Exegetical and Hermeneutical Commentary of Matthew 11:18
For John came neither eating nor drinking, and they say, He hath a devil.
Verse 18. For John came neither eating nor drinking] Leading a very austere and mortified life: and yet, he did not receive him. A sinner will not be persuaded that what he has no mind to imitate can come from God. There are some who will rather blame holiness itself, than esteem it in those whom they do not like.
He hath a devil.] He is a vile hypocrite, influenced by a demon to deceive and destroy the simple.
Fuente: Adam Clarke’s Commentary and Critical Notes on the Bible
Luke hath the same words, Luk 7:33-35. The sense of the words is this: God hath by his providence used all means to win this people to the gospel. The doctrine of John the Baptist and Christ was the same, but their temper and converse was very different: John was an austere and morose man, Christ was of a more free and familiar conversation; but these men would neither give the one nor the other a good word; they reviled both of them, and rejected them both, and the doctrine which they brought.
John came neither eating nor drinking, that is, not as other men ordinarily do; he was a man that lived most in the wilderness, and fed upon very ordinary diet, not eating with publicans and sinners, not coming at any feasts, &c.; and they said of him, He hath a devil; he is a melancholic, hypochondriac fellow, a kind of a madman.
The Son of man came eating and drinking, he was of a more affable, pleasant temper, of a more free and less reserved converse, eating and drinking as other men (though keeping to the law of temperance) such things as the country afforded, not refusing to be present at feasts, though publicans and sinners were there. They said of him, Behold a man gluttonous, and a winebibber, a friend of publicans and sinners: he displeased them with the two great freedom of his conversation; from whence, by the way, they may be better instructed, who place some perfection, or merit, in living like monks and hermits; by that rule John the Baptist was to be preferred before Christ. But Christ could please the Pharisees and lawyers, and their followers, no more than John did. They could not say he was melancholic or morose; but they blasphemed him to a higher degree, calling him a glutton and drunkard, and a friend of publicans and sinners. A godly man, let his temper and converse be what it will, pleaseth none who hateth the truth of the gospel, and the power of godliness. If he be reserved, then he is a morose, melancholic man; if he be of a more free and open converse, then he is a drunkard, or a glutton; something or other they must have to say against a man that will not run with them to the same excess of riot, though they lay to their charge things that they know not. The business is, they hate the power of godliness in them. This instance of these mens thus treating John the Baptist and Christ, is of mighty use to strengthen those who meet with the very same things.
But wisdom is justified of her children. There is a great variety amongst interpreters in giving the sense of these words. Some think them spoken ironically, for the Pharisees went for the children of wisdom. Some think them spoken plainly, and think it should be, wisdom is judged, or condemned, of her children; but though the word , signifying to justice or do justice to another, which, according to the merit or demerit of the person, may be by justifying or condemning, upon which account it was true here that wisdom was condemned of those who pretended to be her children, and the word is so used in other authors, yet we have no such usage of it in Scripture. Not to reckon the various senses others put upon the words, the plain sense of them seems to be this. It is a proverbial speech, something like that, Ars non habet inimicum praeter ignorantem, Learning hath no enemies but the ignorant.
1. I, who am the Wisdom of God, am justified by you, who truly believe on me: you know I am no glutton, no winebibber, no friend of publicans and sinners. Or;
2. Grace is justified of all that are partakers of it. Godly men that are wise will own the grace of God in all men, whether they be of Johns temper or of mine, whether of more austere or more pleasant tempers. Or;
3. The wise counsel of God, making use of several instruments of several tempers to win these people unto his gospel, will be justified, that is, acquitted, defended, praised, adored of those who belong unto God, and are acquainted with his wisdom and counsels.
Luke saith, The people justified God, Luk 7:29. Some, by the children of wisdom, understand the scribes and Pharisees themselves, (who thought themselves the children of wisdom), or the generality of the Jews, who were condemned in their own consciences, and could not but in heart justify Christ, though in their speeches they condemned him. But Christ never called them the children of wisdom. This interpretation therefore seemeth something strained. That which seemeth the most natural is what I before hinted. Though those that pretend to be the children of wisdom thus speak of John and of me, yet those who are truly wise will justify me, and also the counsels and wisdom of my Father in the use of all means to bring them to receive the glad tidings of salvation, brought to them both by my more austere and reserved forerunner, and by myself, who have chosen, though a holy and unblamable, yet a more free and pleasant way of converse with them.
Fuente: English Annotations on the Holy Bible by Matthew Poole
For John came neither eating nor drinking,…. This and the following verse are an explanation of the foregoing “parable”; and this shows, that John and his disciples are the persons that mourned, of which his austere life was a proof: for when he “came”, being sent of God, and appeared as a public preacher, he was “neither eating nor drinking”; not that he did not eat or drink at all, otherwise he could not have lived, and discharged his office: but he ate sparingly, very little; and what he did eat and drink, was not the common food and drink of men; he neither ate bread nor drank wine, but lived upon locusts and wild honey; he excused all invitations to people’s houses, and shunned all feasts and entertainments; he abstained from all free and sociable conversation with men, in eating and drinking: and though the Scribes and Pharisees pretended to much abstinence and frequent fastings, yet they did not care to follow his very severe way of living, and lament, in answer to his mournful ditty; but in a calumniating way,
they say he hath a devil; is a demoniac, a madman, one that is unsociable and melancholy; under a delusion of Satan, and influenced by him to abstain from proper food and company of men, under a pretence of religion.
Fuente: John Gill’s Exposition of the Entire Bible
1) “For John came neither eating nor drinking,” (elthen gar loannes mete esthion mete pinon) “Because John came neither eating nor drinking,” Mat 3:4; Luk 1:15. As most people do, eating “high on the hog,” like the pious Jewish religious leaders who devoured widows’ houses, beat them out of their homes, their estates, Mat 23:13-14; Mr 12:38-40; Luk 20:46-47.
2) “And they say, He that hath a devil.” (kai legousin daimonion echei) “And they say that he has a demon,” that he is demon-possessed. They tried to evade John’s message of repentance and faith, in preparation for the coming of the Messiah, not by Scriptural argument or evidence, but by resorting to derogatory name calling, Luk 7:33.
Fuente: Garner-Howes Baptist Commentary
(18) He hath a devil.The phrase was a common one, asserting at once the fact of insanity, and ascribing it to demoniacal possession as its cause. (Comp. Joh. 7:20; Joh. 8:48.) This was the explanation which the scribes gave of Johns austerities. The locusts and wild honey were to them the diet of a madman.
Fuente: Ellicott’s Commentary for English Readers (Old and New Testaments)
“For John came neither eating nor drinking, and they say, ‘He has a demon’.”
John lived a life of fasting and prayer. He drank no wine or strong drink because of his dedication to God (Luk 1:15-17). He dressed in goatskins or camel’s hair, and ate locusts and wild honey (Mat 3:4). Thus once people began to become disillusioned at his ‘excessive’ demands it was easy to find something to criticise in him. Having rejected his message they dismissed him as a demon of the desert.
Fuente: Commentary Series on the Bible by Peter Pett
The direct application:
v. 18. For John came neither eating nor drinking, and they say, He hath a devil.
v. 19. The Son of Man came eating and drinking, and they say, Behold a man gluttonous, and a wine-bibber, a friend of publicans and sinners. But wisdom is justified of her children. The proof for the accusation of childishness. When John the Baptist led an austere life, not eating nor drinking, confining his food to the articles most necessary to sustain life, the suspicion was raised that he must surely be mad. The Pharisee loved to play at fasting and act the role of an abstemious holy person, but he could not endure the earnest, sincere preacher. The contrast is very strong in the language of Christ: Came John neither eating nor drinking, Came the Son of Man eating and drinking. Jesus, in His outward behavior, purposely did not distinguish Himself from ordinary men. He neither advocated nor practiced false asceticism, works for mere show before men. And the result: In horrified outrage they point the finger of scorn at Him. What a glutton, what a wine-bibber, what a toper! The criticism is harsh, unjust, childish, but in total harmony with the character of the Pharisees. “They play at religion; with all their seeming earnestness in reality triflers. They are also fickle, fastidious, given to peevish fault-finding, easily offended. These are recognizable features of the Pharisees. They were great zealots and precisians, yet not in earnest, rather haters of earnestness, as seen in different ways in John and Jesus. They were hard to please: equally dissatisfied with John and with Jesus; satisfied with nothing but their own artificial formalism. ” This perverse generation has its representatives on earth even today. The world wants nothing either of John or of Jesus. The preaching of the Law, of repentance, hurts their fine sensibilities, but the Gospel of free grace and mercy in Christ Jesus is still less to their liking. The comfort of Christ under such circumstances is that wisdom is justified of her children, of her works, or fruits. This proverb, as it stands, may mean: Christ, the personal Wisdom, Pro 8:1-36; Pro 9:1-18, was obliged to justify Himself against the judicial verdict of those who should be His children, but refused to accept Him; or: The wisdom of God, present in the preaching of John, and embodied in the person of Jesus, was justified, acknowledged, given its right by the children of wisdom, who accepted its teachings. Thus the heavenly Wisdom always finds some disciples and children that receive Him gladly and are, in turn, instructed in the way of salvation by grace.
Fuente: The Popular Commentary on the Bible by Kretzmann
Mat 11:18-19. For John came neither eating, &c. Our Lord justifies the application of the proverb in the preceding verse to the Pharisees, by observing, that the divine Wisdom had tried every method proper for converting them, but in vain; for, first of all, the Baptist was sent unto them, in the stern dignity of their ancient prophets, so that it was natural to think they would have reverenced him; nevertheless they rejected him altogether. Such, it seems, was the pride and malice of the Pharisees, that when theyfound their own ostentatious and hypocritical mortifications utterly eclipsed by the real austerities of this holy man’s life, they impudently affirmed, that his living in deserts, his shunning the company of men, the coarseness of his clothing, the abstemiousness of his diet, with the other severities which he practised, were all the effects of madness, religious melancholy, and diabolical agency: John came neither eating bread nor drinking wine (see Luk 7:24; Luk 7:50.), and they say he hath a devil; literally, he hath a demon. This method of converting the Pharisees proving unsuccessful, God sent his only Son in a more familiar manner, Mat 11:19. Jesus did not practise those mortifications which rendered the Baptist remarkable: he in general fared like other men, and went into mixed companies, not avoiding the company of publicans and sinners. But neither would they hear him: for notwithstanding he maintained the strictest temperance himself, and never encouraged the vices of others, either by dissimulation or example, they attributed that easy but temperate way of living to a certain looseness of disposition; but Wisdom is justified by her children. These words appear to be a Jewish proverb. See Isa 45:25. Luk 7:29. Wisdom here implies the method which God followed in bringing the Jews to Christianity. The children of Wisdom mean the truly wise, the disciples of wisdom: they are the babes mentioned in the 25th verse of this chapter. The clause may be paraphrased, “They who are truly wise and religious must needs approve this beautiful variety in the conduct of Providence, and see that the difference in our mode of living suits the purposes of our respective appearances, and is adapted to promote the general design of God’s glory, and man’s salvation.”
Fuente: Commentary on the Holy Bible by Thomas Coke
Mat 11:18-19 . ] hyperbolical; , Euth. Zigabenus. Comp. Mat 3:4 ; Luk 1:15 ; Dan 10:3 . In contrast to the liberal principles of Jesus, who ate and drank without imposing upon Himself Nazarite abstinences (like John) or regular fastings (Mat 9:14 ), or without declining (like the Pharisees) to go to entertainments provided by those in a different rank of life from His own.
] which, through perverting His judgment, leads Him into those ascetic eccentricities; comp. Joh 10:20 .
] glutton , is a word belonging to a very late period. See Lobeck, ad Phryn . p. 434; on the accent, Lipsius, gramm. Unters . p. 28.
] not a continuation of the words of the Jews , in which case would have to be taken ironically (in answer to Bornemann), but the closing observation of Jesus in reference to the perverse manner in which His own claims and those of John had been treated by the Jews; and justified ( i.e . shown to be the true wisdom) has been the wisdom (the divine wisdom which has been displayed in John and me) on the part of her children, i.e . on the part of those who reverence and obey her ( Sir 4:11 ), who, through their having embraced her and followed her guidance, have proved how unwarranted are those judgments of the profanum vulgus; comp. Luk 7:29 . The (actual) confirmation has come to wisdom from those devoted to her ( , comp. on Act 2:22 ; Hermann, ad Soph. El . 65; Khner, ad Xen. Anab . vi. 5. 18; not ). Those disciples of wisdom are the same who in Mat 11:12 are said ; but the which introduces the passage “cum vi pronuntiandum est, ut saepe in sententiis oppositionem continentibus, ubi frustra fuere, qui requirerent,” Stallbaum, ad Plat. Apol . p. 29 B. Such a use of occurs with special frequency in John. Wolf, ad Lept . p. 238; Hartung, Partikell . I. p. 147. This view is in the main that of (though in some cases the has been too much limited by being understood as referring merely to the disciples of Jesus ) Jerome (“ego, qui sum Dei virtus et sapientia Dei, juste fecisse ab apostolis meis filiis comprobatus sum”), Mnster, Beza, Vatablus, Calovius, Hammond, Jansen, Fritzsche, Olshausen, de Wette, Ebrard, Bleek, Lange, Hofmann, Keim, Weiss. Yet many, while also retaining the meaning given above, take the aorist, though without any warrant from the text, or any example of it in the New Testament, in the sense of cherishing (see Khner, II. 1, p. 139; Fritzsche, ad Rom . I. p. 305), as Kuinoel (“sapientia non nisi a sapientiae cultoribus et amicis probatur et laudatur, reliqui homines eam rident,” etc.). Chrysostom, Theophylact, and Castalio understand the words as expressing the thought that the wisdom manifested in Jesus has nothing to answer for with regard to the Jews (similarly Weizscker); a view to which it may be objected first, that cannot be taken in the sense of to be free from the guilt of any one ( . ; comp. Sir 26:29 ; Rom 6:7 ); and secondly, that the Jews , unless something in the context should specially suggest or lead to it, cannot straightway be spoken of as the children of wisdom. The latter objection is equally applicable to the explanation of Schneckenburger: and so wisdom (which is supposed to mean God’s care for His people; comp. also Euth. Zigabenus and Grotius) has been treated cavalierly (has been arrogantly condemned) by her own children , which, moreover, is precluded by the fact that is never used in this sense in the New Testament. Oppenrieder, p. 441 f., likewise understands the children of wisdom to refer to the Jews , inasmuch, that is, as they were subjected to the discipline of divine wisdom. The doings of were demonstrated to be righteous by the conduct of the Jews; that is to say, they had desired, instead of John, a divine messenger of a less ascetic character (and him the divine wisdom sent them in the person of Christ); while, on the other hand, instead of Christ, with His freer manner of life, they desired one more rigorously disposed (and this wish the divine wisdom had gratified by giving them the Baptist). So far Schneckenburger. But this conduct of the Jews was capricious and wilful, and was ill calculated to display the justice of the divine dealings, which it could have done only if it had been supposed to proceed from a feeling of real moral need, for which, however, in Mat 11:16-19 , Jesus shows Himself by no means inclined to give them credit. Besides, one is at a loss to see, even if this view were adopted, how the Jews with their foolish and obstinate behaviour should come to be called . According to Ewald ( Gesch. Chr . p. 432), Jesus means to say that it is just her wrong-headed children (who quarrel with her) that do most to justify the divine wisdom by their not knowing, with all their wisdom, what they would really like. But this view, again, which necessitates an antiphrastic interpretation of the , finds no support in the text, besides involving accessory thoughts to which there is no allusion. Similarly Calvin even understood the words to refer to the Jews who thought themselves so wise; before whom, however, wisdom is supposed to assert her dignity and authority through the medium of her genuine children.
Fuente: Heinrich August Wilhelm Meyer’s New Testament Commentary
18 For John came neither eating nor drinking, and they say, He hath a devil.
Ver. 18. For John came neither eating, &c. ] So froward men are and gobble up, that no preacher can please them. If he preach plainly, it will seem careless slubbering: if elaborately, curious affectation. And for his life; austere John hath a devil, sociable Christ is a winebibber. And it was the worse, because from scribes and Pharisees, whose word must carry such credit with it, as alone to condemn Christ; and whose life must be a rule to others. Do any of the Pharisees believe in him? In this case duty must be done, however it be construed. Evil men, when they learn to think well, will learn to report well. Let our lives and labours in the Lord’s work confute them: and though they should by their reproaches bury our good names in their throats, those open sepulchres, yet at utmost, when Christ comes to judgment, there shall be a resurrection of names as well as of bodies. “Be patient therefore, brethren, unto the coming of the Lord,” Jas 5:7 .
And they say he hath a devil ] So Staphylus and Surius said that Luther learned his divinity of the devil. The Jesuits affirm that he was stirred up by the devil, and they were sent out by God to resist him. Himself knew all this, and took it well aworth. Prorsus Satan est Lutherus (saith he in an epistle to Spalatinus), sed Christus vivit et regnat: Amen. He adds his Amen to it.
Fuente: John Trapp’s Complete Commentary (Old and New Testaments)
18. . . ] Luk 7:33 fills up this expression by inserting and . See ch. Mat 3:4 . The neglect of John’s preaching, and rejection of his message, is implied in several places of the Gospels (see ch. Mat 21:23-27 : Joh 5:35 , ): but hence only do we learn that they brought against him the same charge which they afterwards tried against our Lord. See Joh 7:20 ; Joh 10:20 .
Fuente: Henry Alford’s Greek Testament
Mat 11:18 . he commentary on the parable showing that it was the reception given to John and Himself that suggested it. . .: eating and drinking, the two parts of diet; not eating nor drinking = remarkably abstemious, ascetic, that his religious habit; not , to express not merely the fact, but the opinion about John. Vide notes on chap. Mat 5:34 . : is possessed, mad, with the madness of a gloomy austerity. The Pharisee could wear gloomy airs in fasting (Mat 6:16 ), but that was acting . The Baptist was in earnest with his morose, severely abstinent life. Play for them, grim reality for him; and they disliked it and shrank from it as something weird. None but Pharisees would dare to say such a thing about a man like John. They are always so sure, and so ready to judge. Ordinary people would respect the ascetic of the wilderness, though they did not imitate him.
Fuente: The Expositors Greek Testament by Robertson
came. In the Greek this is the Figure of speech Hyperbaton (put out of its place by commencing the verse), causing the Figure of speech Anaphora (App-6).
eating nor drinking. Supply the Ellipsis, eating nor drinking [with others].
devil = demon.
Fuente: Companion Bible Notes, Appendices and Graphics
18. . .] Luk 7:33 fills up this expression by inserting and . See ch. Mat 3:4. The neglect of Johns preaching, and rejection of his message, is implied in several places of the Gospels (see ch. Mat 21:23-27 : Joh 5:35, ): but hence only do we learn that they brought against him the same charge which they afterwards tried against our Lord. See Joh 7:20; Joh 10:20.
Fuente: The Greek Testament
Mat 11:18. , came) A striking instance of Anaphora;[531] cf. Mat 11:19.- , neither eating) John did not eat with others, nor even in the presence of others. His mode of life agreed with the character of his teaching, and so did that of Christ [with the character of HIS teaching.] Therefore the one is, as it were, implied by the other.- , nor drinking) See Luk 1:15.-, they say) The world disparages virtue, representing it as the extreme; it advocates the cause of vice, representing it as the mean.-, a devil) in common parlance, a familiar spirit.-, He has) A reproach common to the Jews, by which they denoted one who was mad, or silly, or proud. They who abstain from the society of men, easily incur this suspicion.
[531] See Append. The same word repeated in the beginnings of sentences or sections, in order to mark them.-ED.
Fuente: Gnomon of the New Testament
devil demon.
(See Scofield “Mat 7:22”).
Fuente: Scofield Reference Bible Notes
John: Mat 3:4, Jer 15:17, Jer 16:8, Jer 16:9, Luk 1:15, 1Co 9:27
He: Mat 10:25, 2Ki 9:11, Jer 29:26, Hos 9:7, Joh 7:20, Joh 8:48, Joh 10:20, Act 26:24
Reciprocal: Mal 2:17 – Every Mat 5:22 – Whosoever Mat 9:14 – Why Mat 21:32 – and ye believed Rom 14:3 – judge
Fuente: The Treasury of Scripture Knowledge
1:18
Neither eating nor drinking. No man can live without eating and drinking, but John did not eat among the people or from their supplies. He dwelt in the wilderness and lived on locusts and wild honey. He hath a devil. This charge is not recorded in any place except in the words of Jesus, but that makes it an established fact. They meant by such an accusation that John was a maniac or “out of his mind” to live as he did. That was the meaning that was attached to such a charge as may be seen in the following passages. Joh 7:20; Joh 8:48-49; Joh 8:52.
Fuente: Combined Bible Commentary
Mat 11:18. For. An evidence of the petulant spirit (so Mat 11:19).
John came neither eating nor drinking. He came as a prophet, and living in a peculiar manner, neither eating bread nor drinking wine (Luk 7:33); his meat was locusts and wild honey (chap. Mat 3:4).
And they say, He hath a demon. A demon of melancholy; he is a fanatic.
Fuente: A Popular Commentary on the New Testament
Even though John lived as an ascetic, as some of the Old Testament prophets did, most of the Jews rejected him and even charged him with demon possession. Jesus ate and drank with sinners, and many of the people criticized Him for lack of moderation and concluded that He despised the Law. If they had understood John, they would have understood Jesus.
Jesus concluded with a proverb that justified John’s and His lifestyles. The Jews had criticized both John and Jesus for the ways they lived. Jesus’ point was that the good deeds that John and Jesus did vindicated their choices to live as they did. Who could justifiably criticize them since they went about doing good? Wisdom in the Old Testament is almost a synonym for God in many places. Jesus claimed that He and John were living wisely, under God’s control, by behaving as they did. The Jews could make childish criticisms, but the lifestyles of John and Jesus argued for their credibility.
In spite of John’s doubts Jesus supported and affirmed His forerunner to his disciples and his critics. John’s message was correct even if he had developed some misgivings about it.