27 33<\/strong>. Question respecting John the Baptist<\/p>\n 27<\/strong>. as he was walking<\/em> ] This is in keeping with St Mark’s vivid style of delineation.<\/p>\n elders<\/em> ] “eldere men,” Wyclif. The ancient senators or representatives of the people. With the chief priests and scribes they constituted on this occasion a formal deputation from the Sanhedrim. We find the earliest notice of the elders<\/em> acting in concert as a political body in the time of the Exodus (Exo 19:7<\/span>; Deu 31:9<\/span>). Their authority, which extended to all matters of the common weal, they exercised under ( a<\/em>) the Judges (Jdg 2:7<\/span>; 1Sa 4:3<\/span>); under ( b<\/em>) the Kings (1Sa 30:26<\/span>; 1Ch 21:16<\/span>; 2Sa 17:4<\/span>); during ( c<\/em>) the Captivity (Jer 29:1<\/span>; Eze 8:1<\/span>); after ( d<\/em>) the Return (Ezr 5:5<\/span>; Ezr 6:7<\/span>; Ezr 6:14<\/span>; Ezr 10:8<\/span>; Ezr 10:14<\/span>); under ( e<\/em>) the Maccabees ( 1Ma 12:6 ; 2Ma 1:10<\/span>); in ( f<\/em>) the time of our Lord, when they denoted a distinct body in the Sanhedrim, amongst whom they obtained their seat by election, or nomination from the executive authority.<\/p>\n See the notes at Mat 20:23-27<\/span>.<\/P> <\/p>\n Verse 27. – 33<\/span>. See on Mt 21:23-27<\/span>.<\/P><\/p>\n Our Lord went every night to Bethany, (two miles, or near as much), and returned in the morning to Jerusalem. Our Saviour walked and taught in the temple. Matthew saith the priests and the scribes came to him as he was teaching; <\/I>Mark saith, <\/P> as he was walking:<\/B> possibly he at the same time both walked and taught, for in his whole story we shall observe that he lost no time, if he were walking by the highway, or sitting in the house, wherever he was, we still find him teaching. <\/P> See Poole on “Mat 21:23<\/span>“, where we had the same thing. <\/P> <\/p>\n And they come again to Jerusalem<\/strong>,…. The Persic and Ethiopic versions read, “he came”, which must be understood with his disciples; for they never parted from him till he was apprehended in the garden. Luke says, Lu 20:1<\/span>, that it was “on one of those days”; and the Persic version here reads, “on another day”: it was the day after the cursing of the fig tree, and two days after his public entrance into Jerusalem:<\/p>\n and as he was walking in the temple<\/strong>; not alone, but his disciples with him, and a multitude of people, whom he was teaching and preaching the Gospel to, as he walked to and fro; and whilst he was there employed,<\/p>\n there come to him the chief priests, and the Scribes, and the elders<\/strong>: the Jewish sanhedrim; for of these that great council of the nation consisted; [See comments on Mt 21:23]<\/span>.<\/p>\n The Pharisees Nonplussed.<\/SPAN><\/SPAN><\/I><\/span><\/P> <\/TD> <\/TR> 27 And they come again to Jerusalem: and as he was walking in the temple, there come to him the chief priests, and the scribes, and the elders, 28 And say unto him, By what authority doest thou these things? and who gave thee this authority to do these things? 29 And Jesus answered and said unto them, I will also ask of you one question, and answer me, and I will tell you by what authority I do these things. 30 The baptism of John, was it<\/I> from heaven, or of men? answer me. 31 And they reasoned with themselves, saying, If we shall say, From heaven; he will say, Why then did ye not believe him? 32 But if we shall say, Of men; they feared the people: for all men<\/I> counted John, that he was a prophet indeed. 33 And they answered and said unto Jesus, We cannot tell. And Jesus answering saith unto them, Neither do I tell you by what authority I do these things.<\/P> We have here Christ examined by the great Sanhedrim concerning his authority; for they claimed a power to call prophets to an account concerning their mission. They came to him when he was walking in the temple,<\/I> not for his diversion, but teaching<\/I> the people, first one company and then another. The Peripatetic philosophers were so called from the custom they had of walking<\/I> when they taught. The cloisters, or piazzas, in the courts of the temple, were fitted for this purpose. The great men were vexed to see him followed and heard with attention, and therefore came to him<\/I> with some solemnity, and did as it were arraign him at the bar with this question, By what authority doest thou these things?<\/I> v.<\/span> 28<\/span><\/U><\/I><\/span>. Now observe,<\/P> I. How they designed hereby to run him aground, and embarrass him. If they could make it out before the people, that he had not a legal mission,<\/I> that he was not duly ordained,<\/I> though he was ever so well qualified, and preached ever so profitably and well, they would tell the people that they ought not to hear him.<\/I> This they made the last refuge of an obstinate unbelief; because they were resolved not to receive his doctrine, they were resolved to find some flaw or other in his commission, and will conclude it invalid, if it be not produced and ratified in their court. Thus the Papists resolve their controversy with us very much into the mission of our ministers, and if they have but any pretence to overthrow that, they think they have gained their point, though we have the scripture ever so much on our side. But this is indeed a question, which all that act either as magistrates or ministers, ought to be furnished with a good answer to, and often put to themselves, By what authority do I these things?<\/I> For how can men preach except they be sent?<\/I> Or how can they act with comfort, or confidence, or hope of success, except they be authorized? Jer. xxiii. 32<\/span>.<\/P> II. How he effectually ran them aground, and embarrassed them, with this question, “What are your thoughts concerning the baptism of John? Was it from heaven, or of men?<\/I> By what authority did John preach, and baptize, and gather disciples? Answer me,<\/I> v.<\/span> 30<\/span><\/U><\/I><\/span>. Deal fairly and ingenuously, and give a categorical answer, one way or the other.” By this resolve of their<\/I> question into this,<\/I> our Saviour intimates how near akin his doctrine and baptism were to John’s; they had the same original, and the same design and tendency–to introduce the gospel kingdom. Christ might with the better grace put this question to them,<\/I> because they had sent a committee of their own house to examine John, John i. 19<\/span>. “Now,” saith Christ, “what was the result of your enquiries concerning him?”<\/P> They knew what they thought<\/I> of this question; they could not but think that John Baptist<\/I> was a man sent of God. But the difficulty was, what they should say to it<\/I> now. Men that oblige not themselves to speak as they think<\/I> (which is a certain rule) cannot avoid perplexing themselves thus.<\/P> 1. If they own the baptism of John to be from heaven,<\/I> as really it was, they shame themselves;<\/I> for Christ will presently turn it upon them, Why did ye not then believe him,<\/I> and receive his baptism? They could not bear that Christ should say this, but they could bear it that their own consciences should say so, because they had an art of stifling and silencing them, and because what conscience said, though it might gall and grate them a little, would not shame them;<\/I> and then they<\/I> would do well enough, who looked no further than Saul’s care, when he was convicted, Honour me now before this people,<\/I> 1 Sam. xv. 30<\/I><\/span>.<\/P> 2. If they say, “It is of men,<\/I> he was not sent of God, but his doctrine and baptism were inventions of his own,” they expose themselves,<\/I> the people will be ready to do them a mischief, or a least clamour upon them; for all men counted John that he was a prophet indeed,<\/I> and therefore they could not bear that he should be reflected on. Note, There is a carnal slavish fear, which not only wicked subjects but wicked rulers likewise are liable to, which God makes use of as a means to keep the world in some order, and to suppress violence,<\/I> that it shall not always grow up into a rod of wickedness.<\/I> Now by this dilemma to which Christ brought them, (1.) They were confounded and baffled, and forced to make a dishonourable retreat; to pretend ignorance–We cannot tell<\/I> (and that was mortification enough to those proud men), but really to discover the greatest malice and wilfulness. What Christ did by his wisdom, we must labour to do by our well doing–put to silence the ignorance of foolish men,<\/I> 1 Pet. ii. 15<\/I><\/span>. (2.) Christ came off with honour, and justified himself in refusing to give them an answer to their imperious demand; Neither tell I you by what authority I do these things.<\/I> They did not deserve to be told; for it was plain that they contended not for truth, but victory; nor did he<\/I> need to tell them,<\/I> for the works which he did, told them plainly that he had authority from God to do what he did; since no man could do those miracles which he did unless God were with him. Let them wait but three or four days, and his resurrection shall tell them who gave him his authority, for by that he will be declared to be the Son of God with power,<\/I> as by their rejecting of him, notwithstanding, they will be declared to be the enemies of God.<\/P><\/p>\n The chief priests, and the scribes, and the elders <\/B> ( <\/SPAN><\/span>). Note the article with each separate group as in Lu 20:1<\/span> and Mt 21:23<\/span>. These three classes were in the Sanhedrin. Clearly a large committee of the Sanhedrin including both Sadducees and Pharisees here confront Jesus in a formal attack upon his authority for cleansing the temple and teaching in it. <\/P> <\/p>\n Walking. An addition of Mark. ===Mr_12 <\/P> CHAPTER XII <\/P> 1 – 11. Compare Mt 21:33 – 46<\/span>.<\/P> <\/p>\n <\/strong><\/p>\n AUTHORITY OF JESUS QUESTIONED, V. 27-33<\/strong><\/p>\n <\/strong><\/p>\n 1) “And they come again to Jerusalem:<\/strong>– (kai erchontai palin eis lerosoluma) “And they came again into the city of Jerusalem,” for the third time in recent days, Mar 11:11<\/span>; Mar 11:15<\/span>.<\/p>\n 2) “And as<\/strong> He was walking in the temple,” <\/strong>(kai en to hiero peripantountos autou) “And while He was walking about in the temple area,” temple courts for the third time in the last week, having cleansed the temple from the pollution of the week earlier, Mar 11:15-17<\/span>. He walked this time with pride, as if He were Lord of the place, He walked with an air of firm dignity.<\/p>\n 3) “There came to Him, –<\/strong> (erchontai pros auton) “There approached Him, – of their own will, choice, or accord, the consorting, collusive trio of Jewish religious committees, who had already sought ways to kill Him, Mar 11:18<\/span>; Mat 21:45-46<\/span>; Luk 19:47-48<\/span>.<\/p>\n a) “The chief priests,”<\/strong> (hoi archiereis) “Those who were the chief priests,” administrative staff of Jewish priests over the temple.<\/p>\n b) “And the scribes,”<\/strong> (kai hoi grammateis) “And those who were the scribes,” writers and archives keepers of the Law and records of court actions.<\/p>\n c) “And the elders,”<\/strong> (kai hoi presbuteroi) “And those who were the elders,” of the temple and of the Jews, the band of Sanhedrin interpreters of morals and ethics regarding the Law, those who later killed Him, were responsible for or caused His death on the cross, from the point of human testimony and influence against Him. Who killed Jesus is certified: Act 2:22-23<\/span>; Act 2:36<\/span>; Act 3:12-14<\/span>; Act 4:5-10<\/span>; Act 10:39<\/span>; 1Th 2:14-15<\/span>.<\/p>\n CRITICAL AND EXEGETICAL NOTES<\/em><\/p>\n Mar. 11:27<\/span>. The elders<\/strong>.The ancient senators or representatives of the people. With the chief priests and scribes they constituted on this occasion a formal deputation from the Sanhedrin. We find the earliest notice of the elders<\/em> acting in concert as a political body in the time of the Exodus (Exo. 19:7<\/span>; Deu. 31:9<\/span>). Their authority, which extended to all matters of the common weal, they exercised under (a<\/em>) the Judges (Jdg. 2:17<\/span>; 1Sa. 4:3<\/span>); under (b<\/em>) the Kings (1Sa. 30:26<\/span>; 1Ch. 21:16<\/span>; 2Sa. 17:4<\/span>); during (c<\/em>) the Captivity (Jer. 29:1<\/span>; Eze. 8:1<\/span>); after (d<\/em>) the Return (Ezr. 5:5<\/span>; Ezr. 6:7<\/span>; Ezr. 6:14<\/span>; Ezr. 10:8<\/span>; Ezr. 10:14<\/span>); under (e<\/em>) the Maccabees (1Ma. 12:6; 2Ma. 1:10<\/span>); in (f<\/em>) the time of our Lord, when they denoted a distinet body in the Sanhedrin, amongst whom they obtained their seat by election, or nomination from the executive authority.<\/p>\n MAIN HOMILETICS OF THE PARAGRAPH.<\/em>Mar. 11:27-33<\/span><\/em><\/p>\n (PARALLELS: Mat. 21:23-32<\/span>; Luk. 20:1-8<\/span>.)<\/p>\n Christs authority challenged<\/em>.I. The challenge by the chief priests and scribes and elders<\/strong>.<\/p>\n 1. The occasion. Christs teaching in the Temple. Observe (2) Though the chief priests and scribes sought His life (Mar. 11:18<\/span>), yet He doth not refrain or forbear coming to Jerusalem, and into the Temple, and teaching the people there, and that daily. Hence learn that we ought not to forsake our calling, or give over the duties of it which God calls us to perform, for fear of outward dangers which may happen to us. God is able to protect us from all our enemies. <\/p>\n 2. The persons that questioned with Christ about His calling and authority. (2) But there is also that which is evil and wicked, (a<\/em>) Their malicious purpose against Christ. (b<\/em>) Their gross hypocrisy and dissimulation. (c<\/em>) Their wilful ignorance and blindness, in that being formerly convinced of His lawful calling and authority by so many evident signs and testimonies of it as they had seen and heardviz. by the testimony of the Baptist, the excellence of His doctrine, and Divine power of His miraclesyet for all this they cannot, or rather will not, see what authority He had, but do now question Him about the same.<\/p>\n II. The vindication of Himself by our Lord<\/strong>.<\/p>\n 1. The preface or preparation to the answer, wherein Christ tells them that He would also ask of them one question, which, if they could and would answer, then He would answer them. (2) Though He does not directly answer their malicious question, yet He makes a kind of answer indirectly, by putting another question to them, and such a one as was sufficient (if they would have understood it) to resolve the matter, and to convince them: hence gather, that although it be not always necessary or fit to give a direct answer, nor yet any answer at all sometimes, to the questions of malicious cavillers, yet it is also fit sometimes to make some kind of answer to such captious questions, viz. so far forth as is necessary for the clearing of the truth and for the convincing of such cavillers (Pro. 26:5<\/span>; 1Pe. 3:15<\/span>). <\/p>\n 2. The answer itself. III. The effects or consequents which followed<\/strong>.<\/p>\n 1. Their reasoning together about the matter, and consulting about the answer they should make. <\/p>\n (1) Though they came very cunningly and politicly to examine and question with our Lord about His authority, to entrap Him and bring Him into trouble and danger, yet here we see they could not prevail against Him by their policy. See Pro. 21:30<\/span>; Isa. 8:10<\/span>; Psa. 2:1-4<\/span>; Job. 5:13<\/span>; Psa. 7:15<\/span>. <\/p>\n (2) See here one point of carnal wisdom in these enemies of our Lord, in that they, being now in a perplexity, do not rashly or suddenly proceed to make answer, but first reason and consult together. See Luk. 16:8<\/span>; Jer. 4:22<\/span>. <\/p>\n 2. Now followeth the matter of their private reasoning or consultation together. (1) God often takes and confounds the crafty and subtle enemies of the truth in their own policy (1Co. 3:19<\/span>). <\/p>\n (2) It is the property and practice of wicked and profane men to lie and dissemble for their own benefit and advantage, as for their profit and gain, or to save their credit with men, or to help themselves out of trouble, or to prevent some inconvenience or danger like to come upon them. OUTLINES AND COMMENTS ON THE VERSES<\/em><\/p>\n Mar. 11:27-33<\/span>. Christ and the Temple authorities<\/em>.<\/p>\n 1. Where the action is unquestionably right some will censure the agent. The mutual bearing of Christ and His enemies<\/em>.With evil intent they open fire. A brief yes or no style of reply may do great injustice to righteousness. They would be greatly pleased therewith. But they were dealing with One who had the wisdom of the serpent as well as the harmlessness of the dove. And so without needlessly rousing wrath, impeding work, or compromising truth, Gods glory and the welfare of men in all ages are subserved by the replies which came promptly and steadily back to their astonished ears. He did not deem it a duty to always answer questions directly and without reserve. The gates were not to be thrown wide open at the beck of every foe. Source, motive, and result were considered, and the nature of His replies gauged accordingly. In this instance He defeated their purpose in seeking whereof they might accuse Him. But He at the same time let them know that both the fact and source of what they sought were good and true. His refusal to respond to their liking arose not from fear of frank statement or of maintaining it. Let them answer a plain question and He would. Fair play. They would thus shew themselves worthy of an explicit reply by their own readiness to do the same. But whether answered or not, they found themselves handicapped by their insincerity as well as moral and physical cowardice. Had they been true men they would not have gotten there. Their capacity to decide on His credentials, their honesty, their courage, were all at stake. It was the presentation of a dilemma, the grasping of either horn of which would defeat them. Among the evils they made a lame effort to select the least. By avoiding a blunt refusal He prevented the needlessly premature loss of temper and its consequences. Without this self-command and wisdom, by undue exasperation, a crisis might be hastened. His hour was not yet come. But how could they help realising that, by such a question, He knew what was in them? How could they help knowing that the knowledge implied by His questions had Divinity back of it? How could they help concluding that Divinity carried with it that authority which they were insincerely seeking to find out? It is His turn now. He questions. They soon stand self-condemned in the light of their own admissions.Wm. M. Campbell<\/em>.<\/p>\n Wilful blindness and its retributive judgment<\/em>.Had they been true to their office or to themselves, they needed not to have asked this question. They had possessed long since abundant means of knowing the Divine authority both of the Lords ministry and of Johns baptism. But their carnal passions prevented them from acknowledging the first; while their cowardly fears, the offspring of a bad conscience, brought them into a dilemma respecting the last. Do we see nothing like this among ourselves? Received truths are disputed; things certain are treated as uncertainties; old objections, often refuted, are revived; questions are raised where the clearest light and evidence have long supplied an answer adequate to the conviction of every honest mind: but men refuse to be convinced; they harden themselves in error; because of their lusts they love to have it so; while some even venture to hope that their supposed inability to believe, which is their condemnation, will serve as an extenuation of their general guilt at the Last Day. How awful in these respects are the warnings of the Lord! See Joh. 12:35<\/span>; Mat. 13:12<\/span>; Luk. 11:35<\/span>.J. Ford<\/em>.<\/p>\n The rejection of authority<\/em>.Those who find themselves vanquished by truth generally endeavour to reject authority. There are no persons more forward to demand of others a reason for their actions than those who think they may do everything themselves without control. Blind priests! who see not the finger of God nor His Divine authority in the visible and innumerable miracles of Christ, which plainly authorise His mission and His conduct, and evidently prove His Divinity. Ignorant scribes! who talk of nothing but the Scriptures and the law, and yet do not perceive in Christ the author and the perfection, the end and accomplishment, the spirit and the truth of the law, as all the Scriptures declare Him to be.P. Quesnel<\/em>.<\/p>\n Mar. 11:28<\/span>. The calling of ministers in the Church<\/em>.<\/p>\n 1. Reasons why none ought to take upon him this public office or function in the Church without a lawful calling. Mar. 11:29-30<\/span>. Christs appeal to the testimony of the Baptist<\/em>.As His words are generally understood, they would have amounted only to silencing His questioners, and that in a manner which would, under ordinary circumstances, be scarcely regarded as either fair or ingenuous. It would have been simply to turn the question against themselves, and so in turn to raise popular prejudice. But the Lords words meant quite other. He did<\/em> answer their question, though He also exposed the cunning and cowardice which prompted it. To the challenge for His authority, and the dark hint about Satanic agency, He replied by an appeal to the Baptist. He had borne full witness to the mission of Christ from the Father, and all men counted John, that he was a prophet indeed. Were they satisfied? What was their view of the Baptism in preparation for the Coming of Christ? They would not, or could not, answer! If they said the Baptist was a prophet, this implied not only the authorisation of the mission of Jesus, but the call to believe on Him. On the other hand, they were afraid publicly to disown John! And so their cunning and cowardice stood out self-condemned, when they pleaded ignorancea plea so grossly and manifestly dishonest, that Christ, having given what all must have felt to be a complete answer, could refuse further discussion with them on this point.A. Edersheim, D.D<\/em>.<\/p>\n Mar. 11:32<\/span>. A prophet<\/em> is one who, standing in the foreground of God<\/em>, announces on Divine impulse and with Divine power truths unveiled to his spiritual perception. These truths, often significant of salvation, it is his office to report for the welfare of the community<\/em>. He receives them in his own higher spirit, unto which, as to, an observatory of heavenly visions, his life for a season withdraws itself, and where, shrinking from all contact with externals, it becomes a seeing eye, a hearing ear, a perceiving sense for the things of eternity or of the future. What the prophet thus receives in the sanctuary of his spirit or meeting-place of the two worlds that he announces through the medium of the subordinate mind and its outflowing speech<\/em>: for in the prophetic ecstasy the three constituents of the spirit-nature, and and , continue in unbroken communication with each other. If he be a seer, he contemplates that which is seen, not as it is in itself, but as it comes to view in a symbol: this symbol is Divinely formed for the purpose, and often accommodated to the mans natural bent or educational mode of thought, being chiefly framed out of materials found in his subjectivity. The prophet is not, indeed, like the subject of the mystic<\/em> ecstasy, rapt or caught up to the confines of the third heaven or blissfully translated into the paradise of God; but from the reciprocal immanence of the human spirit and of the Divine there arise manifestations to his mind in a clothing or colouring borrowed from his individual nature. The supersensuous, which he is permitted to behold, passes immediately through his own into , and thus in the form of speech travelling through his mouth out of himself enters the ears and the of the listening congregation, and so becomes intelligible<\/em> and therefore profitable<\/em> to the assembled Church.Prof. T. S. Evans<\/em>.<\/p>\n Mar. 11:33<\/span>. Christ discovers not Himself to hypocrites<\/em>.That man is altogether unworthy of the truth who seeks it only to oppose it. It is to no manner of purpose to dispute and reason with those who study only how to ensnare in their discourse, and to take advantage of everything against truth. Such persons shew plainly what concern they have for truth when they make use of lies and forgeries to oppress it. Humility does not oblige any one to give an account of his conduct to all sorts of persons, nor at all times, nor in all circumstances, but only to be ready to do it whenever the glory of God and the benefit of his neighbour require it.P. Quesnel<\/em>.<\/p>\n 2. JESUS AUTHORITY CHALLENGED. 11:27-33. <\/strong><\/p>\n TEXT 11:27-33<\/strong><\/p>\n And they come again to Jerusalem: and as he was walking in the temple, there come to him the chief priests, and the scribes, and the elders; and they said unto him, By what authority doest thou these things? or who gave thee this authority to do these things? And Jesus said unto them, I will ask of you one question, and answer me, and I will tell you by what authority I do these things. The baptism of John, was it from heaven, or from men? answer me. And they reasoned with themselves, saying, If we shall say, From heaven; he will say, Why then did ye not believe him? But should we say, From menthey feared the people: for all verily held John to be a prophet. And they answered Jesus and say, We know not. And Jesus saith unto them Neither tell I you by what authority I do these things.<\/p>\nFuente: The Cambridge Bible for Schools and Colleges<\/b><\/i><\/h4>\n
Fuente: Albert Barnes’ Notes on the Bible<\/b><\/i><\/h4>\n
Fuente: Adam Clarke’s Commentary and Critical Notes on the Bible<\/b><\/i><\/h4>\n
Fuente: English Annotations on the Holy Bible by Matthew Poole<\/b><\/i><\/h4>\n
Fuente: John Gill’s Exposition of the Entire Bible<\/b><\/i><\/h4>\n
<\/P>
<\/P> <\/TD> <\/TR> <\/TABLE> Fuente: Matthew Henry’s Whole Bible Commentary<\/b><\/i><\/h4>\n
Fuente: Robertson’s Word Pictures in the New Testament<\/b><\/i><\/h4>\n
Fuente: Vincent’s Word Studies in the New Testament<\/b><\/i><\/h4>\n
Fuente: Garner-Howes Baptist Commentary<\/b><\/i><\/h4>\n
(1) His constant and unwearied pains and diligence in the duties of His public ministry. <\/p>\n
(1) Such as for their high place and calling in the Church should be the greatest friends and favourers of Christ and the gospel, are often the greatest enemies to both.
(2) Seeing there is such unity and consent amongst the wicked enemies of Christ, as here we see, this should teach us much more to labour for true unity and consent, whereby to join together for Christ, as these did against Him.
3. Their questioning.
(1) There is something good and commendable here. (a<\/em>) That they suppose, and take it for granted, that no man ought to take upon him any public office or function in the Church without a lawful calling and authority committed to him. (b<\/em>) That they themselves, being public officers and governors in the Church, do think it their duty to take care that none intrude or usurp any public office in the Church without a calling. <\/p>\n
(1) In that our Saviour, knowing them to come with malicious purpose, doth not directly answer their question, we may learn that it is not always necessary or fit to give a direct answer to those demands or questions put to us by others, especially by malicious enemies of the truth, who come to cavil and entrap us with captious questions, and not with a mind to learn or receive satisfaction from us. <\/p>\n
(1) In that Christ alleges the authority of Johns ministry, to justify His own calling and authority, hence gather, that one main end of the calling and ministry of the Baptist was to declare and manifest the calling and authority of Christ Himself, by giving testimony to Him that He was the true Messiah promised and sent from God to be the Saviour of the world.
(2) In that Christ here implies that Johns ministry and doctrine concerning Him was from God, and therefore to be believed and embraced, which otherwise it should not have been: hence gather, that no doctrine or ministry is to be received and embraced in the Church but that which is from God, that is, of Divine authority, and not from men only.
(3) In that Christs asking here whether Johns baptism or ministry was from heaven or of men doth thereby imply that it was indeed from heaven, and not from men: hence gather, the dignity and excellence of the doctrine and ministry of John, that it was the doctrine of God, and was preached and taught by authority from God Himself.
(4) The dignity and excellence of the sacrament of baptism.<\/p>\n
(1) They cast what inconveniences or dangers to themselves are like to follow, if they answer thus or thus; but regard not the offence of God, and dishonour like to come to Him, by their denying or concealing the truth, and that against their own knowledge.
(2) They presuppose that if they should acknowledge Johns ministry to be from heaven, then they were bound to believe his doctrine, and that Christ might justly reprove them for not doing so.
(3) They feared the peoples displeasure, and lest they should stone them for speaking against John and his ministry; but they were not moved with any fear of God to confess the truth, neither are they afraid of offending God by denying or concealing the truth.
(4) The common and meaner sort of people are often more forward to embrace the gospel, and to esteem the ministers of it, than men of great place and dignity in the Church. 3. Their answer: We cannot tell. This must needs be false; yea, it is a lying answer, containing an untruth uttered against their own knowledge. <\/p>\n
(3) How fearful a thing it is for any to be given up to wilful blindness and infidelity!
4. Christs reply. Because they denied and opposed the truth against their own knowledge, He refuses to give them any further answer. Take heed of this wilful contempt and opposition of the known truth, lest for it God do justly leave us in ignorance; yea, give us up to further blindness, to be hardened in it, as He may justly do. On the contrary, labour not only to know the truth and doctrine of God out of His Word, but especially to entertain the love of it in our hearts, that we may embrace it and yield obedience to it.G. Petter<\/em>.<\/p>\n
2. They who require reasons should be ready to give reasons.
3. Truth should be the first question with men, not consequences.
4. Incompetency may be exposed and assumption resisted for the sake of truth.J. H. Godwin<\/em>.<\/p>\n
(1) Because without such a calling he cannot be assured that God will assist him and strengthen him to do the duties of his calling.
(2) He cannot expect or look for the blessing of God upon that which he doth in execution of his office, and so he cannot with comfort go on in it.
(3) Neither can he be assured of Gods protection in his calling, that God will maintain and keep him against all enemies and dangers.
2. There is a twofold calling of every one who takes upon him this public office in the Church.
(1) An inward calling from God and in his own conscience, whereby he must know and be assured in himself that God has endued him in some measure with such gifts and graces as are requisite to make him able and fit to execute that office and function, together with a willing and ready mind and conscience to use those gifts to the glory of God and good of the Church.
(2) An outward calling from men also, being approved and allowed of by such as are in authority in the Church, to execute the office he takes upon him.G. Petter<\/em>.<\/p>\nFuente: The Preacher’s Complete Homiletical Commentary Edited by Joseph S. Exell<\/b><\/i><\/h4>\n