with those irrelevant, superficial symbols of success: our great crowds, our spacious cathedrals, our tight schedules, many programs and multitudes of meetings. What does He have to be so triumphantly glad about?
God is His Father and universal Sovereign. No matter what issues the intermediate conflicts may have, the ultimate victory is safely in His hand. There is an unquestionable stabilizing effect in knowing that the Lord of heaven and earth is also our Father, Temporary setbacks, however heartbreaking they be, cannot upset the confidence that is founded on the invincible God! (Cf. Isaiah 26:3-4; Psalms 112:7)
Jesus can be grateful that elementary justice is already being done, since the intellectual aristocracy, so proud of its superiority, would for that very reason, be hindered from knowing the eternal truths, whereas the intellectually humble believers would actually recognize the divine wisdom.
Jesus can rejoice in the width of the abyss that separates the supreme majesty of God from the vaunted greatness of earth’s wise and understanding, who dare pit their limited understanding and unlimited pride against His wisdom and revelations. This contrast merely proves that God’s efforts to save man do not rest in any way upon human intellect. Rather, intellectual talents, instead of being necessary, often get in the way. Jesus can praise God for working out a means of salvation that leaves God completely autonomous and that demands that man surrender his pride in order to understand.
He praises God that He, to whom all heaven and earth owe submission, mercifully stoops to bless the nobodies, the rankest beginner, the babes! For whom does Jesus give thanks? Often we are tempted to thank God for the rich, the powerful, the learned, the beautiful people in our congregations, who are capable of giving an air of success and prosperity to our efforts, whereas He is grateful for those in whom FAITH dwells. He praises God for the marvellous vitality of those humble followers who are willing to brave the world’s scorn in order to do things God’s way.
Paradoxically, Jesus-’ cause for gratitude is the very limitation which had produced His greatest disappointment. God’s plan for saving the teachable was working, even though this means the loss of those who were, by their own choice, unteachable.
Thou didst hide these things from the wise and understanding and didst reveal them unto babes. These things involves all that Jesus had been trying to reach. This, in effect is the Gospel whereby men can be saved by trusting God, rather than by accumulating their own merits or depending upon the (presumed) merits of others. While its fundamental concepts are relatively simple and within the grasp of all, this message is not designed to appeal only to the ignorant, but rather to the humble. (cf. 1 Corinthians 2:6-16)
Who are the wise and understanding? They are the aristocratic intellectuals, as well as the common man on the street, who believe they know too much to permit themselves to be duped into committing their lives into the hands of an itinerate, unauthorized rabbi like Jesus of Nazareth. (Study John 7:48-49; John 9:40) The scribes and Pharisees, whose entire life was dedicated to the proposition that the law of Moses and the traditions of the fathers, taken together, constituted the consummate wisdom of the ages, were not open to any new truth that did not sanction and revere the old as they understood it. And, because they refused to humble themselves before the truth preached by the Nazarene, they became the worst of idolaters, satisfying themselves with the half-god of their own imagination: the sum total of their theological deductions and speculations. (Compare the pagan’s decline: Romans 1:21-22; Romans 1:25; Romans 1:28; Romans 1:32)
This, of course, involves a preconditioning of pride and arrogance in order to be able to shut one’s eyes to evidence. It also forces the wise and understanding to create another view-’ of the universe that explains away the force of the facts and proof that contradict their pet theories and traditions. (Study Matthew 12:22-24; Matthew 9:32-34) But, in so doing, they move away from reality (as represented by Jesus), thus creating for themselves a world of unreality in which they choose to live. But to set one’s mind against truthwhether physical, cosmic or ethical truthcauses a fearful hardening of the heart which blinds to those realities the individual who does it. It causes Him to manipulate the truth to suit himself. He will even rearrange God, His Word and His universe in his mind, molding them according to the dictates of the system he is substituting for God’S. So many care not at all for truth: they neither long for it nor care about falsity (unless falsity brings them some immediate discomfort!) They are controlled principally by desires. (Cf. 2 Peter 2:3; 2 Peter 2:10-19; 2 Peter 3:3; James 1:6-8; James 1:13-15; James 4:4; 1 Peter 2:11; 1 Peter 4:2-3) They live by wishful thinking in this denial of unwelcome reality presented by the Lord. Despite the temporary and apparent relief from responsibility to recognize and live with reality, the tendency to ignore a reality hardens one to it. Airport noise, glue factories, alarm clocks, etc., are no longer noticed, if ignored long enough. There are none so blind as those who will not see, true enough, but it produces even deeper darkness to say We see, while remaining indifferent or openly hostile to God’s truth revealed in Jesus of Nazareth. (Cf. John 9:39-41; 2 Corinthians 3:12 to 2 Corinthians 4:6)
It is also quite natural for the wise and understanding to band together. Because they like to think this way, they encourage others to join them in an elite club of the worldly wise. Those who are reluctant to relax their grip on reality (i.e. the world as God reveals it through Jesus) are cajoled, embarrassed, black-mailed and otherwise threatened, (Cf. John 9:22-34; John 7:45-52; John 12:9-11) The result is but a conspiracy against God and His people. (Cf. John 16:1-4; Acts 4:23-31, etc.) Substitute theories are popularized and termed scientific explanations. Even though contrary evidence is presented, it is scorned, suppressed, and its apologists persecuted, harassed, demoted or simply ignored.
Further, the wise and understanding naively believe their lives to be very much under control. Paradoxically, a man will not stop sinning until he admits that he cannot stop. This is why the wise and understanding will remain what they are until they are willing to admit that they have been ignorant, deceived and conceited, until they confess that their human wisdom was leading them even further from God’s truth, until they see that man is not the center of the universe nor the measure of all things, So it is that, when a man admits that he cannot stop trusting his own understanding and comes to Jesus, saying, Lord teach me, only then does he really find the power to depend upon the Lord’s wisdom.
Thou. didst reveal them unto babes. Who are the babes? They are not merely those unlearned, common men who made up the large percentage of Jesus-’ disciples (cf. Acts 4:13; John 7:45-49), but those who are willing to consider themselves as such. (Matthew 18:3-4; Luke 18:17) Babes are those who are intelligent enough not to be so presumingly certain of their own conclusions, who are honest enough to admit the fine possibility that they do not know everything, even about the most common matters, whose general attitude is one of openness and willingness to learn. Babes are those who can learn from any and every one regardless of their own personal educational achievement, but who are critical enough themselves to be able to distinguish truth from error, good from bad advice, the precious from the worthless. Babes are those who are willing to judge the case on the weight of the evidence, rather than distort the evidence to suit their own preconceptions. Babes can see that, as sinners, their lives are unmanageable, out of control, that they have made a mess of them. In short, they are men who can say with clear minds, but in deep revulsion of themselves, I am a sinnerI have sinned. Babes are men whose minds are not so thoroughly jammed with false notions that have to be unlearned before divine truth can enter. The Lord can do a great deal with man whose thinking is relatively unencumbered with the educated nonsense expounded by the arrogant pseudo-intellectuals. But since most of us are troubled with the incompleteness and relative accuracy of much of our best information, Jesus is not so much concerned with the amount of true knowledge we have, but He is very much concerned with our attitude toward the truth that we think we possess.
How is it that God hides truth from the wise and understanding? Can He be just if He does this? How can He be justified in condemning those who do not see the truth which might have saved them? There are two sides to the answer:
Suppose we never arrive at a satisfactory answer to this question. It may well be difficult, by pondering and logic, to fathom how God is said to hide the truth from some men. We may never find out just how God could harden Pharaoh’s heart (cf. Exodus 7:3; Exodus 9:12; Exodus 10:1; Exodus 10:20; Exodus 10:27; Ex. 11:20; Romans 9:14-18) or open Lydias (Acts 16:14). But even if so, until we do understand, we find ourselves before an excellent case of the necessity to trust God where our limited understanding fails to comprehend all parts of His plans or falls short of grasping the wisdom behind His choices. Were we to go no further, we could still answer the above questions by saying, In terms of human understanding of justice, it may not seem right that God should hide the truth from some men and reveal it to others, but because I have learned to trust God on the basis of the evidence Jesus gives, I will also trust Him to be just and know what He is doing in this matter too.
But is the problem clearly stated? In the same way that particular predestination wrongly states its case elsewhere, so also here. Jesus is not referring to particular individuals who merely happen to be wise and understanding, but to classes of conceited people who, because of their vaunted culture and enlightenment, reject God’s revelation. Any individual who overestimates the importance of his learning and experience and counts himself to be erudite and worldly wise in the sense rejected by Jesus, and puts himself into this class, will find himself strangely blinded and quite unable to see any lasting significance in God’s message. So, it is not true that God hides His life-giving truth from certain unfortunate individuals, thus predestining them to eternal damnation, while, at the same time, revealing His wisdom to other individuals, so saving them. Were particular election true, this entire passage could have no sense, since Jesus is lamenting the fate of people who could have chosen to repent. But if they could not have changed their personal, eternal destiny by repentance, according to the theory, God’s Son had been wasting His efforts on them without knowing it!
Or, on the other hand, to state the problem differently, so as to get closer to its solution, has God set in motion certain natural, psychological laws, programmed into the human mind, whereby His truth can be assessed by EVERY mind? If all human brains operate in more or less the same way, then, seeing or failing to see God’s truth revealed in Jesus Christ is not a question of the superior performance or functioning of the receiving equipment (the human intellect), nor the range of the transmitter (God), but of the willingness of the receiver’s operator to turn on and tune his set. If all the radios operate more or less the same way and are so constructed as to pick up the frequency on which God is transmitting is it God’s fault if some men turn Him off by dialing another frequency? The responsibility lies, then, with the hand that changes the dial. But if this be the case, then how is it true that Thou didst hide these things? That is, if man himself hides the truth from his own eyes, how can it be said that God did this? As suggested above, because God created the human mind with its particular characteristics, He is responsible for knowing its limitations. Further it was He that chose to reveal truth that can only be received by humble, honest minds. He resolved that the Word of life shall not be broadcast so as to be intercepted on the channels of human wisdom, prudence or understanding. In a word, by limiting His broadcasting to this one frequency, God hid these things from the wise and understanding, because they are far too sure that all significant truth must come through human thought and discovery. Men were convinced that divine wisdom had to be announced by philosophers, sage rabbis, priests or kings, but when God sent a simple Galilean carpenter, this they could not accept. So, Jesus is discussing the inclination (or disinclination) to open one’s mind to accept revelation, not the strength of that mind or one’s intellectual gifts.
How does God** reveal** truth to babes? The word reveal is the key to the fundamental difference between the wise and the babes: what are men willing to have told to them that they do not already think they know? If men believe they already know all there is to know that is significant, then revelation to them is impossible. However, God has chosen revelation as His means of communication, and by so doing, has quite literally hidden His truth from all those who choose not to be told anything they do not already know and approve. (See on Matthew 11:14; Matthew 13:10-17) At the same time, His truth gets through to all the rest. The express purpose of the Gospel is to dethrone self and enthrone God in men’s hearts. Had the Father made the Kingdom of God the prize for human scholarship, then its message would have been grasped only by the few great intellectuals, but in this case it would have become the object of human achievement and the stimulus to pride and self-sufficiency. Such an approach would have defeated the purpose the Gospel was intended to accomplish. But by addressing His message to all who are humble, the Lord brings it within reach of everyone who is willing to descend from his throne and exalt God to His rightful place. Luke 10:23-24 indicates how distance in time from Jesus of Nazareth kept some men from seeing God’s truth perfectly revealed, a limitation of which they were not responsible, but by which they were nonetheless hindered. But the blessing pronounced upon the disciples was occasioned, not by the accident of birth that chanced to drop them into the same time schedule on earth with Jesus, but because they permitted themselves actually to perceive in Jesus what the self-praising religious analysts were unable to fathom, because these latter were unwilling to acknowledge it. Matthew 13:16-17 clarifies this concept: Blessed are your eyes BECAUSE THEY SEE. For example, God revealed Jesus-’ true identity and mission to Peter, while this same vital information remained unpalatable and, consequently, unappreciated and unknown to the Jewish hierarchy! (Cf. Matthew 16:17; 1 Corinthians 2:8.) But the same evidence God gave Peter was also at the disposal of the scholars. The difference in the evaluations lay in the evaluators.
Christianity is for the weak. The problem is that men dislike the awful tension of being weak in a world that demands that they be strong. As a result, they are greatly tempted to prove themselves strongto themselves and othersby illegitimate means that equivocate their dependence upon God or anyone else. Least of all does anyone wish to admit his own intellectual inferiority and dependence. But in the presence of the Almighty, one can hardly confess anything else but weakness, inferiority and dependence. It is a shame that so many miss the point of this sort of confession, when they suppose that to admit this means to deny some part of their essential humanity. But belief does not require intellectual dishonesty or mediocrity to have validity, just intellectual humility. Christ can make weak men strong, if they but confess their need of Him and seek His power. (Cf. Jeremiah 1:6-7; 2 Corinthians 11:30; 2 Corinthians 12:9-10) Irreligious people who seem so strong are often people who have not been tested, are yet young enough, rich enough to maintain a substantial level of autonomy. But just let some of these factors fall below subsistence levels and put them through some real crises that try men’s souls and then judge their strength. Unbelief is no evidence of a person’s intellectual superiority or of some inadequacy in the evidence upon which faith could be founded. Unbelief may only be proof of the unbeliever’s prejudiced standpoint, his own limited grasp of the available information and his unbounded self-esteem. Jesus does not condemn intellectual excellence any more than He condemns the mere possession of wealth. But He does point out the danger inherent in both: idolatry. He who bows before a mental concept of his own devising is no less an idolator than the man who kneels at Mammon’s altar.
The Apostle Paul could measure the exact distance between the wise and understanding and** the babes**, between the effects of a false education and viewpoint, and the knowledge of Christ, because he had personally covered that distance in his own spiritual pilgrimage. When he announced his estimate of the Jewish tradition at its highest, most scholarly level, he describes it as rubbish (Philippians 3:8), not because Hebrew culture was deliberately false or calculatingly wicked but because of its false view of reality in rejecting God’s Messiah. The scholars of Jesus-’ day could give a number of apparently valid reasons for rejecting the untenable claims of that Nazarene, reasons that would have been perfectly consistent within the framework of the accepted system of thought. But once reality broke through this system that was permeating Paul’s mind, when he met Jesus face to face on the Damascus highway, he was shocked with the realization that his perfectly consistent system was based upon a false premise that ignored true reality (as opposed to the imagined reality in the Jewish system that invented a Messiahship for God to respect.) Saul of Tarsus bowed before the evidence, while many of his brilliant contemporaries did not.
Jesus could see the future judgment with unerring eye and rejoiced because the very laws, which were set in motion to save the saveable, were functioning perfectly. People were actually coming into God’s Kingdom in God’s way! The proud, the unrepentant, those who deemed themselves wise and understanding, the self-satisfied, those who sat on both the throne and cathedra of their own lives, those, in short, who refused God’s rule and wisdom, were damning themselves. The Kingdom of God was right on course! (Study notes on Matthew 3:2; Matthew 3:15; Matthew 4:17) Those whom God wanted to be savedthe little people who had so little other chance for greatness or godliness in this life, but who wanted to do things God’s waythese were really grasping the fundamental truth of God’s message. The publicans, the harlots, the demon-possessed, the simple, common people of the land, because of their open-hearted response to Jesus, stood out in bold contrast with the Pharisees and others who made laws for God to keep! Nevertheless, Jesus puts no premium upon either ignorance or stupidity as qualifications for recognizing His divine wisdom. Intellect, per se, is no disqualification, nor are all simple people qualified. Intellectual power or its opposite are simply immaterial, for Jesus is describing the MORAL qualifications of the individual who would be examining His revelations. A man does not have to be either an intellectual or a simpleton to be able to trust Jesus, just humble, whatever his intellectual gifts or deficiencies.
God in his wisdom chose not to save the comparatively righteous or to damn the relatively wicked. He elected to remove the old man completely, since, when judged by absolute perfection, he can only be condemned, because he does not measure up. Therefore, it is only when we stop justifying ourselves and judging ourselves somehow to be worthy, when we stop living by our self-rule and stop walking by sight, when we begin life under Jesus-’ direction, that we can see what God is trying to tell us about life and truth. The trouble with the wise and understanding is that they think they have sufficient understanding, that they are already righteous in any way that is really important, that they have enough. (Cf. Revelation 3:17; 1 Corinthians 4:8) They want to preserve something worthy in themselves and not surrender to death, letting the whole life be sacrificed. The news that God has already condemned ALL men is totally unacceptable to them. After all, they argue, we-’re no great sinners! But the greatest of all sins is to be conscious of none. The very next scene which chronologically takes place in the house of Simon the Pharisee, so well illustrates this problem. (Study Luke 7:36-50) Look at that woman standing at Jesus-’ feet, without any pretenses or demands, weeping in appreciation of her Lord and fully knowing that Jesus knows all about her. She is not trying to save face: she would save her soul! Then, by contrast, study the Pharisee who feels no sin. How little he understood, how little he loved, how little he repented, how little he was forgiven! The babe is one who is willing to come out in public, even in the house of hypocrites, and admit his sin, wanting to do anything for Jesus,even wash feet while listening to the sarcastic remarks of others. Such are willing, as was the Prodigal Son, even to face one’s own self-righteous older brother.
Wise and understanding. babes. Even though the Master uses these categories to describe widely contrasting attitudes people have toward truth, it does not follow that any individual who finds himself in one or the other class will always remain there. The very work of the Gospel proclamation involves dealing with those prejudices held by any who feel that their own wisdom, their own reasons, are sufficient to reject Jesus. And if such people hear the Gospel presented often enough and persuasively enough, they may be induced to admit the folly of their wisdom and turn themselves over to Jesus after all. Further, a person who was once open to the tender appeals of the Lord may someday awaken to the realization that the Lord no longer really dominates his life and this former babe has then become wise and understanding in his own eyes, so much so that even Jesus Himself can no longer make Himself understood to this man. This former babe, now well-versed in Christianity, has made himself insensitive to the call of God, despite his constant familiarity with it. The Apostles were constantly doing battle with their own understanding of Jesus and His program. (Cf. Luke 9:45; Luke 18:34; Galatians 2:11 ff.) One’s own self-satisfaction (I know enough, I am good enough, I am doing enough), is just as blinding to spiritual light today as religious pride in Jesus-’ day. This is why we must consent to die to self and live only for Him. To become and remain what Jesus means when He speaks of babes, we must be willing to say, The self that I thought so righteous, justly deserved death. I accept the sentence of death and die to my rationalizations, self-defence and self-rule. I now submit my understanding to the test of the truth that Jesus guarantees, always remembering that I may well have an imperfect grasp even of His truth. This is why Christ’s servant must constantly ask himself whether he is eager to learn new truth that he did not already know, whether he really be prompt to obey and sensitive to Jesus-’ desires.
God has always been using babes, the few, the foolish, the weak, to confound the strength, numbers and wisdom of the self-confident. (Cf. Isaiah 29:14; 1 Corinthians 1:19; 1 Corinthians 1:26 ff,; 1 Corinthians 2:6 ff.; 1 Corinthians 3:18-21; Psalms 8:3 and notes on Matthew 21:16) The Lord had chosen these unknown, trusting men to pit them against all the wisdom, wealth and power of the foremost leaders in Israel, and ultimately, in the world. Jesus may have been rejoicing to see that the establishment of the Kingdom on earth was first to be done by poor, weak instruments (as the powerful of earth would judge them), for He could see that even this tactic would be a strong argument in its favor, for men would be drawn to admit that the greatness of the power operative in such a movement must be God’S! (2 Corinthians 1:9; 2 Corinthians 4:7; 2 Corinthians 12:9-10) But never let that calumny stand that would scorn them as unlearned, common men (Acts 4:13)! Though they had studied in no recognized school of the day, they sat under the unique instruction of the only Rabbi accredited by the Father.
What effect would this prayer have had upon the disciples who heard it? Would they have immediately grasped the great issues that are involved here? Perhaps the Lord said more than Matthew’s summary includes, in which case they might have sensed more readily the Master’s meaning. That He should give praise and thanks to God for such relatively insignificant men as these, must have touched them deeply. Bruce (Training, 102, 103) takes another point of departure. Instead of looking at the theological objections levelled at Jesus by the hierarchy, he examines the objections they may have had to His methods and procedure. Consider also his application:
The reference in the thanksgiving prayer of Jesus to the -wise and prudent-’ suggests the thought that these evangelistic efforts were regarded with disfavour by the refined, fastidious classes of Jewish religious society. This is in itself probable. There are always men in the church, intelligent, wise and even good, to whom popular religious movements are distasteful. The noise, the excitement, the extravagances, the delusions, the misdirection of zeal, the rudeness of the agents, the instability of the convertsall these things offend them..
None of the wise and prudent-’ knew half so well as Jesus what evil would be mixed with the good in the work of the kingdom. But He was not so easily offended as they. The Friend of sinners was ever like Himself. He sympathized with the multitude, and could not, like the Pharisees, contentedly resign them to a permanent condition of ignorance and depravity. He rejoiced greatly over even one lost sheep restored; and He was, one might say overjoyed, when not one, but a whole flock, even began to return to the fold.. His love was strong and where strong love is, even wisdom and refinement will not be fastidious.
… Another class of Christians, quite distinct from the wise and prudent, in whose eyes such evangelistic labours as these of the twelve stand in no need of vindication, Their tendency, on the contrary, is to regard such labours as the whole work of the kingdom, Revival of religion among the neglected masses is for them the sum of all good-doing. Of the more still, less observable work of instruction going on in the church they take no account. Where there is no obvious excitement, the church in their view is dead, and her ministry inefficient. Such need to be reminded that there were two religious movements going on in the days of the Lord Jesus. One consisted in rousing the masses out of the stupor of indifference, the other consisted in the careful, exact training of men already in earnest, in the principles, and truths of the divine kingdom. Of the one movement the disciples, i.e. both the twelve and the seventy, were the agents; of the other movement they were the subjects. And the latter movement, though less noticeable, and much more limited in extent, was by far more important than the former; for it was destined to bring forth fruit that should remainto tell not merely on the present time, but on the whole history of the world.
If Bruce’s observations seem to miss the main point Jesus is making, let it be remembered that we have yet a great deal to learn from the Lord, especially about methods, and it is often at this point that we need to acknowledge our ignorance and, as babes, learn from Him.
Matthew 11:26 Yes, Father, for so it was well-pleasing in thy sight. This subordinate clause depends upon Matthew 11:25 for its principle verb (exomlogoûmai, I praise and thank thee) and provides us Jesus-’ second expression of thanks or praise for the Father. Whereas before He praised Him for His absolute sovereignty, here the Son’s emphasis is upon God’s good pleasure, His eudokìa. (Cf. uses of eudokìa in Luke 2:14; Philippians 1:15; Philippians 2:13; 2 Thessalonians 1:11; Ephesians 1:5; Ephesians 1:9 unites these two concepts of the absolute sovereignty of His will and the emotional impact of God’s pleasure. See also Luke 12:32; 1 Corinthians 1:21; Colossians 1:19)
Barnes-’ personal expression of confidence in the wisdom of God is worthy of repetition here. (Matthew-Mark, 123)
(The proud and haughty scribes and Pharisees) rejected his gospel, but it was the pleasure of God to reveal it to obscure and more humble men. The reason given, the only satisfactory reason, is, that it so seemed good in the sight of God. In this the Savior acquiesced. and in the dealings of God it is fit that all should acquiesce. Such is the will of God is often the only explanation which can be offered in regard to the various events which happen to us on earth. (it) is the only account which can be given of the reason of the dispensations of his grace. Our understanding is often confounded. We are unsuccessful in all our efforts at explanation. Our philosophy fails, and all that we can say is, Even so, Father, for so it seems good to thee. And this is enough. That GOD does a thing, is, after all, the best reason which we can have that it is right. It is a security that nothing wrong is done; and though now mysterious, yet light will hereafter shine upon it like the light of noonday. I have more certainty that a thing is right if I can say that I know such is the will of God, than I could have by depending on my own reason.
One of the clearest lessons of this text is that Jesus does not expect to save the whole world. It tears at His great heart, but He will not relent. Even though He yearns to rescue everyone, yet He is willing to say even here, Not my will, but yours, be done. He is grateful that this psychological law, which permitted God’s truth to be concealed even while it was being revealed, was God’s idea, God’s will. (Study 1 Corinthians 1:30; 2 Corinthians 4:4)
B. MAJESTIC SELF-REVELATION (11:27)
How can Jesus be so sure that this psychological law, which automatically excludes the proud Pharisee while at the same time opens God’s truth to the humble disciple, is in perfect agreement with the eternal counsel of God? This critical question receives its resounding answer in the magnificent claim now expressed.
Matthew 11:27 All things have been delivered unto me of my Father. What were all things that were delegated to the Son? Plummer (Luke, 283) is right to notice that it is arbitrary to confine the panta (i.e. all things) to the potestas revelandi (i.e. right to reveal. See also the expository sermon Rest in a Restless World which follows.)
All authority in heaven and on earth (Matthew 28:18; Hebrews 2:8-9: Daniel 7:14; 1 Corinthians 15:24-28; John 3:27-36).
Power on earth to forgive sins (Luke 5:24).
Right to be Lord of the living and the dead (Romans 15:8-9).
Inheritance of all things (Hebrews 1:2; Hebrews 2:10; 1 Corinthians 8:6).
All glory and honor, a position superior to angels (Hebrews 1:4; Philippians 2:9-11).
The responsibility to suffer for all (Hebrews 2:8-9).
The headship over the Church (Ephesians 2:22).
The authority to judge all men (John 5:22).
There could be many more. Nevertheless, the most important prerogative claimed by Jesus in this context is primarily the unique knowledge of God. Such a claim is common in John’s Gospel (cf. John 3:35; John 6:46; John 7:29; John 10:14-15; John 13:3; John 17:2; John 17:25), but so utterly unique in so outspoken a form in the Synoptic Gospels (although there are numerous allusions and a few widely-scattered but clear declarations like this one), that this claim has been rejected by some as a genuine utterance of the Lord. However, no critical evidence in the manuscripts can be presented to undermine its authenticity as part of Matthew’s Gospel. It can only be discredited in circles where prejudice makes its truth unwelcome. It is interesting to notice that this kind of claim has never been popular in intellectual circles because, if Jesus is right, such a statement declares false or, at best, totally inadequate men’s best efforts to arrive at absolutes and truth without going by way of Jesus. And the wise and understanding just do not like to be told that they are wrong. Some of the best brains of Jesus-’ day used this kind of utterance against Him to crucify Him. It is Jesus-’ highest claim to exclusive knowledge of God. We must feel this exclusiveness: it puts us on the outside. My Father speaks of a relationship shared by no other (Cf. John 5:17-18) The Son refers to One who is unique among all other sons of God.
Is Jesus speaking here of a past fact (have been delivered) or by anticipation? That is, did He at that moment actually possess all that He claims? Yes, because He sees the Father’s sending Him to earth and committing all these tremendous responsibilities to Him as one act. All the pain and glory that is involved in being the Son of God was part of His commission.
Lenski (Matthew, 454), citing Luther, points out the perfect balance in Jesus-’ deity and perfect humanity:
By this he indicates that he is true man, who has received them from the Father. For neither would God deliver all things to one who was only man, nor would one who was only God received them from another. For neither is it possible for one who is only man to be over all things, nor for one who is only God to be beneath God. Thus in this one person true God and true man are joined together.
Luther argues his case well but we must also weigh Jesus-’ next statement into our conclusions.
No man knoweth the Son. This very assertion gives us reason to re-study and re-examine all that we thought we ever knew about Him. As we struggle to understand Jesus-’ divine and human nature, and as we try to comprehend His earthly ministry and interpret His message, we must hold lightly our own interpretations, lest they become more decisive in our deliberations, than the very Word of Christ itself. Though He came to earth with the specific intention to reveal God, and though He let Himself be seen, heard and studied, there was always that other side of Jesus, His infinite deity that staggers men’s minds and keeps Him just beyond their complete grasp of His nature. Note how unobstrusively Matthew admits to being one of those very few Galileans who did not presume to know all there was to know about the Master. He simply quotes Jesus-’ words without qualification or personal reservation. He might have said, as do modern critics in their estimates of the historical Jesus, His affirmation, that no one really understood Him, may have been true when He said it, but we have Him figured out now! The favored cities of Galilee too thought they knew Jesus, but their conceit prohibited them from recognizing anything more in Him than just another Nazarene carpenter, or perhaps as another Galilean rabbi whose opinions were to be added to the ever-growing body of scribal traditions. But lest we hide our own limited knowledge behind repeated criticisms of the unbelieving Jews, let us ask ourselves whether, with our greatly increased opportunities to know the completed revelation as presented and explained by the Apostles in the NT, we have done any better. Do we know the Son, His attitudes, His methods, what He was trying to get us to understand about God, the world, sin, life and eternity?
Neither doth any know the Father save the Son. Feel the stupendous impact of this bold declaration made by a young Hebrew who stands before the entire world and cries, If you would really know the heart, mind, nature and will of God, look at me! Come to ME, learn from ME. I am the only Person who really knows God! All who came before me are liars, thieves and robbers. (Cf. John 14:9; John 1:18; John 10:1; 1 John 5:20) The grand significance of this statement is that there is no God but the God and Father of our Lord Jesus Christ! We must believe that Jesus is the exclusive authority and our only necessity, for, if He is right, there can be no other way back to God than through Him. (John 14:6) People demand free-thought, because they do not want Jesus-’ authority over their lives. But if they would see God, they must honor the Son by submitting themselves totally to His authority! (John 5:23-24) And Christians cannot rule their lives and still call themselves His disciples, for Jesus recognizes no peer nor rival. But His authority or right to rule is implicit in His knowledge and revelation of the Father. This claim must have been positively scandalous to Jesus-’ Hebrew audience, for He is claiming a knowledge of God that no prophet, seer or sage either before or after Him, could pretend.
And he to whomsoever the Son willeth to reveal Him. Jesus-’ own thanksgiving (Matthew 11:25-26) certifies that His own will is in perfect agreement with the Father’s good will, hence those to whom Jesus wills to reveal these mighty truths are the babes of Matthew 11:25. There is here no arbitrary selection of certain persons to Whom this knowledge is granted. Rather, Jesus graciously invites all men, trying to lead them to lay aside their prejudices, His grace is sincerely offered to every man, but He has chosen that only those who are humble shall receive it. His will remains a closed book to condemn those who can, but will not, study it, because their lives are occupied with other things, their minds already jammed with human wisdom. The Son willeth (boúlçtai). There is a choice that has been made. Jesus decided not to give the same intimate revelation to those who prove themselves definitely wicked, as He would to those who submit to Him as trusting disciples. So this declaration is all of a piece with the presuppositions inherent in everything Jesus has been saying throughout this entire passage. That none are to be excluded, except by the exercise of their own will, is proved by the universality of the following invitation. (See on Matthew 11:28) Yet, as Carver (Self-Interpretation, 98) points out:
It is a thousand pities that men have paused at this point in the pouring out of His soul in anguish of longing to make men know the Fatherpaused to build metaphysical theories in theology while the Redeemer’s heart breaks with longing for lost men who will not heed.. He is as far as possible from thinking of barring any from the Father. He is setting before Himself the problem of how to get men to this knowledge that gives eternal life. It is the cry of the Savior, not the dogma of a theologian, that we hear from Him. He knows the Father, He is in a world in which He finds no man who knows Him, all men must know Him of they have missed the whole meaning of life and had better never have been born
He must make them know His Father.. How?. He offers Himself as the way to the Father.
D. PLEADING, UNIVERSAL INVITATION (11:28-30)
How does this passage fit together with the sections preceding it? Only the fact that Jesus possesses full authority qualifies Him to issue this universal invitation. The connection is perfect, since Jesus has just described Himself as the only One qualified to reveal the Father. Now He invites all men to be His students. To whom is this invitation addressed? All ye that labor and are heavy laden. Upon first reading, this attractive offer seems limited to a single, particular group: the down-trodden, oppressed masses. But reflection reveals that sooner or later every human being finds himself caught by unexpected changes in life that leave him sorrowing, burdened, anguished and frustrated. The ancient Hebrews had understood this, and they expressed themselves in what makes an excellent and striking background for Jesus-’ bold declaration. (See Sir. 40:1-9) Life itself, with its seemingly interminable and apparently inevitable cares, becomes a galling yoke to those who have no choice but to keep their noses to the grindstone. Even those who are in some measure successful become aware of the fact that they must maintain their success with an even greater expenditure of strength, even though their resources are failing.
It is worthy of note that many of our trials are of our own choosing, because they are based upon some concept of life that holds us firm in that situation. We feel bound by our principles to remain in that situation and suffer the trial. But if it is a false concept of life for which we suffer, in Jesus-’ discipleship it would lose its importance and power, as it would be submerged into reality as Jesus preaches it. Too often men measure life by an unreal standard and then scourge themselves mercilessly for failing to meet it. Ironically, such false standards are not the things that truly matter in the final analysis. It is not physical work or mental activity that drains us, leaving us weak, frustrated and burdened for one day’s work. We were designed to workand work well. We function best when we are profitably and contentedly working. But here is the catch; much of our work is neither profitable nor pleasing. And even in our best work we fail to achieve all our goals. Our hopes far exceed our realization. The tedium of routine sets in to dull our interest and increase both our boredom and our fatigue. On the other hand, the goals that Jesus sets before us, and the prospects of realizing them, gives us direction, stimulation, security, and, as a consequence, real rest, even though we may have even more work to do and more responsibility as His disciples than ever before. Life takes on a new significance, even daily tasks glow with new meaning. But in this Jewish context is Jesus talking about the aches and pains of everyday living? Yes, and more, for His emphasis is also a moral one,
- He is talking about the moral struggle to live up to the divine standards.
a.
This constant measuring oneself with God’s perfection is a discouraging, heart-breaking disappointment! (Cf. Galatians 5:1; Acts 15:10; Romans 7:21-24) In the end, without the victory and power of Jesus, ours is a losing battle to be good enough. (See notes on Matthew 5:48 and Notes Introductory to the Sermon on the Mount, Vol. I, pp. 184ff., esp. 190.) This invitation, then, is Christ’s answer to the dubious and the desperate who are afraid that His ideals are un-reachable. Jesus knows that, without His life in us, there is even more bondage and frustration in trying to imitate Him, than there is in any other law. This is why He invites the hopeless and the skeptics to come to Him, so He can make them over, empowering them to be all that they dream.
b.
But Jesus-’ hearers were not merely struggling with God’s requirements. They were also measuring themselves by human standards mistaken for divine law. (Cf. Matthew 23:4; Luke 11:46) Carver (Self-Interpretation, 102) describes this:
He was thinking of the drudging burden of the endless round of ceremonial exactions, petty negations, shallow dogmas, formal duties with which the religionists of the day loaded life down until it seemed impossible for the ordinary man to be godly..
Plummer (Matthew, 169) summarizes it:
The scribes could not give rest to souls which He can promise (note the emphatic kagõ) They bind heavy burdens (phortìa) and grievous to be borne, and lay them on men’s shoulders-’ (Matthew 23:4); but His burden (phortìon) is light. This shows that -heavy laden-’ (pephortisménoi) does not refer primarily to the load of sin, but to the burdens which Pharisaic interpretations of the law imposed, and which, after all, gave no relief to men’s conscience;. The heavy load of observances which gave no relief and perhaps also to the sorrows of life, which, apart from the consolations of a true faith, are so crushing. To those worn out with restless seeking. to those who are weighed down with unprofitable burdens. (Jesus offered His invitation.)
But that He includes also all of the weary, burdensome toil of sin and the suffering that accompanies it, is evident from the consideration that Jesus-’ discipleship has a unifying power to make us at peace with ourselves. Most of us are walking civil wars, because of our divided heart. We are determined to try to serve both God and Mammon, have our fling with the flesh and still reap a harvest of righteousness in the Spirit. But this tension can only break us, since only God’s world is the true one, only His rules function and bring us true joy. The other name for that tension, wherein we try to live in God’s world and yet run it by our own rules, is sin!
All ye that labor and are heavy laden: here again Jesus-’ shepherd heart expresses His full, deeply-felt compassion for the shepherdless, harassed and helpless sheep. (Cf. Matthew 9:36) And when He says all, He means it with that same generous universality found everywhere in His teaching: Whosoever will, may come. (Cf. Revelation 22:17; Matthew 10:32; Matthew 12:50; Matthew 16:25; Matthew 18:4; John 3:16; John 4:14; John 6:37; John 11:26) Here is your personal invitation: include yourself in this category of all ye that labor. Let no one imagine that he does not come under this invitation or that God might have other plans for saving him. This is it!
Come unto me. The great ones of earth maintain a strict reserve of inaccessibility around them. In contrast, Jesus is not only willing to be approached by just anybody, but even graciously invites us! Imagine a 30-year-old Jew spreading His arms to receive the entire human race, saying, All you who have any problems, come to me and I will help you! Said by any other person, these words either sound ludicrous or border on blasphemy. The Jews were accustomed to this invitation made by Wisdom personified in their literature. (Cf. Proverbs 8:1 to Proverbs 9:6; Sir. 24:19; Sir. 51:23-27) Further they had even heard great rabbis invite students to come for instruction. But never before had they heard anyone offer himself as the unique solution to all the deepest problems of the human race. As in the case of Jesus-’ miracles, so also here with His claims, truth and justice demand that we dismiss. Him as a raving maniac, crucify Him as an imposter or bow before Him as our God. I will give you rest. This is just like Jesus to help the struggling, the unsuccessful, the weak and unworthy. (Matthew 12:20) Yet this is distinctly God’s work. (Exodus 33:14; Jeremiah 31:25) How ill the Nazarene conceals His identity, if He wants none to mistake Him for God come in the flesh!
Come to me. I will give you rest. The extremely personal nature of this invitation is absolutely amazing, for Jesus presents us no formal system of philosophy or theology, no writings containing abstract theories, no new legal system or package of simple answers to the world’s ills. He knows that we have had enough of that already. Instead, He is offering Himself! No doctrine or philosophy could ever do for us what our intimate fellowship with Jesus can.
Matthew 11:29 Take my yoke upon you and learn of me. The yoke is a symbol well-known to the Hebrews, standing for control, discipline, obligation and even bondage. (Cf. Isaiah 9:4; 1 Timothy 6:1; 1 Kings 12:4; Psalms 2:3 LXX; Jeremiah 5:5; Jeremiah 27:1 to Jeremiah 28:17; Psalms of Solomon 7:9; 17:30; Acts 15:10; Galatians 5:1; 2 Corinthians 6:14) We cannot help feeling the contrast in Jesus-’ mind between MY yoke and all the other burdens borne by the weary and heavy-laden. But this very contrast suggests that even Jesus-’ yoke is definitely a kind of control, an obligation, a discipline. If so, then He is making it crystal-clear that He is not merely our Friend and Example. He is to be our Lord and Master. Rather, our new relationship to Him requires of us that we be willing to learn truth from Him and obey His voice, in the same way that the Jews felt their obligation to the Law and discipline of Moses. Take my yoke upon you means that we are to submit to Him by our own free decision and deliberate resolve. Freedom in Christ cannot mean an absence of any control whatever, for that would mean antinomian anarchy. The greatest freedom from that tyranny that would enslave and destroy self is to be found by placing self completely under the dominion of Christ.
Learn of me, stated in clearer modern English is simply: Learn from me. (màthete ap-’emoû; cf. Colossians 1:7 emàthete apò Epafrâ) Obviously, the rest Jesus offers is not an eternity of boring inactivity, since He envisions a discipleship of learning and activity. The joy of comradeship with the Lord in doing God’s will, in our struggle with temptations and in our efforts to bring men into the Kingdom, is the very kind of labor that leaves our spirits rested and refreshed, even though our work is never completely or perfectly done. But before we could ever hope to begin such a task we must learn from him. Those who know not this fellowship nor this hope, cannot know the psychological strength that comes from it. They can but face the unabated frustrations of the present and the dark unknowns of the future.
What must we learn from Him? Frankly, everything. We see immediately that the righteousness which accords with God’s will is not a ritual consisting in certain external observances but rather a meek and lowly heart. Because He too is a human being, notwithstanding His undoubted deity, we can imitate Him. We find inspiration and motivation to attempt His challenging ideals, because He deliberately set us an example for imitation. (Philippians 2:5-8; 1 Peter 2:21 ff.) The yoke and the burden He gives us are His exacting requirements, but with His power working in us, the possibilities of realization are by far so much greater. This Teacher is one who was first a learner Himself. (Hebrews 2:14-18; Hebrews 5:7-9) He Himself has submitted to the very yoke. He would have us wear. His example not only teaches us how to wear ours well, but, since we have seen the joyous result of His life, we are the more encouraged to shoulder it. (Cf. Hebrews 12:3)
**Learn from me; for I am meek and lowly in heart. **Jesus is inviting us to investigate His method, meet Him personally and enroll in His school. Tenderly He motivates us to find in Him a Teacher that is kind and patient with slow students. **I am meek and lowly in heart. **(Cf. Matthew 5:5; Matthew 21:5; Numbers 12:3; 2 Corinthians 10:1) Scan the ministry of Jesus and count the times He proved this proposition true. In how many ways did He do things to which no ordinary oriental monarch would have stooped? How did He act in a manner unthinkable to the kind of typical rabbi described in Matthew 23 and Luke 11? Something of the importance of this observation can be felt by analyzing Jesus-’ public reputation as the one who welcomes sinners and eats with them! (cf. Luke 15:1-2) The Lord is not merely discussing His own personal character here, but also the methods He will use with His disciples, for His methods with each one, grow out of His own, nature. What a contrast He makes to those harsh teachers who only know how to demand that the pupil rise to his duty, but who do not know how to motivate the poor learner to desire above all else to learn how to do what he knows is right. Nor is the Lord satisfied to sit in the cathedra of heaven and dictate lectures on religion and ethics. He is personally concerned that the dullest students, as well as the most brilliant, achieve their own personal best.
These gentle, comforting words, so easy for us to accept now, must have been a message difficult to believe for many in Jesus-’ audience. John the Baptist had hoped that the Christ would have seized the reins of government, destroyed the wicked leadership that was corrupting the nation, and usher in the Kingdom of the Messiah. This was the heart-cry of every Nationalist among Jesus-’ hearers, it was an ambition not entirely absent from the breast of the Apostles. Instead of giving Himself out to be the mighty Messianic Warrior-King ready for violence and civil revolution, the Lord quietly but firmly insisted: **I am meek and lowly in heart!
Rest for your souls.** While the wise and godly Hebrew sought rest for his soul in the contemplation of wisdom (cf. Sir. 6:18-31, esp. Sir. 6:28; Sir. 51:27), Jesus boldly asserts that true rest is only available to those who learn from HIM. He presumes that only His Word is the true wisdom, the only ultimate truth of real permanence. (Cf. Matthew 11:27; Matthew 7:24-27; Matthew 24:35; John 14:6) Learn from me (and) you will find rest for your souls is no empty promise if He has the right to say this, for one will find no satisfying rest outside of the reality represented in Jesus-’ message. The easy way to do a difficult task is to use the proper methods and equipment. There is nothing so fatiguing, so frustrating and, ultimately, so unsatisfying as to struggle with the difficult task, using inadequate equipment. It is the Lord’s plan to equip us thoroughly for every good work. (2 Timothy 3:16-17) By doing things His way, our struggle to accomplish the very same task, no matter how difficult, becomes easy by contrast to our own inadequate methods. We notice the repose when we change over to His system, because it rests us while we work. But even this simple promise puts to the test the reality of our confidence in Him, for we must decide whose world is real, whose instructions are the true ones. For so long as we continue to do things our way, we will continue to dash ourselves against the harsh realities that contradict our pet notions. So doing, we will never find peace and rest. This promise becomes also a test of our methods even in our service to Him, for if we do not find anything but frustration, disappointment and endless fatigue in the service of Jesus, we need to ask ourselves whether we have really learned His method, share His Spirit and, hence, know His power and victory.
To call this **rest **merely spiritual, as opposed to physical rest, is a false dichotomy, since man is all of a piece and his spirit lives in a body. Both his spirit and his physical life are involved in his psychç, the word here translated soul. Jesus is offering rest for the whole man. This comes in two stages:
Upon simple faith in Jesus as we come to Him for wisdom, righteousness, sanctification and redemption (cf. 1 Corinthians 1:30-31), we rest from the struggle to prove ourselves good enough to satisfy God. We rest from the harassing guilt of our sins. Our distress and fears are mercifully eliminated as we commit ourselves to His grace. (Cf. Romans 5:1; Romans 8:1; 2 Timothy 1:12)
There is greater rest in bearing the yoke of Christ, in imitating Him and in becoming conformed to His image, for in so doing, we deny ourselves. The natural result of this is that that selfish clamor for attention and those conflicting desires that kept us constantly at war with ourselves are devaluated and gradually eliminated. Rest from self is rest from every other struggle with temptation. Why? Because we have settled our fundamental question of priorities as to which is most important: what the Father wills for us, or what we demand for self. Obedience to His will liberates us from the indecision and unrest of self-will. Submission to His yoke brings us real rest, since it is the joyous deference to a King whom we know and love as our Father. To obey rests us from the despotism of our desires, the liabilities of liberty and from the conflicts of conscience.
Matthew 11:30 For my yoke is easy, and my burden is light. This is an astounding claim! Jesus is saying that, after all is examined, His way alone is best: Compare my demands upon your life, the discipline to which I call you, and its end results, with those required by any other discipline, and other yoke, any other worldview, and you will find that my discipline, in the long run, is the easiest and the load I place upon you the lightest, Carver (Self-Interpretation, 102) understands how the painfully exacting demands of Jesus can be considered light and easy,
He did not mean to tell us that being a disciple of His is not exacting, nor that true righteousness is an easy task.. (But) so soon as religion becomes really possible, it becomes in a sense easy, for when it is genuine its very essence is liberating.. No meaningless rules in the school of Jesus.. The lessons are light because they are enlightening. They put you in the way of learning deepest truths and highest realities. Pupilsreal studentsnever object to hard lessons; they glory in them. But they want their lessons to have some sense to them, to lead somewhere, to hold clues to life’s mysteries and nature’s riddles. Any lesson that does that is easy, fascinating.
Easy yoke? Light burden? No hard work seems joyful at the moment, but what training for greater things it produces in those who have been disciplined by it! (Hebrews 12:3-11) AFTER he turned himself over to Christ, Paul had more work to do than ever before, but what a difference in the prospects of accomplishment his new attachment to Christ made! Christ’s yoke is easier, His burden lighter, not in the sense of less toil or difficulty, but in the sense of what is achieved for eternity. It is only the long-range view, which takes eternity into account, that permits one to see that His way really is best, though it be temporarily punctuated with crosses. (2 Corinthians 4:16-18; Hebrews 12:2; 1 John 5:3) Jesus has never lowered the standard of righteousness to make life easier for anyone. Rather, He actually raised the standard to absolute perfection. Despite this, the burden He places on our shoulders is actually lighter than any other we might choose, because He alters us. He alters our motives for bearing the load, thus giving us power to do it! W. M. Taylor (PHC, XXII 289) suggests that the yoke of Christ is easy:
Because our conscience approves of this burden.
Because love lightens our work, making us less conscious of a load that would otherwise be unendurable.
Because Jesus-’ own Spirit empowers us to bear it.
Because the longer we submit to His discipline, the easier it becomes. What at first required a great deal of effort becomes easy and more enjoyable with time.
Because we are encouraged by a valid, unshaken hope which has power to keep us steady under our discipline, where otherwise we would break and fall.
FACT QUESTIONS
In what sense does Matthew mean that most of Jesus-’ miracles were done in the area of the three Galilean cities?
Were there absolutely no converts made in these cities? Explain.
Locate the cities of Capernaum, Bethsaida and Chorazin.
Locate the cities of Tyre, Sidon and Sodom, describing that part of Bible history regarding those cities that has bearing on Jesus-’ use of them as a basis of comparison.
Explain the cosmology involved in the expression exalted to heaven and brought down to Hades. Is Hades down and heaven up? From what standpoint? If Jesus is really God, hence knows that the earth is spherical, then how can He conscientiously use these terms that are obviously oriented to a flat-earth concept? Or, does physics have anything to do with His basic meaning?
Define Hades, giving its varying shades of meaning, and tell how Jesus uses it to describe the fate of unrepentant cities. Explain how cities can go down to Hades.
What other passages of Scripture show in what sense the expression wise and understanding is to be understood?
What other passages of Scripture help to explain what Jesus means by the term babes?
List the declarations in this section that reveal the divine nature and, authority of Jesus.
Explain how God hides truth and, at the same time, reveals it. Do this by drawing your illustrations from the ministry and results of Jesus.
What is the full content of the expression: All things in the larger context of All things have been given to me by my Father?
When were all things given to Jesus? For how long were they to be His?
In what sense does Jesus mean that none really know Him?
In what sense does only Jesus know the Father?
What is the connection between Jesus-’ grand claims that He makes for Himself and His great invitation offered to all?
Explain the expressions take my yoke upon you and learn of me and my burden is light. What is the yoke and the burden in this context? To what sphere of human endeavor do they refer when used by One who presents Himself to all as Teacher?
EXPOSITORY SERMON CHAPTER ELEVEN LOOKING FOR ANOTHER CHRIST
Introduction:
WHY look for another Christ? Because some are disappointed in the Christ given to us! This is not so surprising in light of the experiences of the people described in this chapter:
I.
THE PERPLEXITY OF THE LOYAL-HEARTED (Matthew 11:2-15)
A.
John the Baptist: If you are really the Messiah, how is it that the world goes on more or less as before, as if you had never come?
This is the statement in other words of the problem of pain and evil: Why does not God DO something about evil in the world, especially about the wicked themselves?
It is similar to the question stabbing the conscience of our age: If you are really the Church of the living God, if you really proclaim a Gospel of salvation and moral transformation that really works, why have you not done more to eliminate evil and initiate a practical demonstration of the rule and love of God on earth? Our age just cannot ignore 2000 years of bad church history with its failures, corruptions and misrepresentations of Jesus.
As with all expressions of the problem of evil, these questions reveal an ignorance and a misapprehension of God’s plans.
a.
In the patient, merciful ministry of Jesus, God WAS doing a great deal about the injustices in the world.
b.
Human intellect had failed to decipher the designs of God.
John’s personal problem was the disproportional exaltation of Jesus-’ divine office as Judge, to the detriment of His merciful human ministry as the Son of man come to seek and save the lost.
a.
The Law, Prophets and John had prepared Israel for the glorious coming of the King.
b.
Jesus had come but apparently nothing was happening that would square with John’s understanding of the coming Christ.
c.
In desperation, John cries out: Are you the coming One?
But John’s faith in the Lord brought him to no other source for answers to his dilemma.
B.
Jesus-’ answer: He appreciated the honest perplexity of His loyal prophet. He corrected His understanding and vindicated him completely. Notice the correction (Matthew 11:6): Tell John that although human intellect has failed to give him complete understanding of his problem, his intellect must submit to the wisdom of my methods and results. If his intellect judges my way not to be the best, it must see what I am accomplishing, even if it means turning his back upon his prejudices about what I should be doing. John must be content to say, -God’s methods are against my wisdom: I cannot understand why He does what He does, but I follow because HE leads me, for I have learned to trust Him.-'
II. THE FICKLENESS OF AN UNREASONABLE AGE (Matthew 11:16-19)
A.
John had come protesting against the falsely-inspired merriment of his age.
B.
Jesus had come refusing to sorrow over the things that made men of His age mourn.
C.
Reaction of people in general: If you are really the Holy One of God, why do you fraternize so familiarly with the rest of us? You are not saintly enough!
One reason for this reaction was the exaggeration of Jesus-’ divine character at the expense of His necessary and true humanity. Men thought that the great God would never so disturb Himself, so befoul Himself as to attend the banquet of a common sinner! Here again human intellect was at fault.
Another reason is that human emotion is falsely stimulated. Men sought the inspiration of their joys and sorrows in the wrong places.
D.
Jesus-’ answer: Human emotion must seek my inspiration, must learn to dance to my music, and mourn to my lamentation. The age must discover that the only way into the Kingdom of God is that of beginning to rejoice where hitherto there had been no joy; to mourn where hitherto there had been no mourning. Men must be done with dancing to the wrong music, with mourning over unimportant things.
E. The Lord committed to the judgment of time that age dissatisfied with wisdom contrary to its fickle tastes and capricious emotions.
III. THE IMPENITENCE OF THE MOST FAVORED CITIES (Matthew 11:20-24)
A.
Their reaction: You cannot be taken too seriously as the voice of God. We plan to run our lives much as we have been doing it before you came along!
Here is the depreciation of Jesus-’ divine authority and the demotion of the King to the level of any other human being.
Although these towns had personally witnessed Jesus-’ triumph over sin and its results that were causing the suffering in their midst, they did not recognize in His mastery a perpetual protest against their own sins. They remained rebels against God.
Here is the refusal of the will to submit to the control of God in Christ.
B.
Jesus-’ answer: Your great opportunities make you so much more responsible before God for what you know, therefore your punishment for impenitence will be so much more severe! Change your mind about what I am teaching you: turn back upon your false concepts of the Kingdom of God and submit to His rule now!
IV. THE FOLLY OF THE WISE AND THE WISDOM OF THE BABES (Matthew 11:25-30)
A.
The wise and prudent reaction: Any fool knows that yours is no way to establish a kingdom! Your program does not rhyme with any standard rabbinical formula of how the messianic kingdom has to be.
This is the refusal of human intellect to bow, acknowledging its own ignorance.
The net result is the reduction of Jesus to less than a human prophet, for the wise see in this Nazarene something less than a sage whose advice should at least be considered.
B.
The reason for this reaction is that God gives His greatest blessings only to the humble, but the human heart protests against the thought of starting all over again by being born again. People demand a religion that may be grasped as a prize for intellectual achievement; a religion that permits them to give full vent to their passions; a religion that grants them the dignity of their own self-will. But Christ demands that man surrender his darkened intellect, his vulgarized emotions and his prostituted will, so that he might begin again as a little child. .
C. Who is a little child?
He is an ignorant man asking instruction.
He is an emotional person seeking proper inspiration.
He is a will searching for authority.
He is a weak one seeking power.
He is imperfect, but looking for perfection.
He trusts Jesus to lead him to find all this and more.
V.
APPLICATION: How do people of our age look for another Christ?
A.
By letting the disappointments and failures in our personal Christian life turn us aside from the Christ who actually came:
Do we have no assurance of forgiveness and relief from our guilt and sins?
Do we fail to find the joy and brightness we expected?
- What kind of Christ did we expect? Does our image differ from the reality?
B.
By letting the general condition of the world blind us to the real Christ and His purposes.
Jesus came to save the world and yet the larger portion of it not only remains unsaved but is also growing larger in proportion to the total population. How can He let this go on?
If you look for another Christ, what kind of Messiah could alleviate the human predicament better than Jesus is now doing?
C.
We are not actually expecting the coming of another Christ that is not to be identified with Jesus of Nazareth, but the Jesus Christ whom we know will return in another form! (See Acts 1:11; Philippians 3:20-21)
When He comes, He will only seem to be another Christ different from the humble Galilean we once knew.
a.
He will be a Christ whom most men had never believed in.
b.
He will be a Christ whom most never expected to see come.
с.
But He will be the very Christ whom John the Baptist said would come in blazing glory.
But He will appear in His power and majesty to bring to a glorious conclusion the mission which He undertook in shame and weakness.
a.
He has never changed His mission: it has ever been His intention to make righteousness to triumph over sin and get God’s will done.
b.
The same Jesus who was crucified in shame, raised in glory and now reigns at the Father’s right hand, is even now perfecting His mission with an eye to that day when He will come for His saints.
D. What then is to be our reaction?
We must ask ourselves, Am I willing to admit my ignorance and ask instruction; am I willing to yield my emotional nature and take only His inspiration, dancing only to His piping, and mourning only to His lamentation; am I willing to take my will and submit it wholly to His authority; am I willing to take the place of unutterable weakness and depend upon His strength? Am I willing to confess my absolute and utter imperfection and give myself to Him for perfecting of all that concerns me?
This is the passage from proud independence to simple confession of weakness. So men enter into this Kingdom. So men find their rest.. Our very pre-eminent respectability prevents the definite daring necessary to get into God’s Kingdom. We are prone to drift upon easy seas, to admire the visions of the beautific land, consent to the beauties of the great ideal, and never enter in because we will not. consent to yield to the claim of the King..
Let this be the hour when you have done with your dilettante fooling with sacred things. Let this be the night when you translate your sickly anemic imagination into grip, force, go and determination.
(The above outline and some of its points were suggested by G. C. Morgan’s sermon The Kingdom By Violence in 26 Sermons by Dr. G. Campbell Morgan, Vol. II, p. 229ff.)
Another outline of this chapter might be:
JESUS JUDGES HIS CONTEMPORARIES AND HIMSELF
I.
John the Baptist (Matthew 11:2-15): More than a prophet!
II.
His people in general (Matthew 11:16-19): Like children!
III.
The most favored cities (Matthew 11:20-24): Damned!
IV.
The simple disciples (Matthew 11:25-30): Learned!
V.
Himself (Matthew 11:20-30): The Unique Hope of the Race!
EXPOSITORY SERMON CHAPTER ELEVEN REST IN A RESTLESS WORLD (11:20-30)
Introduction:
The newspapers of the world report riots that picture the great unrest of our world. In the great cities of the world every day is heard news of strikes, riots, protest movements, wars and famines. We wonder where this will all lead to or when it will end. Men’s hearts faint for the fear and anxiety over the things that are coming over the world. And why should that be?
There is NO REST IN OUR RESTLESS WORLD, BECAUSE THERE IS NO CERTAINTY.
One woman is uncertain, because another woman could take her husband away from her, and she is not sure that he would not like to go with the other woman!
The student is not sure that he can pass his exams, in order to find a small place in our society,
The worker can not be sure that tomorrow a machine will not take away his position and work for him.
The big industrialist can not be sure that he can hold his wealth.
The politicians can only try to establish a better government, but they can never be sure of the outcome.
In whatever other area we can discuss, there exists no rest-bringing security. We can certainly say that the one thing in our world that is certain, is our UNCERTAINTY! And our uncertainty troubles us!
But over the centuries we hear a mighty voice that says: Come to me! I will give you rest! In our dark world full of care and strife, difficulties and problems, anxieties and fear, these words bring us comfort, inspiration, encouragement and rest. Let us listen to this voice from a bit closer by. What does Jesus mean to say to us?
I
JESUS CONDEMNS THE UNBELIEVING BECAUSE THEY DID NOT REPENT (Matthew 11:20-24)
A.
Even though Jesus had fulfilled His commission in this world, yet His own people did not accept Him: they did not repent!
Even though He had done His greatest miracles in their presence, miracles that established His message as God’s personal revelation:
Even though He had revealed God’s will to them, yet they did not repent.
B.
There was no one more joyfully seen, heard and received than Jesus of Nazareth!
They were all ready to make Him their King and establish a worldly messianic kingdom.
They were willing to risk everything to follow Him, rising up against the Roman government, against the hypocritical religion of the Pharisees and chief priests, against all political authority.
They wanted to have a King who could give them bread, miracles and wealth, a place among the greatest empires of the world!
They wanted the SECURITY, that could come through His miraculous power. They wanted His providence and protection, His conquest of all enemies and His divine defence. They wanted to have all this, while THEY REMAINED UNCHANGED IN HEART AND LIFE.
C.
But Jesus sees that they have not understood Him:
He had called them to repentance; they wanted to make Him their servant.
He wanted to put God in them; they wanted Him and God in THEIR service.
Jesus-’ heart is broken over their deep need of repentance and over their unwillingness to repent.
Jesus has so strenuously, so faithfully, so unselfishly, so carefully tried to give them God! And they have neither seen it nor understood!
D.
Is this not a picture of our world?
We want God on OUR conditions: all His blessings, all His goodness, but He does not dare demand our repentance nor our obedience!
Jesus wants to bring us to reality and truth; He wants to create God in us; He wants to put real rest and peace in our heart, but UNDER HIS CONDITIONS: I tell you, unless you all likewise repent, you shall all likewise perish!
But to whom did Jesus say that?
a.
To people that thought that simply to be in the vicinity of Jesus was the same thing as faith and repentance.
b.
To people who thought that common goodness was the same as deep-felt repentance:
(1)
These were more or less better people than those of Sodom, Tyre and Sidon
(2)
But Jesus did not want to make people more or less good, but just as perfect as God Himself! (Matthew 5:48)
c.
To people who thought that culture and enlightenment were sufficient to enjoy the better life.
(1)
They had had the best enlightenment, because they could hear the Truth itself and revelation of God’s will, preached by Jesus Himself!
(2)
But the light against which we sin, will be the measure whereby we will be judged!
(3)
The greatness of the quantity of information that we have received concerning God’s truth, does not release us from the responsibility to repent and trust Jesus!
d.
To people who thought that to do nothing was as sufficient as repenting. Their sin was the sin of refusing to take a positive stand for Jesus Christ!
(1)
How many people today exalt Jesus as a Superman, a Man born before His time, perhaps a great Prophet, yes, even as God’s Son?
(2)
And yet they do nothing with Him! They take no responsibility for what they know about Jesus of Nazareth!
So why does our world have unrest, insecurity, desperation? BECAUSE WE WILL NOT TRUST JESUS AND REPENT!
Let us listen further to His words:
II
JESUS LAYS DOWN HIS OWN CONDITIONS, WHEREBY WE CAN RECEIVE GOD’S TRUST AND REST. (Matthew 11:25-26)
Even though He gives us conditions that are absolutely necessary to which we must render whole-hearted and immediate obedience, yet He gives us also His own personal example how we should understand the conditions He requires. What does He do?
A.
He thanks God and rejoices with the Father over the method whereby God chose to reveal His will. This is the grateful acceptance of the will and plans of His Father.
Even though He could not reach the unrepentant people and cities, after thousands of attempts, yet He gives God thanks that God had used this method to reveal Himself and that it was God’s idea.
Even though there were a very few simple people that truly accepted Jesus, yet Jesus THANKS the Father for them.
Jesus recognizes the universal Lordship of His Father. This too is an anchor for our souls, if we acknowledge that there is no place in this universe, no problem in our world over which our God is not fully Master and fully in charge!
Jesus praised and thanked God that His plan really works to save those people who can be taught.
B.
But what is God’s method to save the world? By revealing these eternal truths to humble seekers, to -little children.
Who are the wise and understanding of this world, from whom God has hidden His will? These are the people who are wise in their own eyes and proud of their own understanding.
So far as the world could see it was Pilate who was a greater man than Peter, but Jesus could do much more with a Peter than with Pilate! The high priest Caiaphas went far higher in the human society than Matthew, but that publican could become an Apostle for eternity, because he could forsake everything to follow Jesus!
Who are the little children, to whom God has given great revelations of His will? These are the humble people who open their lives to follow Jesus-’ leadership and accept His teaching.
a.
The doors of God’s Kingdom remain open for those who repent and become little children.
b.
These are the people who admit their ignorance, confess their sins and come to Jesus for forgiveness. (1 Corinthians 1:18-31)
Yes, this is God’s plan and Jesus thanks Him for it.
III
JESUS ACCEPTS THE MORAL RESPONSIBILITY FOR THE ENTIRE HUMAN RACE AND PRESENTS HIMSELF AS THE ONLY POSSIBLE REVEALER OF GOD (Matthew 11:27)
A.
All things have been committed to me by my Father.
Perhaps we are caused to think immediately of the glory and royalty of God’s Son, because we know that, at the end of the world, everything will be the inheritance of Jesus.
But here Jesus is not speaking about the glory and wealth that shall be His,
He understands very clearly that the weight of the sins of the whole world have been laid upon HIM!
a.
There is no arrogance here, but an honest bending of the Lord Jesus Himself to take upon Himself the gigantic weight of a lost mankind upon Himself.
b.
He had just seen people, that had had the best possible opportunity to be saved, refuse the call of God.
c.
Perhaps He is reminded of the ancient words of Isaiah: All we like sheep have gone astray;
We have turned every one to his own way;
And the Lord has laid on him the iniquity of us all. (Isaiah 53:6)
Our own unwillingness to repent was laid upon God’s Son!
d.
Yes, the government will be upon his shoulder, but the insignia thereof are not the colorful flags and marching eagles of a great empire, but the bleeding stripes by which we are healed!
Yes, all things have been committed to Jesus by His Father: the moral responsibility for all men just like they are: in their sins, their dying and in their deep need for repentance and redemption!
This is why we are not surprised about what Jesus says next:
B.
No one knows the Son but the Father!
Here is a cry that comes out of the loneliness of the Lord Jesus.
a.
There is no man on earth that realizes the greatness of the burden of the Son of God.
b.
Jesus has not found anyone who really understands how He feels among sinners, nor shares His burden.
Jesus has had thousands of followers, but very few of them continued to follow Him, even though those few themselves were deeply unaware of His mission, His purpose, and His Person. Even so late as the last week of His life, before going to the cross, Jesus had to say to them, Have I been so long with you, and you do not yet know me?
Jesus feels deeply His loneliness on earth: no one really knows or understands Him.
a.
But people must understand Him in order to be saved!
b.
But we must understand His message, in order thereby to be able to know the Father.
C.
No one knows the Father but the Son, and he to whom the Son wills to reveal Him.
Jesus finds Himself in a world where no one really knows God!
a.
This means that all the great inventors of religion are liars, if they contradict, diminish or deny the Word of Jesus!
b.
This means that all the lesser religious lights who have led men away from God’s Will are thieves and robbers! (John 10:1)
This is a world, in Jesus-’ day and in our own as well, wherein people have lost the very key to life, because they live as if God does not exist. But Jesus knows that God is the central fact of all reality, the greatest, most important fact of all.
Jesus prayed: This is eternal life, that men might know you, the only true God, AND JESUS CHRIST, whom you have sent! (John 17:3)
Only, JESUS knew God. Here Jesus expressed the longing to make God known to men.
He MUST make God known, but how can He go about the task of revealing God?
D.
Here is His method whereby He reveals the Father.
IV.
JESUS INVITES HUMBLE DISCIPLES TO COME TO HIM AND LEARN (Matthew 11:28-30)
A.
This young Jew, not more than 33 years old, invites the entire human race to come to Him to learn. He promises that every one, however great his problems might be, shall find rest for his soul! Let the stupendous nature of this invitation sink deep into your heart: feel the gigantic nature of the fraud if the claims implicit in this invitation are false. Feel the power of God’s loving mercy, if these claims are true! Here we must decide what we think about Jesus!
B.
But Jesus has to be the teacher, if we are to find rest for our souls. The only ones whom Jesus can help are the little children. We must be willing to learn EVERYTHING from Him.
Jesus has already had too many theologians and professors, who molded His ideas according to their own conceptions! He wants disciples, or followers, who are willing to follow Him and live under His discipline. The so-called great preachers, professors, priests, bishops, popes, councils, theologians and universities are not what Jesus is looking for! He seeks men and women, boys and girls who are willing to enroll themselves in His school and learn under HIM.
C.
Even though Jesus Himself is the Revealer of the eternal God, even though He Himself is the Creator of heaven and earth, even though He is the Judge before whom all must give account, yet He is gentle and lowly in heart.
He is not a teacher that His students need to be afraid of.
He does not boss His students around; they do not need to be afraid to expose their ignorance before Him.
My friend, He could become your Teacher: with Jesus you need fear no ridicule or contempt in His school.
If you are an eager student, you will find Jesus ready to help you, sharing with you the same spirit of joy in knowledge. He will help you at whatever level you find yourself, in order to bring you up to His level of full knowledge of the entire universe! You will find Him a wise and sympathetic Teacher, who will lead you into truth.
How many times has Jesus already shown Himself this kind of Teacher? How many times did the sinners and publicans come to Jesus, even though they had run away from the proud, strict Pharisees? They knew that Jesus was different, so, friend, do not put Jesus in the same class with religious leaders that you know, because He is not at all like any teacher you ever knew. He is in a class all by Himself, but you will enjoy enrolling in the class!
The publicans and sinners of Jesus-’ day felt the attraction of His gentleness, and they knew that He could help free them from sins that they had for years taken for granted.
D.
In Jesus-’ school you find SECURITY and rest for your soul!
To the tired worker, Jesus gives genuine rest for the body, nerves and mind, because Jesus gives true rest for his SPIRIT. Such a person can now sleep, because he has a forgiven conscience.
To the tired and heavy-laden worshipper, Jesus gives rest also.
a.
Tired of religious ceremonies, duties, norms and empty forms? Then, Jesus offers you devotion to a Person.
b.
Tired of defeats and disappointments in the struggle against sin? Then Jesus gives you the refreshment of forgiveness and power to overcome.
To the tired worldling who has found everything to be futile and empty, Jesus offers His fullness, all His friendship and companionship.
INVITATION:
Friend, you know your own cares, your own sins, and problems. Let Jesus take your difficulties and free you. Lay all your difficulties down at the feet of Jesus. Enroll yourself in His school: He invites you now.
