Miles de Libros Cristianos Gratis. Accede a nuestra Biblioteca Virtual

Exegetical and Hermeneutical Commentary of Matthew 11:2

Para un estudio avanzado de: “Exegetical and Hermeneutical Commentary of Matthew 11:2” utilice nuestra app.

Now when John had heard in the prison the works of Christ, he sent two of his disciples,

2 19. Concerning John the Baptist

His message to Jesus 2 6. His position as a Prophet 7 14. His relation to Jesus and to his contemporaries 15 19.

St Luk 7:18-35

2. in the prison ] At Machrus. See note, ch. Mat 14:3. For “two of his disciples” read, on the best MS. authority, by means of his disciples.

Fuente: The Cambridge Bible for Schools and Colleges

The account contained in this chapter of Matthew, to the Mat 11:19, is found, with no material variation, in Luke 7:18-35. John was in prison. Herod had thrown him into confinement on account of his faithfulness in reproving him for marrying his brother Philips wife. See Mat 14:3-4.

It is not certainly known why John sent to Jesus. It might have been to satisfy his disciples that he was the Messiah; or he might have been desirous of ascertaining for himself whether this person, of whom he heard so much, was the same one whom he had baptized, and whom he knew to be the Messiah. See Joh 1:29.

Fuente: Albert Barnes’ Notes on the Bible

Verse 2. John had heard in the prison] John was cast into prison by order of Herod Antipas, Mt 14:3, c., (where see the notes,) a little after our Lord began his public ministry, Mt 4:12 and after the first passover, Joh 3:24.

Fuente: Adam Clarke’s Commentary and Critical Notes on the Bible

The instance of this text alone is enough to convince the observing reader of holy writ, that the evangelists do not set down all things in that order as they were done. We have heard nothing before of Johns being cast into prison in this gospel, nor do we hear any thing here of the story of it, till Mat 14:6, when our evangelist occasionally relates it something largely. He here tells us of something done during his imprisonment, viz. his sending two of his disciples to Christ, to be satisfied whether he was the promised Messias, or they must look for another. Luke reports the same thing, Luk 7:19. Could he that was sent before Christ to prepare his way, and that had baptized him, and seen the Spirit descending on him, and heard the voice from heaven, saying, This is my beloved Son, in whom I am well pleased, and who had showed Christ to his disciples, Joh 1:29-31, &c., doubt whether he was the Messiah? Undoubtedly no; but John saw how some of his disciples, either envying for his sake, as Joh 3:26, or else inclinable to the common error of the Jews about the Messiah, were something shaken with the clamours of the scribes and Pharisees (who were far more favourable to John than to Christ). That they might be satisfied from their own sight of the works of Christ, he a little before his death sendeth them to Christ on this errand,

Art thou he who should come (in the Greek, who is coming)? Which lets us know the full expectation the Jews generally had at that time of a Messias coming. They desire only to be satisfied whether Christ was he.

Fuente: English Annotations on the Holy Bible by Matthew Poole

2. Now when John had heard in theprisonFor the account of this imprisonment, see on Mr6:17-20.

the works of Christ, he sent,&c.On the whole passage, see on Lu7:18-35.

Mt11:20-30. OUTBURST OFFEELING SUGGESTEDTO THE MIND OFJESUS BY THE RESULTOF HIS LABORSIN GALILEE.

The connection of this with whatgoes before it and the similarity of its tone make it evident, wethink, that it was delivered on the same occasion, and that it is buta new and more comprehensive series of reflections in the samestrain.

Fuente: Jamieson, Fausset and Brown’s Commentary Critical and Explanatory on the Whole Bible

Now when John had heard in the prison,…. The person here spoken of is John the Baptist, the forerunner of Christ, who was now in the prison of Machaerus; being put there by Herod, for his reproving him for taking Herodias, his brother Philip’s wife; and whilst he was there, an account was brought him by his own disciples, see Lu 7:18 of

the works of Christ, the miracles he wrought; as the healing of the centurion’s servant, the raising from the dead the widow’s son of Nain, and the like; upon hearing of which,

he sent two of his disciples, who might be the most prejudiced against Christ, because of the increase of his followers, and the decrease of their master’s; and because he did not live such an austere life as John did; and who, notwithstanding all that they had heard, and their master had told them of Jesus, were not easily persuaded that he was the true Messiah. Moreover, two of them were sent, both because it was more honourable to Christ, and that they might be proper witnesses of what they saw and heard; and since it was not so much for himself, as for the sake of his disciples, that these messengers were sent.

Fuente: John Gill’s Exposition of the Entire Bible

John heard in the prison ( ). Probably (Lu 7:18) the raising of the son of the widow of Nain. The word for prison here is the place where one was kept bound (Acts 5:21; Acts 5:23; Acts 16:26). See Mt 4:12. It was in Machaerus east of the Dead Sea which at this time belonged to the rule of Herod Antipas (Jos. Ant. XVIII. v.2). John’s disciples had access to him. So he sent word by (, not as in Lu 7:19) them to Jesus.

Fuente: Robertson’s Word Pictures in the New Testament

Two of his disciples [] . But the correct reading is dia, by. He sent by his disciples. So Rev.

Fuente: Vincent’s Word Studies in the New Testament

DISCIPLES COME FROM JOHN THE BAPTIST TO QUESTION JESUS V. 2-19

1) “Now when John had heard in the prison,” (ho de loannes akousas en to desmoterion) “Then John the Baptist, upon hearing where he was being held in prison;” When John the Baptist heard from friends, who were permitted to visit him, where he was held in prison, Mat 14:3-4; Mat 25:35; Mat 25:43. The prison is believed to have been the fortress of Machaebus by the Dead Sea, alluded to in Mat 4:12.

2) “The works of Christ,” (ta erga tou Christou) “About the works of Christ,” the message He was preaching, and the miracles He was performing. His works were prophetically to point Him out as the Christ, the Messiah, and to have a confirmation of what John already believed, is what he sought, Isa 35:5-6; Joh 1:30-33.

3) “He sent two of his disciples,” (pempsas dia ton matheton autou) “He sent (by request) two of his disciples,” to secure more direct testimony about Jesus Christ, and especially about the kind of supernatural works that He was doing, Isa 11:1-3; Isa 42:1-4; Isa 53:4. Some of his disciples were true to him, even to the point of burying him, after he was beheaded, Mat 14:12.

Fuente: Garner-Howes Baptist Commentary

2. Now when John had heard. The Evangelists do not mean that John was excited by the miracles to acknowledge Christ at that time as Mediator; but, perceiving that Christ had acquired great reputation, and concluding that this was a fit and seasonable time for putting to the test his own declaration concerning him, he sent to him his disciples. The opinion entertained by some, that he sent them partly on his own account, is exceedingly foolish; as if he had not been fully convinced, or obtained distinct information, that Jesus is the Christ. Equally absurd is the speculation of those who imagine that the Baptist was near death, and therefore inquired what message he should carry, from Christ’s mouth as it were, to the deceased fathers. It is very evident that the holy herald of Christ, perceiving that he was not far from the end of his journey, and that his disciples, though he had bestowed great pains in instructing them, still remained in a state of hesitation, resorted to this last expedient for curing their weakness. He had faithfully labored, as I have said, that his disciples should embrace Christ without delay. His continued entreaties had produced so little effect, that he had good reason for dreading that, after his death, they would entirely fall away; and therefore he earnestly attempted to arouse them from their sloth by sending them to Christ. Besides, the pastors of the Church are here reminded of their duty. They ought not to endeavor to bind and attach disciples to themselves, but to direct them to Christ, who is the only Teacher. From the beginning, John had openly avowed that he was not the bridegroom, (Joh 3:29.) As the faithful friend of the bridegroom he presents the bride chaste and uncontaminated to Christ, who alone is the bridegroom of the Church. Paul tells us that he kept the same object in view, (2Co 11:2,) and the example of both is held out for imitation to all the ministers of the Gospel.

Fuente: Calvin’s Complete Commentary

Section 24

JESUS RECEIVES A QUESTION FROM JOHN AND PREACHES A SERMON ON JOHN

(Parallel: Luk. 7:18-35)

TEXT: 11:219

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 kings houses.

But wherefore went ye out? to see a prophet? Yea, I say unto you, and much more than a prophet.

10.

This is he, of whom it is written,

Behold, I send my messenger before thy face,
Who shall prepare thy way before thee.

11.

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.

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.

13.

For all the prophets and the law prophesied until John.

14.

And if ye are willing to receive it, this is Elijah, that is to come.

15.

He that hath ears to hear, let him hear.

16.

But whereunto shall I liken this generation? It is like children sitting in the marketplaces, who call unto their fellows

17.

and say, We piped unto you, and ye did not dance; we wailed, and ye did not mourn.

18.

For John came neither eating nor drinking, and they say, He hath a demon.

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! And wisdom is justified by her works.

THOUGHT QUESTIONS

If John is shut up in prison, how is it that he is so free in prison to send messengers to Jesus?

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?

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?

Why, would you say, do questions hurt men worse than torture?

Do you think it is Gods 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?

How do you account for the true greatness of John the Baptist?

Do you feel that people would be more godly today if they imitated Johns 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?

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?

What do you hold to be the secret of Johns greatness?

What do you hold to be the reason why John was actually greater than other prophets?

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 Gods kingdom.

How can John the Baptist be the Elijah who is to come, whereas John himself denied being Elijah? (See Joh. 1:21)

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.

Do you think that this question John asked was painful to Jesus, since He was surrounded by multitudes who surely must have heard Johns 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?

Explain how Gods kingdom had suffered violence and how violent men were taking it by force, even since the beginning of Johns preaching.

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?

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?

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?

Standing this side of the cross, John Hallett can teach us to sing, Theres no disappointment in Jesus, Hes 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?

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?

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 Mat. 18:5-10; 1 Corinthians 8; 1Co. 10:23-33 in contrast with 1Co. 1:18-25 esp. 1Co. 1:23; 1Pe. 2:4-8)

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 Johns 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 Johns 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 (Mat. 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 mothers son that can excel John the Baptist! And yet, paradoxically, the humblest member of Gods Kingdom is a greater man than John!

Ever since the appearance of John the Baptist until today Gods 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 Gods Word to men. However, if your mind is open to receive this information, I would say that John is the great Elijah that Malachi (Mat. 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 Gods 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 Gods 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 demonhes mad! Then I came along, living the normal life, eating and drinking like anyone else, and what do you say? Look at that glutton! Hes 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 Gods work in the presence of Johns envoys. Then, in messianic language drawn from Isaiahs prophecy, Jesus summarized His ministry and evidence to give John reasons to continue to trust Him. Johns messengers then reported this message back to John.
After they departed, Jesus eulogized Johns greatness as Gods 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 Johns message vindicated God by accepting the word of His prophet in obedience, whereas the religious leaders of the nation frustrated Gods 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)

Mat. 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 Matthews chapter 10. The time reference is most general: Now when John heard (ho de Ionns akosas). 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 Johns musings: The disciples of John told him of all these things, (Luk. 7:18) Very likely, the disciples report included the curing of the Centurions slave and the resurrection of the son of the widow of Nain and many other signs. (Luk. 7:1-17) Details of Johns imprisonment are available from many sources (Mat. 4:12; Mat. 14:3-5; Mar. 6:17-20; Luk. 3:19-20; cf. also Josephus Antiquities, XVIII, 5, 2). Had we only Matthews Gospel, we would be puzzled by the very access Johns disciples had to their master who was very clearly bound in prison under lock and key (cf. desn and katkleisen of Mat. 14:3; Luk. 3:20) by Herod who ultimately murdered him there. The enigma is solved by Mark, who, although he does not record the incident of Johns question, yet furnishes the explanation by inserting a fact in quite another context that explains Johns 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. (Mar. 6:19-20) From these sources we may conclude that in Herods 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 Herods view, must have been halfhearted, because the kings 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 Mat. 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. (Mat. 14:12)

An even greater perplexity is to be found in the expression Johns disciples. After the revelation of the Messiahs 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 Johns 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 (Joh. 2:1; Joh. 2:12) before the first Passover of His public ministry (Joh. 2:13 ff), and if His ministry in Sychar of Samaria were concluded four months before harvest (Joh. 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 (Joh. 4:1-3) as much as by the imprisonment of John (Mat. 4:12), we conclude that there were as much as four summer months between Johns 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. Act. 18:24-25; Act. 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 Matthews 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 (Mat. 11:11), Johns 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. (Luk. 3:2; Joh. 1:6; Joh. 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. (Mat. 3:13-17; Joh. 1:29-34)

His description of Jesus as the Lamb of God indicates a profound revelation of the mission of Jesus. (Joh. 1:29; Joh. 1:36) Did he understand what it meant to be Gods Lamb?

Further, the prophecies of the OT received significant confirmation in the revelation God made to John at the baptism of the Lord. (Cf. Psa. 2:7 with Mat. 3:17; Isa. 61:1; Isa. 11:1-5 with Mat. 3:16)

There is great moral comprehension of his own relative unimportance expressed in the magnanimous declaration: He must increase and I must decrease! (Joh. 3:26-30; cf. Mat. 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. (Mat. 11:2; Luk. 7:18)

But John was human too. Before the word of God came to John (Luk. 3:2) he had been just plain John. Before there was a man sent from God, (Joh. 1:6) he had been a man, and that man, now trapped in Herods 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 Gods 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 Gods 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 (Mat. 3:10-12), but Jesus keeps watering the trees, trying to save them! (Cf. Luk. 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 Mal. 3:1 to Mal. 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

Remember Jobs cries, Why? Why? (see Job. 3:11-23; Job. 7:19-21)

Consider Habakkuks complaint: Why are you not doing something about this wicked people, Israel? (Hab. 1:1-4) God answers: I am doing something! I am rousing the Chaldeans for Israels punishment. (Hab. 1:5-11) But God, how can you use vile idolaters to punish a nation more relatively righteous than they? (Hab. 1:12-17) Gods 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! (Hab. 2:2-4) There is sweet submission in Habakkuks prayer as he admits the justice of Gods punishment upon Israel. Though it meant personal and immediate trial for him and other righteous men in Israel (Hab. 3:16-17), yet he can rest in God who IS Himself the answer to Habakkuks complaint (Hab. 3:18-19).

Out of Pauls experience in praying three times that his thorn in the flesh might be removed, he learned true strength. (2Co. 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 Christs message to others, Paul must also submit himself to the daily discipline as any other believer.

Peter, after preaching the universality of Gods grace unto as many as the Lord our God shall call unto Him (Act. 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.

Johns 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 Johns own ministry and the farther baptism by the Christ in the Holy Spirit and the still more distant judgment by fire. (Cf. Mat. 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 1Pe. 1:10-12; Mat. 13:16-17)

Mat. 11:3 and said unto him, Art thou he that cometh, or look we for another? Johns choice of words implies Do we await one of another kind? (hteron) Although Luke (Luk. 7:20) has llon (another of the same kind), despite the fact that good MSS have hteron, even llon 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 erchmenos), in Johns 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. Psa. 118:26; Hab. 2:3; Mal. 3:1; Dan. 7:13 with Mat. 21:9 and parallels; Mat. 23:39; Luk. 13:35; Joh. 1:15[?]; Joh. 3:31; Mat. 6:14; Mat. 11:27; Heb. 10:37; Rev. 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 Johns 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 Mat. 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 Johns 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 Melchizedeks 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 Johns 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 Johns 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 Johns 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. Php. 2:20-21; Col. 3:4; 1Th. 1:10; 1Th. 3:13; 1Th. 4:13-18; 2Th. 1:7-10; Tit. 2:13; Heb. 7:24-28; Heb. 9:27-28; 1Jn. 3:2-3)

If that be the meaning of Johns question, what could be the motivation behind it? The Baptists following included widely-scattered men of deep commitments like Jesus early disciples, Apollos of Alexandria and others. (Cf. Joh. 1:35 ff.; Act. 18:24 to Act. 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 Luk. 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 others message or identity. Johns 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?

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 Mat. 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.

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)

Christs reply was addressed not to the disciples but

(a)

Go and tell John (Mat. 11:4)

(b)

The blessing is stated in the singular Blessed is he (makris estin hs. . . .), 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 Johns own question, not one put by him in the mouths of his followers that would express their doubts. (See Luk. 7:20) Nor does Jesus pretend to go along with the game by feigning to answer John while really answering the Baptists representatives then in His presence.

(d)

The psychological need for Jesus discourse about John (Mat. 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?

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 ones 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.

While this view is psychologically possible in light of questions that try mens souls, nevertheless Johns 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 Johns very approach proves Johns extreme confidence in Jesus: Jesus would answer this question well and must answer in such a way as to bring action.

(5)

Johns last public word eloquently declares his faith from his prison cell: Go ask JESUS! He knows the answers that can save us!

Or perhaps the Lords herald longed for clarification of something in the mission of Jesus that was not at all clear to him.

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 Johns 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 Gods Anointed One, was using methods clearly (to John) contrasting with, if not contradicting, his predictions. Further, while certain features of the Lords first and second comings were revealed to and through John, yet the Baptists 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. Mat. 3:1-12; Mar. 1:2-8; Luk. 3:1-18; Joh. 1:19-34; Joh. 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. Act. 1:6)

Objection to this view is seen in the exceeding (if not, exaggerated) forcefulness of Johns 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 ones own incomplete understanding.

Was John impatient?

This is a young mans reaction: John was burning to see some action! (He was only six months older than the Lord Himself. Cf. Luk. 1:36; Luk. 1:56; Luk. 2:1-7) Absolutely convinced that his Cousin was Gods 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, Mat. 3:11; gather wheat into garner Mat. 3:12; show all men the salvation of God Luk. 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 Johns 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.

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 Gods Kingdom and righteousness. One objection to this as the exclusive meaning of Johns 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 Johns 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! Johns perplexity furnished the occasion for Jesus to answer the heart-cry of all thinking men: Are you Gods last word, the ultimate reality, or must we turn to Another for the satisfaction of our souls 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 Johns 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 (11:46)

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 Johns 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 (Mat. 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 Johns 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 Johns 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. (Luk. 7:21) Did Jesus do this on purpose with the specific end in view to make Johns disciples eyewitnesses? Did He make Johns 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 Johns 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 Mat. 15:10; Mar. 8:34), He lets Johns explosive demand agitate the crowds into moving in closer and quieting down to hear. When they were fully ready He made His move:

Mat. 11:4 And Jesus answered and said unto them, Go and tell John the things which ye hear and see:

Mat. 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 Herods prison? Here he had expected a drastic change in the Messiahs program which would violently overthrow Gods enemies and get the Messiahs 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 Mat. 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 Gods final representative. (Cf. Joh. 14:10-11; Joh. 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.

Done in the presence of hundreds of eyewitnesses, including Johns disciples, they could not be gainsaid. (Luk. 7:21) They were not a matter of hear-say evidence.

Jesus claimed to work miracles. (Mat. 11:4-5; Luk. 7:21-22) The fact that He states only what occurs to the afflicted, leaving it to Johns 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!

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.

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. Johns messengers had not seen and heard Christ healing the spiritually blind and the morally leprous. Moreover, what need to add ptchoi euaggenlzontai, 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.

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 Gods. Since, then, Jesus claimed to be more than merely a great Prophet, His miracles attest Gods approval of Jesus affirmations about Himself. His wonders and signs are Gods way of testifying that Jesus highest claims are true. (Cf. Joh. 4:25-26; Joh. 4:42; Joh. 8:12; Joh. 8:24; Joh. 8:31-32 etc.)

EVIDENCE by implication from the nature of the miracles themselves. Because Jesus miracles are directly linked to Gods 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. Isa. 29:18-19; Isa. 35:5-7; Isa. 61:1-3 with Luk. 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.

3. EVIDENCE from the unworldly nature of His ministry: The poor have good tidings preached to them. John had already heard of the miracles (Mat. 11:2) and much of His procedure (Luk. 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. Isa. 11:4; Isa. 29:19; Isa. 32:7; Isa. 55:1 ff.; Rev. 21:6; Rev. 22:17) To borrow Plummers 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 Gods special choice and the Messiahs efforts, brought into the Kingdom of God. (Cf. Jas. 2:5-6; Luk. 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 Gods 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 (Mat. 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. Isa. 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 Lords 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 Mat. 11:20-24)

Mat. 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. 1Pe. 2:8; Isa. 8:14-15; Mat. 8:34; Mat. 13:57; Mat. 26:31; Joh. 6:60-61; 1Co. 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 Gods 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.

5. 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 Johns 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 Mat. 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 Judges praise (see on Mat. 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. (1Pe. 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 ones neighbor to stumble. He was the greatest stumbling-block the Jews were ever to know. (Cf. 1Pe. 2:4-8; 1Co. 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. Mat. 7:13-14 with Mat. 23:37) But this beatitude (Mat. 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. CHRISTS CHARITABLE COMMENDATION OF THE CONSCIENTIOUS CHAMPION (11:711)

Mat. 11:7 And as these went their way, Jesus began to say unto the multitudes . . . Observe how Jesus permits Johns 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 Johns messengers overheard Christs 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 Plummers 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 Johns 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, Johns message upon which Jesus own mission was based. Although Jesus had refused to answer Johns 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 Johns 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 Baptists question could not help but stimulate people to take a serious, more critical look at John or Jesus or both. Perhaps Jesus, who knows mens hearts could read the unfriendly criticism and honest puzzling written there: Say, Johns 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 Herods 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 Johns work preparatory to Christs 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! (Mat. 11:13; see on Mat. 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 Mat. 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 Johns 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 (exlthete, 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 Lords 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. Joh. 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 (Mat. 11:7)

Certainly not a dapper courtier living luxuriously (Mat. 11:8)

But rather a prophet of God (Mat. 11:9)

More than this, hes the personal messenger of Jahveh (Mat. 11:10)

He is the greatest of the race (Mat. 11:11 a)

Transition to Jesus revelations on the Kingdom: Yet hes inferior to the humblest Christians. (Mat. 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 crowds sharing the same footing, the same fundamental appreciation of John.

A. A CHANGELINGS 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 audiences 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 Herods 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 COURTIERS COSTUME?

Mat. 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 lets 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 Johns 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 lifes 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, kings houses (or courts) and live in luxury (Luk. 7:25), strongly suggest a person who knows the courtiers 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 Johns 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 Gods 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?

. A COLOSSAL COMMUNICATOR

Mat. 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 Messiahs 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. Luk. 1:68; Luk. 1:78; Luk. 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. (Amo. 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 Mat. 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:

Mat. 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. (Mal. 3:1 to Mal. 4:6) For the Hebrew in whose heart burned Malachis 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 Johns. For what cannot be known today of Malachis 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 Malachis words, pointing to John the Baptist as their unique fulfilment: This is he! (See also on Mat. 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 Malachis prophecy by Jesus can best be appreciated by studying the prophets 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 Isa. 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 malech, whom Jehovah will send before Him, i.e. before His coming. This malech, (messenger) is not a heavenly messenger or spiritual being . . . nor the angel of Jehovah katexochn (par excellence), who is mentioned afterwards and called malech habberith, but an earthly messenger of the Lord, and indeed the same who is called the prophet Elijah in Mat. 11:23 (Mat. 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. Isa. 40:3; Isa. 57:14; Isa. 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 (hdn) 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. Mat. 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 Malachis original words with the uniform NT quotation of them (Mal. 3:1; Mat. 11:10; Mar. 1:2; Luk. 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 Malachis 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 Malachis 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 Eze. 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 Gods 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 Malachis 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.

Mat. 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 Gods revelation, Gods 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 earths 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 Johns 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. Gods 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 Gods service, calling men back to God.

Johns 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 earths 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:

1. What phase of the kingdom of heaven is meant here?

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 Johns 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.

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 Mat. 16:18-19; Mat. 16:28; cf. Luk. 19:11; Luk. 24:46-49; Act. 1:3-8; Act. 2:1-42; Act. 8:12; Act. 14:22; Act. 19:8; Act. 20:25; Act. 28:23; Act. 28:31; Col. 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.

2. Who is he that is but little in the kingdom of heaven?

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. (Mat. 3:11-12; Joh. 1:26-34; Joh. 3:28-36) Jesus own position is not at issue here.

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.

3. How is it possible for John to be inferior to the humblest Christian?

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.

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 Bridegrooms 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 (Joh. 1:12-13; Joh. 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. CHRISTS CONCLUSIONS ABOUT THE KINGDOM (11:1215)

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 (Mat. 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 Gods Kingdom due to the violent misunderstanding of the true nature of the Kingdom and its King, but since the Messiahs forerunner has already appeared (see on Mat. 11:14), the Messiah Himself cannot be too far behind, and with Him the kingdom comes.

Mat. 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. Luk. 16:16; see Arndt-Gingrich, biz for bibliography.) They give all they have to enter it, a struggle that is viewed favorably by the King.

On the phrase h basilea tn ourann bizetai, it should be remarked in favor if this view that the verb bizomai, 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.

Lenski (Matthew, 437) sees John and Jesus as the agents (biasta) who forcefully bring forward the Kingdom:

The correspondence between bizetai and biasta 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.

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. Mat. 16:18; Mat. 16:21; Joh. 16:1-4)

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. Mat. 8:4; Mat. 9:30; Mat. 14:22 with Joh. 6:15; Mar. 1:34; Mar. 1:37-38; Mar. 1:45; Mar. 3:12; Mar. 6:43; Mar. 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?

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. Joh. 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 (Luk. 16:16) quotes Jesus: And every one enters it violently (ka ps eis autn bizetai), 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 Christs eyes, though to Christ Himself they were the bright and hopeful side of an evil time.

We may mention, first, that which most readily occurs to ones 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 Luk. 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 Mat. 11:13, and we have an interesting revelation:

For all the prophets and the law prophesied until John.

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 (Luk. 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 Johns 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. Lukes expression (Luk. 16:16) must mean, then, that Johns 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 Mat. 9:14-17; Mat. 12:1-14; cf. Mar. 7:19; Joh. 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 Mat. 28:19-20; Luk. 24:46-47; Act. 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 (Mat. 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 Johns 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.

Mat. 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 Johns problem, (Mat. 11:1-6) the failure of the Jewish people in general (Mat. 11:16-19) and the favored cities in particular (Mat. 11:20), and finally, the only way to grasp Gods revelation (Mat. 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. (Joh. 5:40; Joh. 7:17; Mat. 23:37; Rev. 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 Mat. 11:15 demonstrates.

This is Elijah, that is to come. Reference here is Malachis prediction (Mat. 3:1; Mat. 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 interpreters 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. Joh. 1:21; Mat. 17:10) For a rapid survey of rabbinic traditions about Elijah, the forerunner of the Messiah, see Edersheims Life, Vol. II, Appendix VIII, 706ff. The apologetic nature of Edersheims 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 Hos. 3:5; Eze. 34:23; Eze. 37:24, and Jer. 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 prophets 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.

Keils 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 Baptists personal name to be John, then why did they ask him if he were Elijah? (Cf. Joh. 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 (auts estin Elas), not literally, but indeed the person intended by Malachi. The angel who announced Johns conception promised: He will go before (the Lord their God) in the spirit and power of Elijah. (Luk. 1:17) With this dramatic assertation Jesus intends to say two things:

Malachis 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 Johns 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 Johns 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 Gods Kingdom, but he had distinctly pointed out Jesus as Gods Son, Gods Lamb to take away the worlds sin. So, to take John seriously demands of the multitudes that they take Jesus seriously.

Mat. 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 Israels 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 (Luk. 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 Christs words without any indication that it is a comment of Lukes own, or is this a part of Christs 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 Lukes Greek sentence, no object is specified (ka ps ho las akosas ka hoi telnai edikasan . . .), 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 Mat. 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 Johns message and his baptism meant their acknowledgement of Gods justice in making these claims upon them. For the latter, their haughty refusal to repent meant the frustration of Gods purpose to save them by granting them the opportunity to repent. Gods counsel had been delivered by his humble servant John, but the proud Pharisees had, in their rejection of the servant, also rejected Johns Lord and there would be no escaping His wrath. (Mat. 21:31-32; Mat. 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 Gods 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. Pro. 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 (Rom. 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 Johns 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 (11:1619)

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 parables 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)

Mat. 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 Mat. 11:18 and Mat. 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 (gr). 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. Matthews tis betrois and Lukes alllois). 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. Mat. 9:14), rigorous Sabbath observance (cf. Mat. 12:1-14; Joh. 5:1-18), etc. But when He maintained His own course, they howl: We wailed and you did not mourn!

This interpretation offers two advantages:

(1)

It sees the men of this generation (cf. Luk. 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 (Mat. 11:18-19), but also in order of Johns and Jesus actual appearance on the scene in Israel.

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 childrens 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 Edersheims (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 childrens expressions as Edersheim feels to be there, at least we may hear them complaining to Gods 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. Luk. 7:29-30) The quoted words then become those of John and Jesus, taken as a committee of two, representing Gods call to righteousness: Whatever our approachwhether deep-felt sorrow for sin or the joyous freedom of the Gospelyou refused both.

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 Christs 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 (Mat. 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.

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. (Luk. 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. Mat. 12:39; Mat. 12:41; Mat. 12:45; Mat. 16:4; Mat. 17:17; [Mat. 23:36; Mat. 24:34?]; Mar. 8:38; Mar. 9:19; Luk. 9:41; Luk. 11:29-32; Luk. 17:25; see also Act. 2:40; Php. 2:15; Heb. 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 peoples 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 childrens 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 childrens 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.

Mat. 11:18 For John came neither eating nor drinking, and they say, He hath a demon. Luke (Luk. 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 Mat. 3:1; Mat. 3:4) But this ascetic way of life was Johns 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 Johns 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 nations 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. Joh. 7:20; Joh. 8:48-49; Joh. 10:20 later said of Jesus) This violent slander is what is necessary to justify those who utter it to cover their rejection of Gods 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.

Mat. 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 Johns 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. Luk. 7:33) would be offensive, since piety, in their view, must express itself in frequent fasts. (Cf. Mat. 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, Joh. 2:1-11; Matthews farewell, Mat. 9:10-13; Luk. 5:29; The Pharisee Simons house, Luk. 7:36 ff.; Another Pharisee, Luk. 11:37 ff.; A Pharisee Ruler, Luk. 14:1-24; Zacchaeus, Luk. 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. (phgos) 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. (oinopts) 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 Johns 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 Luk. 7:33, which Jesus says He drinks, and the oinos of oinopts in Mat. 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 Mat. 9:12-13)

C. A CONFIDENT CONCLUSION (11:19b)

And wisdom is justified by her works. (Luk. 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 (edikaith), Jesus refers to actions performed in the past, Johns 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 mens 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 Mat. 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 Johns 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 Johns question.

10.

Explain the traits of character referred to in the figurative expressions: a reed shaken with the wind, a man clothed in soft raiment.

11.

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.

12.

Explain how John the Baptist both was and was not the Elijah who was to come. (See Luk. 1:17; Joh. 1:21)

13.

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?

14.

Explain how wisdom is justified by her works (or children). To whose wisdom does Jesus refer: His own, Johns, or that of the Jews of His day?

15.

What two outstanding proclaimers of Gods Kingdom suffered violence during their life and ministry and whose lives ended in violent death?

16.

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.

17.

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. (Luk. 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.

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.

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.

Therefore, Jesus practice, by His own statement, clarified by His stated antitheses, stands exactly halfway between both extremes. His is neither the teetotalers abstinence nor the drunkards excess, but the moderates 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.

That the Jews knew wine and other strong drink to be a dangerous curse, goes without saying, as many texts testify. (Cf. Pro. 20:1; Pro. 21:17; Pro. 23:10; Pro. 23:21; Pro. 23:29-35, etc.)

But the Jews knew wine to be the generous blessing from the Lord. (Gen. 27:28; Psa. 104:15; Isa. 55:1; Hos. 2:8-9; Hos. 2:22; Joe. 2:19-24; Amo. 9:13-14)

(1)

They spoke of bread and wine as the staple articles of diet. (Gen. 27:25; Gen. 27:37; Deu. 11:14; Num. 6:20; Jdg. 19:19-21; 2Sa. 16:1-2; 2Ch. 11:11, etc.)

(2)

Consequently, they were required to put wine on the grocery list of provisions for the priesthood (Num. 18:12; Deu. 18:4; 1Ch. 9:29, etc.)

(3)

Wine appeared as a normal expression of ordinary hospitality. (Gen. 14:18; Jdg. 19:19-21; 1Sa. 16:20; 1Sa. 25:18; 1Ch. 12:40; Joh. 2:3-10)

(4)

Wine was commanded as a drink offering to God (Exo. 29:40; Lev. 23:13; Num. 15:5; Num. 15:7; Num. 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. (Deu. 14:22-26; Deu. 12:17-18; Isa. 62:8-9)

(6)

The Jews knew of its value as an anesthetic (Pro. 31:6-7; Luk. 10:34) as well as its necessity in case of bad water or stomach infirmities (1Ti. 5:23)

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 (Luk. 7:33-35 and Mat. 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 Lords 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 (1Co. 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. (Col. 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 Gods gifts (the context is food) are to be received with thanksgiving. (1Ti. 4:1-5) However, under special circumstances Paul could conceivably dispense with ANY given food, for instance, if it caused a brother to stumble. (Rom. 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 Rom. 14:1 to Rom. 15:7; 1Co. 6:12-20; 1 Corinthians 8 all; Mat. 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. (1Ti. 3:3; 1Ti. 3:8; Tit. 1:7) In giving directions for producing Christlike piety in the Church, he only urges Titus (Mat. 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. (1Ti. 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, Christs 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 Rom. 14:1 to Rom. 15:7; 1Co. 6:12-20; chap. 8; Mat. 10:23-33; Mat. 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 ones 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, Joh. 8:46; Heb. 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 alcoholics 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 alcohols 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. Joh. 5:14; Mat. 12:45), especially drunkards (Luk. 21:34; Rom. 13:13; 1Co. 5:11; Gal. 5:21; Eph. 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 mans 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:

THE PERPLEXITY OF THE LOYAL-HEARTED (Mat. 11:2-15)

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 Gods plans.

In the patient, merciful ministry of Jesus, God WAS doing a great deal about the injustices in the world.

Human intellect had failed to decipher the designs of God.

Johns 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.

The Law, Prophets and John had prepared Israel for the glorious coming of the King.

Jesus had come but apparently nothing was happening that would square with Johns understanding of the coming Christ.

In desperation, John cries out: Are you the coming One?

But Johns faith in the Lord brought him to no other source for answers to his dilemma.

Jesus answer: He appreciated the honest perplexity of His loyal prophet. He corrected His understanding and vindicated him completely. Notice the correction (Mat. 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, Gods 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 (Mat. 11:16-19)

John had come protesting against the falsely-inspired merriment of his age.

Jesus had come refusing to sorrow over the things that made men of His age mourn.

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.

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 (Mat. 11:20-24)

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.

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 (Mat. 11:25-30)

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.

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.

APPLICATION: How do people of our age look for another Christ?

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?

3. What kind of Christ did we expect? Does our image differ from the reality?

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?

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 Act. 1:11; Php. 3:20-21)

When He comes, He will only seem to be another Christ different from the humble Galilean we once knew.

He will be a Christ whom most men had never believed in.

He will be a Christ whom most never expected to see come.

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.

He has never changed His mission: it has ever been His intention to make righteousness to triumph over sin and get Gods will done.

The same Jesus who was crucified in shame, raised in glory and now reigns at the Fathers 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 Gods 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. Morgans 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

John the Baptist (Mat. 11:2-15): More than a prophet!

II.

His people in general (Mat. 11:16-19): Like children!

III.

The most favored cities (Mat. 11:20-24): Damned!

IV.

The simple disciples (Mat. 11:25-30): Learned!

Himself (Mat. 11:20-30): The Unique Hope of the Race!

EXPOSITORY SERMON CHAPTER ELEVEN
REST IN A RESTLESS WORLD (11:2030)

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. Mens 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?

JESUS CONDEMNS THE UNBELIEVING BECAUSE THEY DID NOT REPENT (Mat. 11:20-24)

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 Gods personal revelation:

Even though He had revealed Gods will to them, yet they did not repent.

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.

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!

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?

To people that thought that simply to be in the vicinity of Jesus was the same thing as faith and repentance.

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! (Mat. 5:48)

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 Gods 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 Gods truth, does not release us from the responsibility to repent and trust Jesus!

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 Gods 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:

JESUS LAYS DOWN HIS OWN CONDITIONS, WHEREBY WE CAN RECEIVE GODS TRUST AND REST. (Mat. 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?

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 Gods 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.

But what is Gods 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.

The doors of Gods Kingdom remain open for those who repent and become little children.

These are the people who admit their ignorance, confess their sins and come to Jesus for forgiveness. (1Co. 1:18-31)

Yes, this is Gods 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 (Mat. 11:27)

All things have been committed to me by my Father.

Perhaps we are caused to think immediately of the glory and royalty of Gods 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!

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.

He had just seen people, that had had the best possible opportunity to be saved, refuse the call of God.

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. (Isa. 53:6)

Our own unwillingness to repent was laid upon Gods Son!

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:

No one knows the Son but the Father!

Here is a cry that comes out of the loneliness of the Lord Jesus.

There is no man on earth that realizes the greatness of the burden of the Son of God.

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.

But people must understand Him in order to be saved!

But we must understand His message, in order thereby to be able to know the Father.

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!

This means that all the great inventors of religion are liars, if they contradict, diminish or deny the Word of Jesus!

This means that all the lesser religious lights who have led men away from Gods Will are thieves and robbers! (Joh. 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! (Joh. 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?

Here is His method whereby He reveals the Father.

IV.

JESUS INVITES HUMBLE DISCIPLES TO COME TO HIM AND LEARN (Mat. 11:28-30)

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 Gods loving mercy, if these claims are true! Here we must decide what we think about Jesus!

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.

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.

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.

Tired of religious ceremonies, duties, norms and empty forms? Then, Jesus offers you devotion to a Person.

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.