Estudio de la Biblia de College Press

Mateo 11:2-19

Sección 24

JESÚS RECIBE UNA PREGUNTA DE JUAN Y PREDICA UN SERMÓN SOBRE JUAN

TEXTO: 11:2-19

Cuando Juan oyó en la cárcel las obras de Cristo, enviado por medio de sus discípulos

y le dijo: ¿Eres tú el que viene, o esperamos a otro?

y respondiendo Jesús, les dijo: Id, y haced saber a Juan las cosas que oís y veis:

los ciegos ven, y los cojos andan. los leprosos quedan limpios, los sordos oyen, los muertos resucitan ya los pobres se les anuncia la buena noticia.

Y bienaventurado el que no halle ocasión de tropiezo en mí.

Y mientras estos iban por su camino, Jesús comenzó a decir a las multitudes acerca de Juan: ¿Qué salisteis a ver al desierto? una caña sacudida por el viento?

Pero ¿qué salisteis a ver? un hombre vestido con ropa delicada? He aquí, los que visten ropas delicadas están en las casas de los reyes.

Pero ¿por qué salisteis? ver a un profeta? Sí, os digo, y mucho más que un profeta.

Este es aquel de quien esta escrito:

He aquí, envío mi mensajero delante de tu faz,
quien preparará tu camino delante de ti.

De cierto os digo, que entre los nacidos de mujer no se ha levantado otro mayor que Juan el Bautista; mas el que es pequeño en el reino de los cielos, mayor es que el.

Y desde los días de Juan el Bautista hasta ahora, el reino de los cielos sufre violencia, y los violentos lo arrebatan.

Porque todos los profetas y la ley profetizaron hasta Juan.

Y si queréis recibirlo , este es Elías, el que ha de venir.

15.

El que tenga oídos para oír, que oiga.

dieciséis.

Pero ¿a qué compararé esta generación? Es como niños sentados en los mercados, que llaman a sus compañeros

y decís: Os tocamos la flauta, y no bailasteis; lloramos, y vosotros no lamentasteis.

Porque vino Juan, que ni comía ni bebía, y dicen: Demonio tiene.

Vino el Hijo del hombre, que come y bebe, y dicen: ¡He aquí un hombre comilón y bebedor de vino, amigo de publicanos y de pecadores! Y la sabiduría se justifica por sus obras.

PREGUNTAS DE REFLEXIÓN

una

Si Juan está encerrado en prisión, ¿cómo es que está tan libre en prisión para enviar mensajeros a Jesús?

Si hubieras estado predicando juicio de fuego sobre Israel, advirtiendo al pueblo que el Mesías vendría con una pala trilladora en su mano para separar a los impíos de los justos y amenazando a los impíos diciendo que el hacha está lista al pie de los árboles para corta a los malvados que no dan fruto, si este hubiera sido TU mensaje, y sin embargo el Mesías viniera a mirar los árboles, ¿cuál hubiera sido tu reacción? Habéis predicado juicio, pero Él proclama la misericordia y la gracia de Dios. ¿Qué tipo de preguntas habrías tenido TÚ?

Algunos comentaristas sienten que Juan no se estaba haciendo esta gran pregunta para sí mismo sino para sus discípulos. ¿Crees que esto es correcto? Si es así, ¿sobre qué base está de acuerdo? Si no, ¿por qué no?

¿Por qué, diría usted, las preguntas hieren a los hombres más que la tortura?

mi.

¿Crees que es la voluntad de Dios torturar a los hombres con preguntas angustiosas? Si no, ¿por qué Dios no responde a sus preguntas? Si es así, entonces, ¿cómo armonizar Su bondad con este permiso que permite que tales preguntas continúen acosando las mentes de Sus criaturas, sí, incluso las mentes de grandes hombres como Juan el Bautista?

¿Cómo explicas la verdadera grandeza de Juan el Bautista?

gramo.

¿Crees que la gente sería más piadosa hoy en día si imitara la forma de vida general de Juan, su alimentación y vestimenta austeras? Si no, ¿qué debería imitar? Si es así, ¿cómo mejoraría esta imitación de la calidad moral de la sociedad?

Cuando un hombre está encerrado en prisión por un período de tiempo, uno comienza a ver la verdadera fibra de la que está hecho su carácter. Ese confinamiento de su cuerpo y esa limitación de la libre expresión de su espíritu es más de lo que muchos hombres pueden soportar. ¿Qué expresiones de fe y alto carácter moral revela Juan ahora mientras está en prisión?

¿Cuál cree que es el secreto de la grandeza de Juan?

¿Cuál cree que es la razón por la cual Juan fue en realidad más grande que otros profetas?

¿En qué sentido el más pequeño en el reino de los cielos es mayor que él? Explique cómo Juan, el hombre más grande que jamás haya nacido, podría ser menos que el más pequeño en el reino de Dios.

¿Cómo puede Juan el Bautista ser el Elías que ha de venir, mientras que el mismo Juan niega ser Elías? (Ver Juan 1:21 )

metro.

¿Por qué cree que Jesús sigue diciendo en tantos de sus sermones: El que tiene oídos para oír, que oiga? ¿Era la gente de su tiempo corto de oídos? ¿O simplemente no estaban usando el equipo que tenían? Explique lo que Jesús quiso decir con esa amonestación concisa.

norte.

¿Crees que esta pregunta que hizo Juan fue dolorosa para Jesús, ya que estaba rodeado de multitudes que seguramente deben haber escuchado a los mensajeros de Juan hacer la pregunta? ¿No fue una falta latente de confianza en la evidencia que Jesús ya había dado de su identidad y la consiguiente autoridad?

Explique cómo el reino de Dios había sufrido violencia y cómo los hombres violentos lo estaban tomando por la fuerza, incluso desde el comienzo de la predicación de Juan.

páginas

¿Qué evidencia debería haber convencido a Juan de una vez por todas de que Jesús era todo lo que Juan había predicho que sería? ¿Qué evidencia le envió Jesús a Juan para persuadirlo esta vez?

Jesús describe los hábitos personales de Juan el Bautista como los de un asceta o un recluso, que no comía pan ni bebía vino. Él describe Sus propios hábitos como los de alguien que se mezcla bien con la gente comiendo y bebiendo. Ahora, descartando como exageraciones las calumnias que los judíos lanzaron contra Juan y Jesús (Él tiene un demonio. He aquí, un glotón y un bebedor de vino), sin embargo, ¿hay alguna base de hecho en la in extraferencia de la propia declaración de Jesús? que Jesús seguramente bebió vino? ¿Sobre qué base responde como lo haces?

¿Cómo se dirige la calumnia intencionada contra Jesús, amigo de recaudadores de impuestos y pecadores, en un sentido más alto, Su gloria y la mejor prueba de que Él es realmente Dios hecho carne?

De pie de este lado de la cruz, John Hallett puede enseñarnos a cantar, No hay decepción en Jesús, Él es todo lo que prometió ser. Idealmente, por supuesto, esto es cierto. Sin embargo, Juan el Bautista estaba en grave peligro de decepcionarse de Jesús. ¿Qué ingrediente, común a nuestra situación humana, lo pondría a usted personalmente en la prisión de la perplejidad y le causaría a usted también estar sorprendido e incluso enfurecido porque Jesús no es lo que pensaba que era?

Ahora bien, respondida la pregunta anterior, ¿qué hay en la respuesta de Jesús a Juan que atenúe también su perplejidad, consuele su desilusión o, al menos, la haga menos importante de lo que parecía? ¿En qué marco de referencia es posible cantar: Su amor y Su cuidado me consuelan en todas partes; ¿Él no es una decepción para mí?

¿Es completamente cierto que nunca debemos convertirnos en piedra de tropiezo para nuestros vecinos? Jesús sabía muy bien que su mensaje, ministerio y modales fueron un terrible escándalo para su propio pueblo y, sin embargo, no alteró su programa o carácter ni adaptó su evangelio por ese motivo. ¿Hasta qué punto entonces debemos ajustarnos a nuestro entorno para no dar ocasión de pecado a nuestros semejantes sin comprometer nuestro Evangelio y hasta qué punto nunca debemos cambiar por más que caigan? (Estudie Mateo 18:5-10 ; 1 Corintios 8 ; 1 Corintios 10:23-33 en contraste con 1 Corintios 1:18-25 esp.

1 Corintios 1:23 ; 1 Pedro 2:4-8 )

Rompecabezas de rompecabezas, ¿por qué Jesús no liberó a Juan con una palabra llameante de poder milagroso? ¿Por qué permitió que muriera lo que parece una muerte sin sentido, con una bailarina tonta y su madre malvada e intrigante manejando todo el asunto?

PARAFRASE Y ARMONIA

Fue mientras Juan el Bautista estaba en prisión que se enteró de todas las cosas que Jesús estaba haciendo. Sus discípulos se acercaron a él y le contaron las obras que Jesucristo estaba realizando. Seleccionando a dos de sus seguidores, envió al Señor un mensaje por medio de estos hombres, preguntando: ¿Eres realmente el Mesías, o debemos seguir esperando y esperando que alguien más sea el elegido?
Así que cuando estos dos hombres llegaron donde estaba Jesús, repitieron la pregunta de Juan: Juan el Bautista nos ha enviado a preguntarte: -Eres tú el que ha de venir, o vamos a tener que buscar a otro que haga el trabajo?-'
En ese mismo momento Jesús sanó a muchos enfermos que tenían toda clase de enfermedades y espíritus malignos.

A muchos ciegos les dio la vista.
Entonces Jesús hizo esta respuesta a la pregunta de Juan, Ve y dile a Juan exactamente lo que acabas de ver y oír hoy: cómo los ciegos recobraron la vista, los cojos andan de nuevo. Los leprosos son limpios. Los sordos ahora pueden oir. He resucitado a los muertos. ¡Incluso las personas que nunca podrían pagarlo están escuchando las Buenas Nuevas! John, seguramente serás un hombre feliz, si puedes confiar en mí sin reservas.

No te sorprendiste ni te lastimes por lo que no entiendes de mi ministerio que no parece coincidir con tu concepto de lo que debería ser.
Fue más tarde, cuando los mensajeros de Juan se fueron para informarle esta respuesta, que Jesús comenzó a dirigirse a la multitud acerca de Juan el Bautista:

¿Qué espectáculo te atrajo al desierto? ¿Una caña fácilmente doblada por el viento? ¿Un hombre débil y tembloroso perturbado por el menor rumor de peligro? ¿No? Entonces, ¿por qué saliste ahí? ¿Ver a alguien vestido con seda y satenes? ¡Por supuesto que no! Los vestidos elegantes con sus prendas suaves y elegantes y su vida de lujo se encuentran en los círculos de la corte real, no en las prisiones de los reyes.

Dime ahora, ¿por qué realmente saliste ahí de todos modos? ¿Ver a un profeta? Déjame decirte esto: ¡viste a alguien mucho más que un profeta ordinario! Este es el mismo hombre sobre el cual Malaquías escribió las líneas antiguas ( Mateo 3:1 ):

-He aquí mi heraldo a quien envío delante de ti:
Él te preparará el camino.-'

Les digo esto: ¡nunca ha nacido en la tierra hijo de madre que pueda superar a Juan el Bautista! Y, sin embargo, paradójicamente, ¡el miembro más humilde del Reino de Dios es un hombre más grande que Juan!

Desde la aparición de Juan el Bautista hasta hoy, el Reino de Dios ha estado sujeto a la violencia. Hombres violentos, como los zelotes, intentan apoderarse de ella. Hasta que llegó Juan, sólo la Ley de Moisés y los profetas representaban la Palabra de Dios para los hombres. Sin embargo, si su mente está abierta para recibir esta información, diría que Juan es el gran -Elías-' que Malaquías ( Mateo 4:5 ) prometió que vendría. ¡Presta mucha atención al significado de lo que estoy diciendo!

Cuando la gente común escuchó a Juan, todos, incluso los más notoriamente malvados entre ellos, incluso los recaudadores de impuestos, estuvieron de acuerdo en que el plan de Dios era justo. Lo demostraron al ser sumergidos en armonía con el rito predicado por Juan. Todo el pueblo hizo esto, es decir, excepto los fariseos y los letrados. Estos últimos rechazaron el propósito eterno de Dios para ellos, en lo que a ellos personalmente se refiere, porque rehusaron ser sumergidos por Juan el Bautista.

Jesús continuó: Pero, ¿qué descripción refleja adecuadamente la mentalidad de la gente de hoy? Son como un grupo de niños sentados en el mercado, protestando ante sus compañeros de juego: -Queríamos jugar a la boda, así que te tocamos la flauta y te negaste a bailar. Luego intentamos jugar al funeral. Así que lloramos, pero no cooperaste: ¡no te lamentaste ni lloraste! ¿A qué quieres jugar?-' Te digo esto, porque Juan experimentó una vida ascética, sin comer comida común ni beber vino como lo haría una persona normal.

Pero tú lo calumnias, diciendo: -¡Algo debe andar mal con un hombre así! ¡Tiene un demonio, está loco!-' Entonces llegué yo, haciendo la vida normal, comiendo y bebiendo como cualquiera, ¿y qué dices? -¡Mira ese glotón! ¡Es un bebedor y un fiestero! Desde luego, elegir también sabe a sus amigos: forasteros, vagabundos, nadie con quien una persona respetable deba tener algo que ver. Sin embargo, a pesar de tu irracionalidad, ¡la verdadera sabiduría se demuestra verdadera y correcta por lo que produce! El veredicto final sobre la sabiduría de nuestros diferentes enfoques no recae en los críticos contrarios, sino en los resultados que John y yo producimos.

RESUMEN

Cuando Juan el Bautista se enteró del ministerio misericordioso de Jesús, tuvo que aprender el verdadero significado de la diferencia entre sus propias predicciones ardientes y lo que Jesús estaba planeando. Sus dos mensajeros transmitieron su pregunta a Jesús. En lugar de responderles directamente, Jesús continuó dando evidencia de su verdadera identidad al hacer la obra de Dios en presencia de los enviados de Juan. Luego, en lenguaje mesiánico extraído de la profecía de Isaías, Jesús resumió su ministerio y evidencia para darle a Juan razones para continuar confiando en él.

Los mensajeros de Juan luego le informacion este mensaje a Juan.
Después de que partieron, Jesús elogió la grandeza de Juan como profeta de Dios, llamándolo el hombre más grande que jamás haya existido, el gran heraldo del Mesías, el profeta prometido cuya venida precedió inmediatamente al gran día del Señor. Además, aquellas personas sencillas que aceptaron el mensaje de Juan vindicaron a Dios al aceptar la palabra de Su profeta en obediencia, mientras que los líderes religiosos de la nación frustraron los planes de Dios para ellos.

Peor aún, la mayoría de los contemporáneos de Jesús rechazando a Juan porque era demasiado serio, no lo suficientemente humano, pero rechazando a Jesús porque era demasiado humano, no lo suficientemente santo. Pero el curso elegido por cada uno será reivindicado por los resultados finales que cada uno logre.

NOTAS

I. DESAFÍO A CRISTO A CAMBIAR (11:2, 3)

Mateo 11:2 Ahora bien, cuando Juan escuchó en la prisión , tomado como introducción a esta sección, no afirma que este evento tenga la más mínima conexión con el material anterior en el capítulo 10 de Mateo. La referencia de tiempo es más general: Ahora bien, cuando Juan escuchó ( ho de Ioánnçs akousas).

El participio aoristo no indica ninguna relación de tiempo, excepto la relacionada con el verbo principal de la oración, eipen (dijo), otro aoristo que ve la acción como un mero evento pasado sin establecer ninguna conexión o continuidad con lo que la precedió.

Es Lucas quien nos informa tanto de las conexiones cronológicas más precisas, cómo fue que Juan fue informado y qué hechos específicos de Cristo fueron probablemente el tema de las reflexiones de Juan: Los discípulos de Juan le contaron todas estas cosas ( Lucas 7:18 ) Muy probablemente, el informe de los discípulos resultó la curación del esclavo del Centurión y la resurrección del hijo de la viuda de Naín y muchas otras señales.

( Lucas 7:1-17 ) Los detalles del encarcelamiento de Juan están disponibles en muchas fuentes ( Mateo 4:12 ; Mateo 14:3-5 ; Marco 6:17-20 ; Lucas 3:19-20 ; cf.

también Josefo-' Antigüedades, XVIII, 5, 2). Si solo tuviéramos el Evangelio de Mateo, estaríamos desconcertados por el mismo acceso que los discípulos de Juan tuvieron a su maestro que muy estaba claramente atado en prisión bajo llave (cf. édesçn y katékleisen de Mateo 14:3 ; Lucas 3:20 ) por Herodes quien finalmente lo asesinó allí.

Marcos resuelve el enigma, quien, aunque no registra el incidente de la pregunta de Juan, proporciona la explicación insertando un hecho en un contexto completamente diferente que explica la libertad de Juan para enviar el mensaje a Jesús. Herodías le guardó rencor y de buena gana lo habría ejecutado, pero no pudo hacerlo. ,porque Herodes tenía un profundo respeto por Juan, sabiendo que era un hombre bueno y santo, por lo que lo protegió.

Cuando lo escuchaba, se inquietaba mucho, pero disfrutaba escuchándolo. ( Marco 6:19-20 ) De estas fuentes podemos concluir que en el castillo fronterizo de Herodes, Maqueronte, cerca del extremo noreste del Mar Muerto, fue el lugar donde Juan pasó sus últimos días. El rey títere Herodes Antipas simplemente encerró al predicador del desierto en el fuerte, pero no lo maltrató.

El encarcelamiento, aunque políticamente necesario desde el punto de vista de Herodes, debe haber sido poco entusiasta, porque la conciencia atribulada del rey manifiesta lo acusó. Antipas sabia donde estaba el camino de la verdad y la rectitud. Aunque debe haber conversado a menudo con el Bautista, no se arrepintió. (Ver notas sobre Mateo 14:1-12 ).

En este estado de ánimo, concedió a Juan las visitas de sus discípulos. Más tarde, a estos seguidores se les permitió enterrar a su líder después de su ejecución. ( Mateo 14:12 )

Una perplejidad aún mayor se encuentra en la expresión de los discípulos de Juan. Después de la revelación de la identidad del Mesías en Su bautismo, ¿por qué Juan simplemente no dejó todo para convertirse en discípulo personal de Jesús? ¿Era además necesario hacer discípulos por su cuenta? ¿Por qué estos hombres permanecieron unidos a Juan después de que su amo había indicado inequívocamente que el Nazareno era el Cordero de Dios, el Hijo de Dios, el Esposo? Además, ¿cómo podría estar satisfecho John cuando sus suplentes permanecieran bajo su tutela? ¿O se encuentra la respuesta en el entrecruzamiento de los eventos en su secuencia de tiempo? Es decir, ¿hubo muy poco tiempo para concluir su propio trabajo y unirse a Jesús antes de que Herodes lo atrapara? Si es así, Juan estaría en prisión casi un año ahora cuando envíe esta consulta a Jesús.

(Cf. las conexiones entre los eventos registrados en el ministerio temprano de Jesús que precedió inmediatamente al arresto de Juan: Mateo 3:4 ; Marco 1 ; Lucas 3 ; Juan 2-4). Si los 40 días de la tentación de Jesús se agregan al período que pasó en Galilea ( Juan 2:1 ; Juan 2:12 ) antes de la primera Pascua de Su ministerio público ( Juan 2: Juan 2:13 ), y si Su ministerio en Sicar de Samaria concluyó cuatro meses antes de la cosecha ( Juan 4:35 , suponiendo que esta sea una referencia calendárica utilizada como base para la enseñanza espiritual), y suponiendo que su viaje al norte a través de Samaria haya sido ocasionado por la presión de los fariseos (Juan 4:1-3 ) tanto como por el encarcelamiento de Juan ( Mateo 4:12 ), concluimos que hubo hasta cuatro meses de verano entre la primera identificación de Juan de Jesús como el Mesías antes de su encarcelamiento fatal.

Pero antes de condenar a Juan por no hacer girar todo el bloque de su movimiento detrás de Jesús, recordemos el estado de las comunicaciones de ese período. Si bien pudo haber podido sumergir a muchos peregrinos de muchas tierras en su camino a las grandes fiestas nacionales, no vería a la mayoría de ellos hasta la próxima fiesta, ni ellos a él. Aparentemente, algunos de ellos nunca oyeron hablar de Jesús, incluso años después de Pentecostés (cf.

Hechos 18:24-25 ; Hechos 19:1-4 ) Ahora bien, si Juan no pudo publicar comunicados para distribución nacional antes de su encarcelamiento, ¡cuánto menos podría influir en sus propios seguidores después de que Herodes lo permaneció incomunicado, aislado del centro de la vida e influencia nacionales!

Juan escuchó en la cárcel las obras de Cristo . Mateo escribe qué fue lo que Juan escuchó que se le describía, pero ¿lo escuchó Juan de esta manera, es decir, las obras son las de Jesús el Mesías? ¿O es que la fe personal de Mateo viene a través de esta narración, vista en la elección de las palabras que usa? Si Juan escuchó que Jesús era el Cristo conocido por sus obras, está más equivocado al formular la pregunta que hace.

Porque, sea cual fuere el motivo, ¿quién podría plantear tal duda, una vez que está firmemente convencido de que Jesús es en verdad el Mesías con toda la divina que ello implica? Aquel que entiende completamente que el Mesías será Dios mismo venido en forma humana, difícilmente podría atreverse a desafiarlo acerca de cualquier parte de Su programa. ¿Pero entendió Juan esto? Como Jesús mostró más adelante ( Mateo 11:11 ), la vida de Juan se vivió en una era antes de que se diera la revelación completa.

Antes de continuar con el problema de por qué John debería haber hecho una pregunta tan peligrosa, debemos preguntarnos quién es este John. ¿en prisión? ¿Quién era él como profeta y como hombre?

No se puede dudar de su propia inspiración divina y el llamado de Dios. ( Lucas 3:2 ; Juan 1:6 ; Juan 5:33 )

En el bautismo de Jesús, Juan escuchó la voz de Dios indicándolo como el Hijo de Dios, y vio la venida del Espíritu sobre Él. ( Mateo 3:13-17 ; Juan 1:29-34 )

Su descripción de Jesús como el Cordero de Dios indica una profunda revelación de la misión de Jesús. ( Juan 1:29 ; Juan 1:36 ) ¿Entendió lo que significaba ser el Cordero de Dios?

Además, las profecías del AT recibieron una confirmación significativa en la revelación de que Dios le hizo a Juan en el bautismo del Señor. (Cf. Salmo 2:7 con Mateo 3:17 ; Isaías 61:1 ; Isaías 11:1-5 con Mateo 3:16 )

Hay una gran comprensión moral de su propia insignificancia relativa expresada en la magnánima declaración: ¡Él debe crecer y yo debo disminuir! ( Juan 3:26-30 ; cf. Mateo 3:11 )

Inmediatamente antes de esta pregunta enviada a Jesús, había oído hablar de las obras de Cristo, es decir, así como de su modo general de operación. ( Mateo 11:2 ; Lucas 7:18 )

Pero John también era humano. Antes de que la palabra de Dios llegara a Juan ( Lucas 3:2 ), él había sido simplemente Juan. Antes de que existiera un hombre enviado por Dios, ( Juan 1:6 ) había sido un hombre, y ese hombre, ahora atrapado en la prisión de Herodes donde su vida será trágicamente apagada, debe aprender una lección fundamental de cara a todos los verdaderos profetas.

En pocas palabras, la lección es que una vez que un profeta o apóstol incuestionablemente inspirado ha entregado su mensaje inspirado por Dios, ese hombre de Dios debe entonces someterse con lealtad fiel y obediencia personal inquebrantable a ese mensaje, aunque no haya sido revelado a él . él todas las otras explicaciones de la voluntad de Dios que pueden relacionarse directamente con lo que el profeta ya sabe. Dios no tiene que explicarle todo a un hombre, ni siquiera a un profeta.

Pero Dios siempre dará motivos de fe para que el hombre confíe en Él, dejando lo inexplicable en manos de Dios para revelarlo como Él quiera. O, para expresar su dilema de otra manera, ¿qué NO sabía John? Su comisión divina y su inspiración pasada tampoco le garantizaron la omnisciencia. Juan había predicado un mensaje de juicio, de trillas, de hachas puestas a la raíz de los árboles y de fuego inextinguible ( Mateo 3:10-12 ), ¡pero Jesús sigue regando los árboles, tratando de salvarlos! (Cf.

Lucas 13:6-9 ) Juan no podía ver cómo el ministerio misericordioso de Jesús podía cumplir sus propias predicciones divinas acerca de ese ministerio. Los abusos estaban por todas partes; el pecado no fue desafiado. ¡Se necesita juicio! Juan no podía ver cómo el Cristo buscaba, en la bondad de Dios, sembrar las semillas de la fe sobre las cuales los grandes; se basaría en el juicio final de la humanidad.

¿Estaba Juan en prisión meditando sobre Malaquías 3:1 a Malaquías 4:6 ? ¿Estaba reflexionando sobre los mensajes que había lanzado a la nación, sacándola de su letargo e indiferencia? Ciertamente, la pasión por la justicia todavía ardía como un fuego profético en su pecho.

LAS PREGUNTAS DUELEN A LOS HOMBRES PEOR QUE LA TORTURA

una

Recuerda los gritos de Job, ¿Por qué? ¿Por qué? (ver Job 3:11-23 ; Job 7:19-21 )

Considere la queja de Habacuc: ¿Por qué no haces algo acerca de este pueblo malvado, Israel? ( Habacuc 1:1-4 ) Dios responde: ¡Algo estoy haciendo! Estoy despertando a los caldeos para el castigo de Israel. ( Habacuc 1:5-11 ) Pero Dios, ¿cómo puedes usar viles idólatras para castigar a una nación relativamente más justa que ellos? ( Habacuc 1:12-17 ) La famosa respuesta de Dios se parafrasea: Por definición, un "hombre justo" es alguien que vive por su confianza de que sé lo que estoy haciendo.

Habacuc, puedes confiar en mí, ¡aunque ves lo que te parecen contradicciones profundas y de largo alcance en el arreglo de mis planes! ( Habacuc 2:2-4 ) Hay una dulce sumisión en la oración de Habacuc cuando admite la justicia del castigo de Dios sobre Israel. Aunque significó un juicio personal e inmediato para él y otros hombres justos en Israel ( Habacuc 3:16-17 ), sin embargo, él puede descansar en Dios, quien ES Mismo la respuesta a la queja de Habacuc ( Habacuc 3:18-19 ).

De la experiencia de Pablo al orar tres veces para que le quitaran el aguijón en la carne, aprendió la verdadera fuerza. ( 2 Corintios 12:8-10 ) Con muchas justificaciones buenas y necesarias, Pablo podría haber importunado a Dios argumentando cuánto más eficaz podría estar haciendo una obra sin esta debilidad: ¿Por qué, Padre, debo ser yo, tu Apóstol de los gentiles ? tan obstaculizado? Pero después de revelar el mensaje de Cristo a los demás, Pablo también debe someterse a la disciplina diaria como cualquier otro creyente.

Pedro, después de predicar la universalidad de la gracia de Dios a cuantos el Señor nuestro Dios llamare ( Hechos 2:39 ), todavía no comprendió el hecho de que esto también debe significar los gentiles. ( Hechos 10:11 ; Gálatas 2 )

Se podrían multiplicar los ejemplos de hombres inspirados por la divinidad cuyas torturantes preguntas sin respuesta, que razonablemente cabría esperar de hombres pensantes, permanecieron perturbando sus mentes. Todos ellos, incluido Juan el Bautista, podrían y podrían descansar en la confianza de que Dios sabía lo que estaba haciendo, aunque sus razones no coincidieron inmediatamente evidentes.

El problema peculiar de Juan probablemente residía en sus propios conceptos y expectativas con respecto al Mesías, que, a su vez, probablemente no estaban del todo influenciados por los conceptos populares de la época, aunque moldeados en gran medida por su propia predicación inspirada. A él no le habían sido revelados, por ejemplo, las distancias de tiempo entre la aparición del Mesías inmediatamente después del propio ministerio de Juan y el posterior bautismo de Cristo en el Espíritu Santo y el aún más lejano juicio por fuego.

(Cf. Mateo 3:9-12 ) La carga del mensaje profético de Juan había representado a un Mesías que habría traído a Israel un castigo inmediato e ineludible sobre los impíos. ¡Pero a Juan le pareció que Jesús no estaba haciendo nada más que ayudar a los malvados llegando incluso a extremos impensables de comer y beber con ellos, mientras traían de redimirlos! Por las acciones de Jesús, a Juan le parecía que no estaba cumpliendo el concepto mesiánico que el mismo Juan había predicho.

Así que necesitaba una explicación tanto de la misión como de los propósitos del Señor, ya que ninguno de los dos estaba claro para él. (Recuerde 1 Pedro 1:10-12 ; Mateo 13:16-17 )

Mateo 11:3 y le dijo: ¿Eres tú el que viene, o esperamos a otro? La elección de palabras de Juan implica ¿Esperamos uno de otro tipo ? ( héteron ) Aunque Lucas ( Lucas 7:20 ) tiene állon (otro del mismo tipo), a pesar de que los buenos MSS tienen héteron, incluso állon debe implicar otro algo diferente y no un gemelo exacto.

De lo contrario, un Mesías exactamente como Jesús no lograría todo lo que Juan soñó. El que viene ( ho erchómenos), en boca de Juan aquí, significa el Cristo. ¿Era esta una frase fija, o un término técnico, usado por los judíos de habla griega, al menos, para referirse al Mesías? (Cf. Salmo 118:26 ; Habacuc 2:3 ; Malaquías 3:1 ; Daniel 7:13 con Mateo 21:9 y paralelos; Mateo 23:39 ; Lucas 13:35 ; Juan 1:15 [?]; Juan 3:31 ; Mateo 6:14 ; Mateo 11:27 ; Hebreos 10:37 ;Apocalipsis 1:4 , ¿o son estas meras coincidencias en griego que no prueban nada?) Edersheim, ( Life, I, 668) piensa que no es muy probable, ya que el pensamiento judío se incitó más a la era venidera anunciada por Cristo .

Pero que la pregunta de Juan suena con énfasis mesiánico se demuestra por el hecho de que la respuesta de Jesús, para aquellos que tienen oídos para oírla, afirma definitivamente que Él es el Cristo. (Ver abajo en Mateo 11:4-6 )

¿Eres tú el que viene, o esperamos a otro? El significado de esta sorprendente pregunta está ligado a la motivación detrás de ella, tan inextricablemente entrelazada con ella que una es incomprensible sin la otra. Si bien la importancia obvia de la pregunta de Juan es si Jesús es el Cristo en un sentido absoluto, ¿sobre qué base racional podría el Bautista considerar siquiera posible la existencia de una segunda venida, de alguna manera diferente de Jesús? ¿Eran dos Mesías concebibles en el pensamiento judío? De hecho, tal concepto de Mesías doble era completamente posible para cualquier judío que aún no hubiera visto la revelación completa de la unión en una persona de todas las características polifacéticas que se encuentran en el Hijo de Dios, el Hijo de David. , el Siervo Sufriente de Jehová, el Profeta, el Sumo Sacerdote de la Orden de Melquisedec, etc.

Juan tiene suficiente evidencia para ignorar, o rechazar, a Jesús como el Cristo en al menos un sentido maravilloso, pero dado que no pareció aspirar a las posiciones generalmente destacadas al Mesías por las expectativas judías populares, o incluso por las propias reflexiones de Juan sobre el tema, tal vez Juan llegó a la teoría alternativa de no un único Mesías, sino dos. En consecuencia, Jesús sería entonces parcialmente el Mesías en un sentido significativo, porque Él llevó a buen término algunas de las antiguas profecías, pero (así pudo haber razonado Juan) se requería otro que vendría para cumplir el resto de las profecías. Jesús ES único, y solo una visión de largo alcance de Su ministerio total habría revelado lo que Juan no pudo ver.

Pero antes de criticar a Juan por tener una visión demasiado baja de Jesús, apreciamos esta sorprendente paradoja: el Señor del Universo que viene por nosotros, será tan diferente del Jesús de Nazaret grabado por cualquiera que lo conozca en la carne que ¡casi podemos describirlo como Otro (de un tipo diferente)! Cuando contrastamos Su pasada humillación, Su humilde servicio, Sus aparentes derrotas con la majestad y el juicio glorioso como Rey que finalmente llevará a cabo la segunda fase de las maravillosas predicciones de Juan, también comenzamos a percibir que también creemos que la historia terrenal de Jesús de Nazaret no es toda la historia, porque nosotros, como Juan, hemos visto sólo Su primera venida.

Como en el caso de Juan, también en el nuestro, el elemento de tiempo entre la primera y la segunda venida de Jesús no ha sido revelado. Pero Juan pereció antes de descubrir lo que sabemos, los que vivimos después de Jesús-' primera venida: que Jesús no tenía la intención de cumplir todas las predicciones de Juan en Su primera venida. Irónicamente, nosotros también estamos escudriñando los cielos en busca de ese otro Cristo acerca del cual Juan preguntó al Señor, ese otro Mesías que un día clavará el hacha en los árboles estériles, limpiará Su era, recogerá Su grano y extinguirá la paja con fuego inextinguible . (Cf.

Filipenses 2:20-21 ; Colosenses 3:4 ; 1 Tesalonicenses 1:10 ; 1 Tesalonicenses 3:13 ; 1 Tesalonicenses 4:13-18 ; 2 Tesalonicenses 1:7-10 ; Tito 2:13 ; Hebreos 7:24-28 ; Hebreos 9:27-28 ; 1 Juan 3:2-3 )

Si ese es el significado de la pregunta de John, ¿cuál podría ser la motivación detrás de ella? Los seguidores del Bautista aparecieron a hombres muy dispersos de profundos compromisos como los primeros discípulos de Jesús, Apolos de Alejandría y otros. (Cf. Juan 1:35 ss.; Hechos 18:24 a Hechos 19:7 ) Por lo tanto, la gran influencia ejercida por Juan sobre Israel en meses anteriores no podía ser ignorada ahora que su pregunta cae como una granada de mano viva en este público. Asamblea en torno a Jesús.

(ver Lucas 7:21 ) Si es cierto que Juan y Jesús estaban predicando por el mismo Espíritu, como habían hecho creer a otros, ¿por qué uno plantea este problema aparentemente embarazoso al Otro? ¿Es esto ahora una ruptura en el sistema monolítico que estos dos habían representado hasta ahora? Dos portavoces auténticos de un mismo Dios no pueden contradecirse ni poner en duda el mensaje o la identidad del otro.

John está perplejo. ¿Eres el Cristo o no? retumbó con un significado ominoso. Los discípulos de Jesús, avergonzados, deben haberse enfurecido por este ataque sorpresa de un lugar inesperado, cuando incluso los comentaristas avergonzados de hoy buscan una explicación para esta perplejidad incongruente que desgarra el corazón de Juan. ¿Por qué Juan lo preguntó?

¿Quería quizás confirmar a sus discípulos lo que él mismo había afirmado de Jesús?

una

Un escritor ( PHC XXII, 265) exclama: Pero aun así, sorprende que sus discípulos tengan dudas que aclarar. Pensar que debería tener que enviarlos al Salvador mismo para que arreglen sus mentes acerca de Él. ¿Cuál había sido el objetivo de su predicación entre esos discípulos? Que tema. energía. ¿el efecto? ¡Aparentemente el mismo mensaje que vino a enseñar ha sido tan enseñado por él que aún no ha sido aprendido! Esto podría ser importante, ya que sus discípulos no lo habían dejado para seguir a Jesús como probablemente haberlo hecho mucho antes.

(Ver Mateo 9:14-17 ) Por otro lado, para ser justos con ellos, debe decirse que el hecho de que él continuó teniendo discípulos sólo puede implicar que continuó su obra mientras tuvo la libertad de hacer devotos. a quien pudiera seguir moldear para Jesús. Pero si realmente entendieron a John, no habrían cristalizado su movimiento en una secta permanente durante su encarcelamiento.

Tal vez tendían a eso hacer antes, pero ahora que lo encarcelan por su valiente predicación, su calificación en su estimación se disparó a proporciones heroicas. Su celo por su causa y su afecto personal hicieron aún más imperativo que NO lo dejaran en esta crisis. Su obstinada falta de voluntad para dejarlo ahora, aunque apreciada por su valor humano, marcó el límite más lejano de su progreso y selló su fracaso.

Su encarcelamiento los deja sin un pastor capaz de guiarlos hacia más verdad o frenar su excesivo celo hacia el sectarismo. No había nadie más que Jesús mismo que pudiera ayudar ahora. De acuerdo con este punto de vista, entonces, Juan, encontrándose totalmente frustrado, incapaz de continuar convirtiendo a la gente para que siga a Jesús, envía a dos de sus hombres más confiables directamente al Señor con la esperanza de que Él pueda convencerlos de que lo sigan.

Se han sugerido objeciones a este punto de vista:

(1)

No hay evidencia necesaria de que los discípulos, al dejar a Jesús para llevar el mensaje de regreso a Juan, ni siquiera entendieron su mensaje. Esto no quiere decir que las palabras crípticas de Jesús resultaron incomprensibles para la persona promedio, ya que nosotros, que vivimos a la luz plena de Su revelación total, podemos obtener estímulos colosales de ellas. Pero aquellos que vivieron en un período aún no iluminado por esta exposición de la verdad no pueden haber captado Su significado muy rápidamente. La respuesta en sí misma se entiende mejor después de la reflexión y por aquellos inmersos en las Escrituras del Antiguo Testamento podrían que evaluar las evidencias aquí ofrecidas.

(2)

La respuesta de Cristo no fue dirigida a los discípulos, sino

(a)

Ve y dile a Juan ( Mateo 11:4 )

(b)

La bendición se enuncia en singular Bendito sea él ( makáriós estin hòs. . . .), como si se dirigiera deliberadamente a Juan. Es cierto que este singular puede ser una bendición universal, como lo muestra el comentario a continuación.

(C)

Ni Jesús ni Juan pretenden hacer o responder esta pregunta. Es decir, esta es la pregunta del propio Juan, no una puesta por él en la boca de sus seguidores que expresarían sus dudas. (Ver Lucas 7:20 ) Jesús tampoco pretende seguir el juego fingiendo responder a Juan mientras que en realidad responde a los representantes del Bautista en Su presencia.

(d)

La necesidad psicológica de Jesús—el discurso sobre Juan ( Mateo 11:7-19 ) exige explicación si sólo algunos de sus discípulos pareciera vacilar en sus convicciones acerca de Jesús. La defensa de Jesús de Juan sólo es plausible sobre la base de que Juan mismo necesitaba la defensa.

¿Empezaba John a dudar?

una

La justificación psicológica de este punto de vista es fuerte, ya que un hombre que se enfrenta a la muerte no puede permitirse el lujo de ser torturado por preguntas. Debe estar seguro. No tiene miedo de morir, pero no tiene la intención de morir por algo incorrecto. Mayor angustia que la muerte está torturando su mente ahora. ¿Se había sentido Juan tan desanimado, tan humillado por su encarcelamiento que necesitaba más pruebas de la identidad de Jesús que sirvieran para verificar incluso su propio ministerio para sí mismo? Edersheim ( Life, I, 661) parece escuchar esas dudas punzantes.

¿Era este el Reino que había venido a anunciar como cercano? por el cual habia anhelado, orado, trabajado, sufrido, negado totalmente a si mismo y todo lo que hacia agradable la vida. ¿Dónde estaba el Cristo? ¿Era Él el Cristo? ¿Que estaba haciendo? ¿Estaba comiendo y bebiendo todo este tiempo con publicanos y pecadores, cuando él, el Bautista, sufría por Él?. ¿Había tenido éxito en algo?. ¿Y si, después de todo, hubo algún error terrible por su parte? En cualquier caso, la lógica de los acontecimientos estaba en su contra.

Ahora era el prisionero de ese Herodes, a quien había hablado con autoridad; en el poder de esa atrevida adúltera, Herodías.. Debe haber sido una hora terrible.. Al final de la vida. tener una pregunta como: ¿Eres tú él? o esperamos a otro? ¿Tengo razón, o estoy en un error y estoy conduciendo a otros al error? debe haber sido realmente horrible.

Si bien este punto de vista es psicológicamente posible a la luz de las preguntas que prueban las almas de los hombres, sin embargo, la severa preparación de Juan en el desierto, su acostumbramiento a las dificultades por sus vigilias solitarias en los desiertos de Judá, combinados con la identificación positiva de Jesús como el Mesías por Dios, se combinan juntos para hacer que el caso sea demasiado seguro para ser entregado por la duda ahora, ni es probable que Juan sea desleal o pierda el valor porque de repente perdió la libertad de andar predicando de un lado a otro del valle del Jordán, ya que tales persecuciones habían esperado a los grandes profetas antes. a él.

Él no ignoraba el precio de ser un profeta en una era inicua y turbulenta. Sería una peculiaridad psicológica mayor en Juan imaginar que había olvidado los eventos de no más de un año antes, que le habían señalado la identidad de Jesús, o que estos eventos eran tan absolutamente insignificantes para él como para permitirle albergar tales dudas que marcarían una ruptura de su fe en el nazareno. No un:

(1)

Muestra gran fe al enviar a JESÚS por información, dispuesto a aceptar cualquier respuesta que le dé.

(2)

Quizá dudó de sus propias conclusiones y le preguntó a Jesús con verdadera humildad cómo su propio mensaje acerca de Jesús podría armonizar con Jesús: el cumplimiento real de ese mensaje.

(3)

Seguramente sabía que un falso Cristo nunca admitiría ser un impostor.

(4)

Juan puede estar un poco impaciente con Jesús: un ministerio lento y gentil, deseando que hiciera un progreso más evidente, pero el mismo enfoque de Juan demuestra la extrema confianza de Juan en Jesús: Jesús respondería bien esta pregunta y debe responder de tal manera que lleve a la acción. .

(5)

La última palabra pública de Juan declara elocuentemente su fe desde su celda de prisión: ¡Ve y pregúntale a JESÚS! ¡Él conoce las respuestas que pueden salvarnos!

O quizás el heraldo del Señor anhelaba la aclaración de algo en la misión de Jesús que no estaba del todo claro para él.

una

La inspiración en algunos temas, después de todo, no significa omnisciencia en todos. La posesión de grandes visiones o la capacidad de obrar milagros no anula el poder de la razón. Esta pregunta, por tanto, no es una falta de confianza o de fe personal de Juan, ya que Juan envía a sus discípulos directamente a Jesús ya nadie más. El objetivo principal de su evangelismo había sido un llamado al arrepentimiento en vista del juicio venidero a manos del Mesías.

Jesús, aunque indudablemente marcado como el Ungido de Dios, estaba usando métodos definidos (para Juan) que contrastaban, si no contradecían, sus predicciones. Además, aunque ciertas características de la primera y segunda venida del Señor le fueron reveladas a Juan y por medio de él, los mensajes registrados del Bautista no dan ninguna pista de que el Mesías en realidad iba a aparecer dos veces en la tierra, a veces separadas por varios milenios.

(Cf. Mateo 3:1-12 ; Marco 1:2-8 ; Lucas 3:1-18 ; Juan 1:19-34 ; Juan 3:25-36 ) Si estos hechos fueron revelados solo por revelaciones posteriores, es No es de extrañar que este león enjaulado no los conociera, de ahí que necesitaran aclaraciones sobre muchos puntos. (Cf. Hechos 1:6 )

La objeción a este punto de vista se ve en la excesiva (si no exagerada) contundencia de las palabras de Juan. El tono imperioso, casi judicial, de John exige que su consulta se interprete como algo más que una simple y amable solicitud de información. ¿Cómo podría un discípulo humilde y confiado, como se supone que es Juan aquí, incluso atreverse a admitir su propia confusión interna comparando a Jesús con otro (que viene)? No, hay demasiado mordisco, demasiada impaciencia mal disimulada con Jesús, en esa frase.

Curiosamente, Jesús... la respuesta no proporciona a Juan ninguna información nueva que aclararía el programa de Jesús que tanto desconcertaba al prisionero. Más bien llama a Juan a reconsiderar la vieja evidencia provista por los milagros, las antiguas profecías y la responsabilidad de confiar en Dios a pesar del propio entendimiento incompleto.

¿Estaba Juan impaciente?

una

Esta es la reacción de un joven: ¡John estaba ardiendo por ver algo de acción! (Él era sólo seis meses mayor que el Señor mismo. Cf. Lucas 1:36 ; Lucas 1:56 ; Lucas 2:1-7 ) Absolutamente convencido de que su Primo era el Mesías de Dios, Juan no podía entender por qué Jesús no estaba haciendo más progreso, por qué no reclamaba una posición más indiscutiblemente destacada, por qué aún no había destruido la paja tan inicua como Herodes Antipas y Herodías.

¡Cuán fútilmente inconsistente le pareció a Juan que Jesús hizo las obras del Cristo y no estableciera un trono mesiánico en Sion! Aunque el mismo Juan había predicho las grandes obras mesiánicas de la gracia (Espíritu Santo, Mateo 3:11 ; juntar trigo en un granero Mateo 3:12 ; mostrar a todos los hombres la salvación de Dios Lucas 3:6 ), sin embargo, el servicio real de Jesús parecía toda gracia y ningún juicio, así que Juan estaba impaciente.

¡Solo una sola palabra de Jesús podría destruir a los gobernantes malvados, unir a los justos, liberar a Juan y marcar el comienzo del reino de Dios! Su pregunta, entonces, puede parafrasearse con la expresión grosera: ¿Eres realmente el Cristo, o vamos a tener que encontrar a alguien más para hacer el trabajo? Con este tipo de insistencia, Juan tuvo que presionar a Jesús para que cambiara la naturaleza fundamental de su programa de un ministerio lento y gentil de paciente misericordia a uno de juicio ardiente.

Esto revela la razón táctica de John para hacer esta pregunta y, en consecuencia, su respuesta, lo más pública posible. Si los discípulos le hicieron a Jesús la misma pregunta en privado, no tuvieron la misma presión psicológica para forzarlo a responder con decisión, como lo hizo públicamente. Juan podía prever que tanto amigos como críticos lo escucharían, estarían intensamente interesados en su respuesta y se acercarían para ver y cómo escucharía Jesús. El resultado sería una mayor presión sobre Jesús para que se declarara abiertamente y, presumiblemente, continuara con la tarea de traer el reino mesiánico.

Las objeciones a este punto de vista no son fáciles, ya que esta explicación combina el feroz amor de Juan por Jesús, su total confianza en Su habilidad, su imperiosa familiaridad (sentía que podía hablarle a Jesús de esa manera y salirse con la suya), su celo por el Reino de Dios y la justicia. Una objeción a esto como el significado exclusivo de la pregunta de Juan es el hecho de que la respuesta de Jesús es adaptable a las cuatro posibilidades de una forma u otra. (Véase más adelante bajo el valor probatorio de esta sección.)

Si bien no es fácil rechazar absolutamente ninguna de estas sugerencias, porque se puede hacer un caso plausible para cada una, las probabilidades psicológicas se encuentran más claramente en la última.

VALOR EVIDENCIAL DE ESTA SECCIÓN

El significado de la presencia de este mismo incidente en la Biblia se encuentra en dos direcciones:

El valor interno: ¿Podría ser esta narración el desenmascaramiento de una fábula ingeniosamente tramada? ¡Se podría suponer que el gran heraldo mesiánico no pudo haberse decepcionado tanto de Jesús como para hacerle esta impaciente pregunta! Entonces, ¿qué parte es verdadera: la narración del testimonio anterior de Juan sobre Jesús: el Mesianismo, o este que habla de sus dudas? Pero este mismo registro, que revela la debilidad de este hombre fuerte, no podría tener sentido excepto a la luz de su testimonio previo de Jesús. Esta ignorancia, esta impaciencia es precisamente lo que debemos esperar de quien dijo todo lo que Juan había predicado anteriormente. Edersheim, ( Life, I, 668) señala:

Cuando envió a sus discípulos con esta pregunta directamente a Cristo, ya había vencido; porque tal pregunta dirigida a un posiblemente falso Mesías no tiene sentido.

Así que esta sorprendente pregunta armoniza perfectamente con lo que se sabe de Juan antes, y el testimonio de la Escritura que contiene ambos relatos se mantiene mucho más fuerte al incluir ambos en la narración.

¡Esta pregunta planteada por Juan es también nuestra pregunta! ¿Es Jesús la revelación final de Dios, o no? ¿Hay alguien más además de Jesús con quien tendremos que tratar? Ya sea que necesitemos ayuda para convencer a otros, o que estemos plagados de nuestras propias dudas, ya sea que pensemos que necesitamos una aclaración cuando deberíamos confiar en Él a pesar de nuestro conocimiento limitado, o si estamos impacientes por que Dios haga algo sobre el mal en el mundo, sea cual sea nuestra perplejidad, la respuesta de Jesús se ajusta perfectamente a nuestra necesidad. La perplejidad de Juan proporcionó la ocasión para que Jesús respondiera al clamor del corazón de todos los hombres pensantes: ¿Eres tú la última palabra de Dios, la realidad última, o debemos volvernos a Otro para la satisfacción de la necesidad más profunda de nuestra alma?

Foster ( SLC, 1955, 404) notó otro detalle que retrata el crudo realismo en esta sección :

No envidiamos a esos dos discípulos la tarea que les había sido asignada. Mientras se paraban en la gran multitud y observaban los asombrosos milagros de Jesús y escuchaban su emocionante sermón, les debe haber resultado muy difícil persuadirse a sí mismos para pasar al frente y hacerle preguntas a Jesús que desafiaron toda su campaña. Pero su devoción a Juan y el recuerdo de su mandato en la prisión y la certeza de su muerte inminente, si Cristo no venía en su rescate, les dio valor para hablar.

. Estas eran las preguntas más importantes en la mente de todas las personas. Deben haber sido conmovidos hasta lo más profundo de sus corazones cuando escucharon a los discípulos de Juan hacer estas preguntas. Deben haberse acercado un poco más para escuchar la discusión, porque estas eran las cosas que ellos mismos querían saber.

II. CRISTO CONVENCE Y ADVIERTE A SU COMPAÑERO CAUTIVO (11,4-6)

Por angustiosa que haya sido esta pregunta para Jesús, viniendo de un hombre que, dados sus extraordinarios privilegios de saber más que los demás, debería haber respondido mejor, sin embargo, con inimitable dulzura, comprensión y simpatía, el Señor formuló su respuesta a Juan. . Comprendió perfectamente la tortura del Getsemaní de la que lloró Su famoso primo. Sabía cada hora de angustia que John estaba soportando en la húmeda celda de Machaerus.

Aunque esta pregunta impaciente desafía a Jesús, todo el curso de acción, aunque las multitudes curiosas y críticas con su sola presencia aumentan la presión sobre Él, ¡el Señor es dueño de sí mismo! Con consumada paciencia y sabiduría redactó su respuesta fuertemente sugestiva pero modesta. En cuanto a la sustancia, proporcionó una conclusión decisiva a la pregunta de Juan, aunque no se comprometió directamente con este tema crucial. Este hecho, sin embargo, sugiere otro misterio: ¿Por qué Jesús no dijo simplemente, Sí, Juan, yo soy el Cristo y terminó con eso?

Porque responder directamente a ESTA pregunta en presencia de ESTAS multitudes ( Mateo 11:7 ), habría significado que Jesús debía declararse abiertamente como el Mesías (¿contaba Juan con esa eventualidad?), aunque la multitud popular no lo haría. haber entendido el verdadero significado espiritual que el Señor hubiera querido comunicar con ese término.

La multitud lo habría aceptado como el Mesías judío y lo habría coronado para ser el rey que deseaban. Pero este mismo acto lo habría convertido en su esclavo, reduciendo Su gran misión a gobernar un reino diminuto e insignificante y lo habría hecho dependiente de su concepción extremadamente restringida del verdadero Mesianismo tal como Dios lo había querido. Jesús no pudo haber respondido la pregunta de Juan directa y abiertamente ante esa multitud, porque de haberlo hecho habría comprometido instantáneamente toda Su misión espiritual.

No respondió a Juan con una simple afirmación sin el apoyo de evidencias ulteriores, porque de haber hecho esto todavía habría dejado dudas en la mente de Juan. Cualquier impostor podría haber afirmado, Sí, yo soy el Cristo.

Jesús respondió como lo hizo, porque la verdadera necesidad de Juan no era una respuesta que le hubiera hecho creer en Jesús sobre la base de una certeza matemática. Juan necesitaba confiar en Jesús sobre la base de las evidencias firmemente establecidas que ya tenía a su disposición. Juan no necesitaba en este punto un debate intelectual o un argumento abrumador que lo obligara a tener una confianza impotente en el programa de Jesús. Ahora debe mantenerse firme, confiado en las pruebas ya dadas, y así experimentar el verdadero significado de la fe.

Lucas, en este punto, incluye un detalle llamativo que sirve de trasfondo a la prueba de Jesús: en aquella hora sanó a muchos de enfermedades, de pestes y de malos espíritus. A muchos ciegos les dio la vista. ( Lucas 7:21 ) ¿Jesús hizo esto a propósito con el fin específico de convertir a los discípulos de Juan en testigos oculares? ¿Hizo que los discípulos de Juan esperaran su respuesta mientras, imperturbable, continuaba sanando? Si es así, el autodominio de Jesús se pone aún más de relieve, ya que Él deliberadamente deja que la pregunta de Juan flote perezosamente sobre esa multitud emocionada mientras, todo imperturbable, Jesús lleva a cabo Su trabajo con calma como si nada hubiera ocurrido, pero con pleno conocimiento de causa. que la tensión en la multitud está llegando a un punto álgido: ellos también deben escuchar la respuesta completa a esa pregunta.

En lugar de gritar para llamar su atención, como a veces era necesario (ver Mateo 15:10 ; Marco 8:34 ), deja que la demanda explosiva de Juan agite a la multitud para que se acerque y se aquiete para escuchar. Cuando estuvieron completamente listos, hizo su movimiento:

Mateo 11:4 Respondiendo Jesús, les dijo: Id, y haced saber a Juan las cosas que oís y veis:

Mateo 11:5Los ciegos recobran la vista,

y los cojos andan.
los leprosos quedan limpios,
y los sordos oyen,

y los muertos son resucitados,
ya los pobres se les anuncia la buena nueva.

¿ESTA es una respuesta adecuada para el activista furioso en la prisión de Herodes? Aquí había esperado un cambio drástico en el programa del Mesías que derrocaría violentamente a los enemigos de Dios y pondría en marcha el Reino del Mesías, ¡y esta es la mejor excusa que el Mesías mismo puede dar por su asombrosa falta de progreso en esa dirección! Su respuesta es casi decepcionante para las personas que anhelaban una declaración positiva.

¡Pero que se calmen los ánimos, que examinen la evidencia indiscutible para sentir la fuerza de esta brillante argumentación! Jesús: ¡la prueba de Su identidad es aún más fuerte porque Él está subestimando deliberadamente Su evidencia! Nótese además que Él no envía una lista de argumentos filosóficos por los que Juan (o cualquier otra persona) debería creer que Él es el Mesías único en pleno control de Su propia misión.

Más bien, ordena a los dos mensajeros que le informen a Juan lo que está sucediendo, lo que Él mismo está haciendo. Jesús se aplica incondicionalmente a sí mismo e invita a Juan a que lo someta a la prueba ácida de hechos y resultados, una prueba que más tarde (ver com. Mateo 11:19 b) pondrá en manos de sus críticos. El Señor deseaba ser medido no solo por el poder de Su palabra.

Constantemente señaló Sus obras, Sus hechos que lo identifican como el representante final de Dios. (Cf. Juan 14:10-11 ; Juan 10:37-38 ) En otras palabras, Jesús repite para Juan el Bautista las mismas evidencias dadas a todos.

El Señor no es parcial, dando a algunos una ayuda especial que no está disponible para ningún otro. Este hecho es crucial, ya que la respuesta de Jesús contendrá la prueba suficiente que debería identificarlo ante cualquier hombre en cualquier lugar. ¿Cuál es esta respuesta?

EVIDENCIA de Su identidad y consecuente derecho a esperar una lealtad inquebrantable: los milagros.

una.

Hecho en presencia de cientos de testigos oculares, incluidos los discípulos de Juan, no se podía contradecir. ( Lucas 7:21 ) No eran un asunto de evidencia de oídas.

Jesús afirmó hacer milagros. ( Mateo 11:4-5 ; Lucas 7:21-22 ) El hecho de que Él diga solo lo que les ocurre a los afligidos, dejando que los discípulos de Juan agreguen que Jesús realmente está obrando estos milagros prodigiosos, no resta valor a esta declaración enfática. .

¡Que aquellos eclécticos que creen que creen en las palabras de Jesús pero, irónicamente, rechazan sus milagros, consideren esta afirmación! (Véase el estudio especial sobre Milagros.) La impresionante lista de milagros citada demuestra cuán extensa y comúnmente conocida era la prueba que Jesús había proporcionado a la nación como base para resolver la cuestión que ahora tenía ante Él.

El impacto de esta evidencia radica en el hecho de que los milagros solo pudieron haber sido hechos por el poder y con la aprobación de Dios. Se convirtieron, así, en el sello autenticador de aprobación sobre el rumbo preciso seguido por Jesús. Este solo hecho reprende tanto la duda como la impaciencia.

Para los escépticos de nuestra época es bueno recordar con Plummer ( Luke, 203) que

Está claro, no solo que Lucas y Mateo entienden que Jesús se refiere a sanaciones corporales y no espirituales, sino que tienen razón al hacerlo. Los mensajeros de Juan no habían visto ni oído a Cristo sanando a los espiritualmente ciegos ya los moralmente leprosos. Además, ¿qué necesidad de añadir ptõchoi euaggenlìzontai, si todo lo que precede se refiere a la predicación de las buenas nuevas? No es natural expresar el mismo hecho, primero mediante una serie de metáforas y luego literalmente. Todas las cláusulas deben tomarse literalmente.

mi.

Si bien es cierto que las obras de curación probarían que Jesús no era más que un gran profeta, sin embargo, no fueron maravillas inexplicables desconectadas de un esquema bien conocido de revelación que se extiende a través del AT hasta Cristo. Tampoco estaban desconectados de lo que Jesús estaba diciendo acerca de sí mismo. Como prueba, no hacen verdaderas las afirmaciones de Jesús o sus enseñanzas, sino que son el testimonio de Dios de que sus afirmaciones están bien fundadas y que sus enseñanzas son de Dios.

Entonces, dado que Jesús afirmó ser más que un mero gran profeta, sus milagros atestiguan la aprobación de Dios por parte de Jesús, afirmaciones acerca de sí mismo. Sus prodigios y señales son la forma en que Dios testifica que las máximas afirmaciones de Jesús son verdaderas. (Cf. Juan 4:25-26 ; Juan 4:42 ; Juan 8:12 ; Juan 8:24 ; Juan 8:31-32 etc.)

EVIDENCIA por implicación de la naturaleza de los mismos milagros. Debido a que los milagros de Jesús están directamente relacionados con la preparación de Dios para Su venida, elaborados en los profetas del AT, no es sorprendente escucharlo describir Su ministerio usando fragmentos de pasajes proféticos. (Cf. Isaías 29:18-19 ; Isaías 35:5-7 ; Isaías 61:1-3 con Lucas 4:18-21 ) La elección de palabras de Jesús no es una mera recitación de hechos, singularizados por el hecho que Él omite la mención explícita de Su propia gran parte en esto.

Su recital concluye con las palabras más sublimemente crípticas, que casi no tendrían significado para alguien que no esté en sintonía con las profecías del Antiguo Testamento: A los pobres se les predican buenas nuevas. Pero para el hombre bien leído en Isaías, esta simple frase dice mucho: ¡Reexamina lo que los profetas habían predicho que haría el Cristo! Por implicación, Jesús está diciendo que los profetas del Antiguo Testamento habían predicho un ministerio como el que Él estaba realizando en ese momento. Al hacerlo, el Señor lleva a Juan de regreso a su Biblia para reconsiderar el mensaje de los profetas a fin de ver la armonía perfecta entre Su programa y sus predicciones acerca del Mesías.

3. EVIDENCIA de la naturaleza no mundana de Su ministerio: A los pobres se les predican buenas nuevas. Juan ya había oído hablar de los milagros ( Mateo 11:2 ) y mucho de Su procedimiento ( Lucas 7:18 ), tanto de Jesús-' La presente respuesta no era nueva para él.

Pero era soberbiamente mesiánico y lamentablemente nuevo que los empobrecidos, los afligidos, los mansos, los humildes, los inferiores, en una palabra, la gente común fuera objeto especial del cuidado divino. Esta preocupación por los débiles, los que no cuentan, los que no pueden pagar, cuya voz es demasiado débil para gritar pidiendo ayuda, esta preocupación genuina que les lleva un Real Evangelio sin dinero ni precio, es una prueba notable de su origen divino.

(Cf. Isaías 11:4 ; Isaías 29:19 ; Isaías 32:7 ; Isaías 55:1 ss.

; Apocalipsis 21:6 ; Apocalipsis 22:17 ) Tomando prestada la vívida expresión de Plummer ( Lucas, 203), Los pobres, a quienes los griegos despreciaron y los romanos pisotearon, y a quienes los sacerdotes y los levitas dejaron de lado, comúnmente descuidados o explotados como inútiles e ignorantes, son ahora, por la elección especial de Dios y los esfuerzos del Mesías, traídos al Reino de Dios.

(Cf. Santiago 2:5-6 ; Lucas 6:20 ) Esta simple frase (los pobres reciben el Evangelio) mide la distancia que separaba el mesianismo de Jesús del concepto judío común, y demuestra cuán completamente Jesús estaba procediendo en perfecta armonía. con los planes de Dios.

Varios comentaristas notan que el ensayo de Jesús de sus logros mesiánicos se eleva dramáticamente desde los milagros comunes de sanidad hasta (lo que nos parecería ser) el milagro culminante, la resurrección de los muertos. ¿Qué podría ser más alto o de más valor que esto? Pero Jesús continúa de manera culminante, terminando por estimar el anuncio del evangelio a los pobres por encima de todos los milagros en general, ¡superior incluso al poder de resucitar a los muertos! Si esto es correcto, desde un punto de vista apologético, es muy interesante.

Entre los pueblos cuya literatura sagrada abunda en maravillas inexplicables y para quienes los milagros en las leyendas son la regla y no la excepción, así como entre los pueblos escépticos que han vivido para ver la exposición de falsificaciones y fraudes, se necesita especialmente otra prueba culminante de el origen divino del mensaje de Cristo. Aquí el Maestro proporciona esa prueba crítica. La pura genialidad detrás de Su elección de esta evidencia es el hecho de que, si bien los milagros y las señales pueden ser falsificados por cualquier pretendido profeta, no es probable que el egoísmo humano en el profeta mismo le permita falsificar una tierna y sufrida simpatía por Sufrientes indefensos que de ninguna manera pueden remunerarlo.

La compasión de este tipo no pertenece a este mundo. Se marca a sí mismo instantáneamente como divino.
Aquí nuevamente, Jesús se somete a la prueba del tiempo. Él está dispuesto no solo a señalar Sus obras milagrosas que ya nos dicen mucho acerca de Él. Más que esto, subraya el valor de la estimación a largo plazo de su vida y ministerio. Es como si Jesús hubiera dicho, Mis milagros identifican mi Mesianismo como verdaderamente divino; mi preocupación por los pobres marca mi ministerio como humano en su sentido más elevado.

¡El Señor Jesús entendió completamente la esencialidad absoluta de las tres pruebas de la autenticidad divina de Su mensaje y misión, y Su Iglesia ignora cualquiera de ellas para su propio riesgo! La historia de la iglesia es manchada con énfasis excesivo o ignorancia crasa de una o más de estas evidencias: milagros, profecía o humanidad genuina hacia el hombre en su sentido más alto. Más tarde ( Mateo 15:1-20 ) Jesús tronará, para los fariseos una lección que podemos aprender aquí: Ninguna religión, independientemente de su pretendido origen y pruebas milagrosas, puede llamarse divina si hace que un hombre sea mezquino, inhumano o indiferente. a los débiles!

En esta respuesta devuelta a Juan, significativa por su ausencia es cualquier referencia al juicio y la venganza. (Cf. Isaías 35:4 ) Esta omisión es significativa, ya que Juan debe haber estado esforzándose por escuchar precisamente estas mismas palabras. Su silencio sobre este tema le dice a Juan: Ten paciencia: ahora proclamo el año del favor del Señor.

Un día anunciaré el día de la venganza de nuestro Dios. Pero no todavía. Aunque no le dice ni una palabra a Juan acerca de la venganza ardiente del Mesías sobre los impíos, no sólo se niega a eludir el asunto, sino que se declara solemnemente abiertamente a las multitudes. (Ver en Mateo 11:20-24 )

Mateo 11:6 Y bienaventurado el que no halle en mí ocasión de tropiezo . Hay algo extrañamente siniestro en esta tierna bienaventuranza. Si bien posee toda la gentil persuasión de una bendición, ¡su gentileza radica en su forma, no en su contenido! Expresado como una bendición, su antítesis es clara: ¡Ay del hombre que está tan decepcionado de mí que deja de confiar en mí y se pierde! Tan seguro está Jesús de que se convertiría en una piedra que hará tropezar a los hombres, una roca que los hará caer, e incomprendido por la mayoría de la gente, que lanza esta advertencia envuelta en una bendición.

(Cf. 1 Pedro 2:8 ; Isaías 8:14-15 ; Mateo 8:34 ; Mateo 13:57 ; Mateo 26:31 ; Juan 6:60-61 ; 1 Corintios 1:22-25 ) ¿Qué clase de Mesías ¿Jesús va a ser, si no ser sorprendido por Él es visto como algo especialmente bendecido? Pero la razón misma para enmarcar Su advertencia en forma de bendición en este punto, apunta a la necesidad misma de Juan y de todos los demás que se escandalizarían por Jesús.

Incluso el milagro persuasivo más satisfactorio no logrará convencer a nadie a menos que su mente esté abierta, dispuesta a ser conquistada, a menos que sus prejuicios se dejen de lado en favor de un nuevo amor. Esta gentileza atractiva de Jesús está deliberadamente calculada para abrir la mente y cerrar la venta. Este enfoque es psicológicamente más sólido y efectivo debido a las nociones preconcebidas que los hombres tienen desde hace mucho tiempo acerca de lo que el Mesías de Dios tiene que decir y ser.

En lugar de gritar y golpear Su puño, clavando Su punto de vista (como era a veces el caso y necesariamente así), el Señor usa intencionalmente la venta blanda, subestimando Su evidencia, debilitando Su causa a los ojos de todos los neomacabeos, cerrando silenciosamente con una negativa paciente a cambiar nada.

¿Cómo es posible que Juan el Bautista, de todas las personas, se haya escandalizado por Él? Que no se trata de una posibilidad remota queda ampliamente probado al considerar las pruebas que ya se le habían dado a Juan, pruebas que deberían haber bastado para disipar cualquier duda y calmar toda impaciencia. Juan está seriamente tentado a ignorar la clara voz de Dios que le habla directamente desde el cielo y el descenso visible del Espíritu Santo sobre el Maestro.

¿Qué mayor evidencia podría dar otro Cristo, si estas fueran las credenciales que certificaron a Jesús? ¿Qué en Juan causaría una insatisfacción tan profunda con Jesús que rebajara a Jesús en su estima como algo menos que el que había de venir? Estas perplejidades pueden resolverse planteando otra pregunta: ¿Por qué alguien debería estar decepcionado de Jesús?

El Señor les falló a los zelotes al no formar un ejército de liberación contra los romanos.

Jesús no interesó a los saduceos ricos y autosuficientes debido a su origen humilde, la falta de acreditación rabínica adecuada y debido a (en última instancia) puntos de vista religiosos, sociales y políticos impopulares.

Desconectó a todos los entusiastas populares, ya que todo Su programa fracasó en respaldar las ideas preconcebidas comunes.

Sorprendió a los líderes de la religión establecida, los fariseos, al oponerse a los rabinos, cuya posición era reverenciada por los propios hebreos.

5. Perdió el oído de la gran mayoría por no bendecir lo que querían, no hacer lo que les placía, ni complacer sus caprichos.

Otro ( PHC, XXII, 273), ciñéndose más al problema personal de Juan, analiza los motivos por los que Jesús se ofendió:

Las peculiaridades de la educación temprana a menudo dan lugar a esta tentación de ofender a Cristo. Nosotros también tenemos los prejuicios de nuestra propia educación especial y punto de vista.

Esta tentación se relaciona a veces con el hecho de que Cristo parece abandonar a sus amigos a los más crueles sufrimientos y opresiones. La incredulidad que parte del sufrimiento, más que de un silogismo del escriba, tiene especial derecho a la simpatía y al amor paciente. ¿No caemos a veces en la tentación de pensar que Cristo subestima nuestro bienestar temporal?

Las limitaciones que limitan nuestro amor por las emociones y actividades del servicio público a menudo dan origen a este peligro. Es posible que sintamos dentro de nosotros una capacidad para una empresa religiosa eficaz, de cuyo ejercicio estamos privados por alguna condición embarazosa en nuestro vive.

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 Mateo 11:25). Only a disciple can keep from falling; the wise and understanding, who know too much to accept things as Jesus presents them, will always stumble.

The Bible writers do not provide us the sequel to this incident, leaving us thus with unanswered questions: how did John react to the mysterious message repeated to him by his couriers? Did he plummet into further despair at what must have seemed (humanly speaking) to be the failure of his attempt to get answers and action out of Jesus? In light of the Judge's praise (see on Mateo 11:7-19), it is more probable that he plunged into profounder reflection upon the whole burden of the prophetic message, and, like the very prophets themselves whom he read, bowed his head in perplexity, struggling with the meaning of it all.

(1 Pedro 1:10-11) In a world of limited knowledge, vast ignorance and imperfect justice, ruled by a patient God who will have all men come to repentance, John had to learn what it means to cry: Not my will but thine be done! It required a sinewy, tough-minded trust to hold John steady as he lay in his dungeon, captive, doomed and alone, yes, but blessed, and not offended by Jesus.

Offended. Jesus-' personal example speaks volumes on the subject of causing one's neighbor to stumble. He was the greatest stumbling-block the Jews were ever to know. (Cf. 1 Pedro 2:4-8; 1 Corintios 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. Mateo 7:13-14 with Mateo 23:37) But this beatitude (Mateo 11:6) by its very existence represents a hard look at the probabilities and marks as particularly blessed those remarkable individuals who trust Him enough to swallow their disappointment and remain His disciples.

III. CHRIST'S CHARITABLE COMMENDATION OF THE CONSCIENTIOUS CHAMPION (11:7-11)

Mateo 11:7 And as these went their way, Jesus began to say unto the multitudes. Observe how Jesus permits John's messengers to get well out of earshot before taking up the line of thought that follows. He may have done this deliberately for two reasons:

The multitude themselves needed to reflect deeply on (what must have seemed to them) the mysterious message sent to the Baptist. It is as if Jesus were feeding them in two courses, giving ample time to digest the information, before giving them more.

Further, had John's messengers overheard Christ's high praise for John and reported it to him, this might have tended to cancel the effectiveness of the evidence Jesus gave him. So it is best that they not hear this commendation. Many men are very tough-skinned against all manner of abuse or reviling, but have no effective defense against the negative effects of praise. They immediately puff up, their eyes swell shut, hindering them from seeing themselves objectively in light of that praise.

If Jesus-' message to John contained any rebuke or suggestion that the Baptist were less praiseworthy, then Plummer's remark (Matthew, 161) is to the point:

In society men are commonly praised to their face or the faces of their friends, and blamed behind their backs. Jesus does the opposite..

Jesus began to say unto the multitudes concerning John. It was John, not his disciples or anyone else in particular, who had fired that explosive question. It was John to whom Jesus returned a simple, conclusive answer. Now it is John concerning whom the Lord addresses the crowds. But why did Jesus feel He needed to speak about His herald in THIS way at THIS time?

Because John's question might have caused the multitudes to feel that the great prophet was having a crisis of faith if he is driven to ask this question so ambiguously full of doubt. Is John himself now failing? If so, the people would certainly be tempted to reevaluate, and perhaps even reject, John's message upon which Jesus-' own mission was based. Although Jesus had refused to answer John's impatient demand directly, and although His veiled rebuke might be interpreted by some to mean that the desert preacher is no longer worthy of notice or honor, Jesus immediately corrects such a notion.

Although one doubt, if strongly held, can unmake a character, and although a bossy impatience can destroy childlike trust and humble service, yet neither one doubt nor zealous impatience mean that John has fallen. Jesus leaps immediately to his defense, clearing him of unwarranted suspicion. In fact, He does more: He sought to sustain their former confidence in John and rekindle their initial admiration for him.

Because Jesus needed to attenuate the apparent difference between the view of John the Baptist and His own with regard to the Messiahship. The crowds, ignorant of the real relationship existing between John and Jesus (Jesus is John's Lord), might have tended to misinterpret this rift as merely the schism between two equal teachers. Jesus must now defend the God-given mission of John, show its limitation and its difference from His own mission, and then push the crowds to decide about both.

Note how some of the implications of this text demand of Jesus that He possess absolute divine authority in order for Him to make the statements He does, This fact could not have escaped the notice of at least some in the crowd.

The impatient, somewhat critical undercurrent of the Baptist's question could not help but stimulate people to take a serious, more critical look at John or Jesus or both. Perhaps Jesus, who knows men's hearts could read the unfriendly criticism and honest puzzling written there: Say, John's right: if Jesus be the Messiah, then why does He move forward so meekly, enduring the reviling and the murderous scheming of His enemies? And how could He leave John to rot in Herod's dungeon; When is He going to get this Kingdom of God moving, claim the Messianic throne for Himself and begin to rule the world? The anguished question out of this dungeon turned the multitude to examining the claims of Jesus, since the phrasing of the question concentrates all the various aspects of the mission of Jesus into one burning issue to be resolved immediately without embarrassment or hesitation.

It became an instant issue to be dealt with by visible proof and cogent argument that would justify all that Jesus had been claiming for Himself. The comprehension and conscience of the people was thus thrown into crisis, since they too needed to decide about this same issue.

Jesus could never have deprecated the mission of John without at the same time undermining His own ministry, since John's work preparatory to Christ's coming had been perfectly valid for its purpose. Jesus came not to destroy the law or the prophets but to fulfill them, and John was the last of the great prophets! (Mateo 11:13; see on Mateo 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 Mateo 11:14-15)

Who was John the Baptist? While many had dismissed him from their minds as an ill-dressed, brassy-voiced, low-country evangelist, the Son of God has quite another estimate. With a mighty barrage of thought-provoking questions, He provides a strong rebuttal to any criticisms of John's person or ministry entertained by the crowds.

what went ye out into the wilderness to behold? Why did Jesus begin His message on John with a series of questions?

Because questions arouse in the listeners an interest in what Jesus will say later. An affirmation does not engross the attention quite so well as does a short barrage of questions. Yet, since these are rhetorical questions, Jesus IS making a series of most striking observations.

Even though these are rhetorical questions, yet by their very nature they make the audience take a position about John and about themselves. They ask What was it in you yourselves that prompted you to trek out into the wastelands of Judea? What was it about John that so stirred your souls?

From Jesus-' use of past tense verbs (exçlthete, all three times, translated you went out) it becomes obvious that He is hammering on the folks-' memory of what they saw at the time they originally went out to hear John at the Jordan River. These questions, then, refer to what John was at that time. Further, since Jesus makes no exceptions or reservations about him, He definitely implies that John never has been, or has yet become, anything else but what they have always known him to be, a towering rock of spiritual power, moral courage and unwavering godliness.

It is clear that this is Jesus-' evaluation. The mere fact that the Baptist is now perplexed about the program of the Master in no way reduces that estimate. The fact that he is in prison and is not whining for miraculous release as the price for his trust in Jesus re-doubles the force of this impression.

The Lord's praise for the forerunner and his work, given especially at this juncture, is excellent evidence of the authenticity of the fact itself, as Edersheim (Life, I, 669) has it:

He to Whom John had formerly borne testimony, now bore testimony to him; and that, not in the hour when John had testified for Him, but when his testimony had wavered and almost failed. This is the opposite of what one might expected, if the narrative had been a fiction, while it is exactly what we might expect if the narrative be true.

The Master nurtured a deep respect for His herald, ever speaking of him with generous appreciation. (Cf. Juan 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 (Mateo 11:7)

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

But rather a prophet of God (Mateo 11:9)

More than this, he's the personal messenger of Jahveh (Mateo 11:10)

He is the greatest of the race (Mateo 11:11 a)

Transition to Jesus-' revelations on the Kingdom: Yet he's inferior to the humblest Christians. (Mateo 11:11 b)

So doing, He zooms in on one major worthwhile reason for commending John. Having confirmed it, He used it as a springboard from which to launch His revelations concerning the true office and ministry of the Baptist. But before He could do this, He must assure Himself of the crowd's sharing the same footing, the same fundamental appreciation of John.

A. A CHANGELING'S CHARACTER?

His first question cracks like a rifle-shot: a reed shaken with the wind? Is Jesus flaying their present criticisms, doubts and worldly ambitions with withering scorn and sarcasm, or is this a calm, reasoned defense? Some take Jesus-' words literally; others, metaphorically:

Literally: You would have found many such canes out there in the desert along the Jordan River, but would a tall reed waving and bent by every wind have really so attracted your attention so fixedly as to drive you out there to see it? Tall reeds are the most common sight along the Jordan River, but are not so marvellous as to lure crowds out into the wilderness. The very fact that people did go out proves the extraordinariness of John. People would hardly cross the street to see the kind of person they could meet any day, not to mention trekking miles through wilderness country.

Figuratively: The very fact that Jesus offers this obvious metaphor for weakness and instability indicates that He really advocates the opposite: No, you went out into the wilderness because you expected and found a rock of a man, a giant of unswerving fidelity and moral power in the face of great personal difficulties. No fickleness of spirit would have so commanded your attention. That man dared stand firm against the Pharisees and unmasked their hypocrisy! He fearlessly rebuked sin, though the king himself were the sinner, even when his own freedom, yes, his own life hung in the balance!

The audience's moral sense was awakened. If John had been a man who easily yielded to popular opinion, bending with it because he has no solid convictions of his own, then why is he at this very minute down in Herod's prison? He is there because he would not compromise, because he could not shut his eyes to what the Jewish religionists had not the moral stamina to denounce and about which the silent majority stayed silent, because they were just plain afraid.

But Jesus is not merely defending John here; His attack is also aimed at the weakness and failure of the whole nation. The whole Jewish nation was made up of reeds swaying before popular currents, but John did not sway! Here is written the quality of the moral fiber of his real faith and piety. His was a non-conformity in things that count.

B. A COURTIER'S COSTUME?

Mateo 11:8 But what went ye out to see? a man clothed in soft raiment? Behold, they that wear soft raiment are in kings-' houses. While His audience is still reeling under the first salvo, Jesus rams home another. Again His words have been taken,

Literally: You might have been attracted to the wilderness to see such a man. But let's be frank: you would not have found such a man where John was actually preaching! Dapper courtiers are to be found in kings-' palaces, not in the badlands of Judea. Realistically, a wilderness pilgrimage is totally unnecessary for those who would see luxurious worldlings. You would not have had to go very far to observe pliant, flattering courtiers fawning before Herod.

Jesus-' sparkling figure of speech is the very antithesis of John's actual manner: his austere diet and desert dress and personal discipline, his entire renunciation of self, even in things entirely legitimate, damn the heresy that ease of living is life's highest expression and goal. With no thought for his own personal comfort or advancement, his whole life was concentrated on being a Voice crying in the wilderness.

Figuratively: The phrases, soft raiment, king's houses (or courts) and live in luxury (Lucas 7:25), strongly suggest a person who knows the courtier's art of flattering kings whereby one secures to himself royal favor and promotions. The irony of Jesus-' words would strike hard at the conscience of the wavering multitudes, since they had humbly and joyously accepted John's coming and message precisely because John was NOT a yes-man for any earthly ruler.

He stood head and shoulders above common man, attracting admiration because he could not be bought by royal favors. His unswerving fidelity to God and to His Word drove him as God's ambassador to take up the dangerous occupation of telling the truth to kings.

The crowd knew that John had not yielded either to the popularity craze or to the craving for luxury, riches and comfort. They also knew how many self-styled spiritual leaders were even then bending in every direction of the compass as the pressure of flattery or threats was applied to them. They also knew that pliable preachers and those craving the praise of men and the riches of the world as ultimate objectives do not end in prisons as martyrs for the truth.

The collective conscience of the audience must have been deeply stirred as Jesus poured searing scorn upon their own worldly dreams, because if Jesus is (by implication) praising the very opposite of what they thought fine and worthy of their ambitions, His is a challenge to the most excruciating self-examination. Who among them did not fully expect that the Messiah Himself would be clothed in soft raiment, live in luxury in kings-' houses? Who among them did not aspire to the same sort of treatment?

С. A COLOSSAL COMMUNICATOR

Mateo 11:9 But wherefore went ye out? to see a prophet? After eliminating other unworthy alternatives, Jesus expresses the image that was forcing itself into the mind of His hearers: a prophet! As the Jews had cried for release from their oppressors and the establishment of the Messiah's reign, they had faced the horrible possibility that God had abandoned His people, for the heavens had remained silent now for 400 years.

Almost any voice that cried with the old familiar ring of the prophets could not help but cause the Hebrew pulse to race with unwonted excitement: God has again visited His people! (Cf. Lucas 1:68; Lucas 1:78; Lucas 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.

(Amós 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 Mateo 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:

Mateo 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. (Malaquías 3:1 to Malaquías 4:6) For the Hebrew in whose heart burned Malachi's words, Jesus-' quiet, but terribly significant, assertion must have been His most thrilling revelation up to this point. In this restrained disclosure are inherent three assumptions:

Jesus Christ depends upon the divine origin and trustworthiness of the OT prophecy, citing it here as indirect proof of His own identity and direct evidence of John'S. For what cannot be known today of Malachi's prophecy, we are indebted to Jesus, who does not hesitate for a moment to quote textually the ancient prophet.

Christ declares the exact fulfilment of Malachi's words, pointing to John the Baptist as their unique fulfilment: This is he! (See also on Mateo 11:14) Not only is predictive prophecy a possibility, but we have here a specific case in point of its actual occurrence and fulfilment.

Since Jesus is the One for whom John the Baptist had prepared, He hereby declares Himself to be the Lord God in Person come to His Temple. This is equivalent to a claim to deity on the part of Christ Himself.

The earth-shaking importance of this citation of Malachi's prophecy by Jesus can best be appreciated by studying the prophet's own words in their context. About them Keil (Minor Prophets, II, 456ff.) notes:

To the question, -Where is the God of Judgment?-' the Lord Himself replies that He will suddenly come to His temple, but that before His coming He will send a messenger to prepare the way for Him. The announcement of this messenger rests upon the prophecy in Isaías 40:3 ff., as the expression (prepare the way) which is borrowed from that passage, clearly shows.

The person whose voice Isaiah heard calling to make the way of Jehovah in the desert, that the glory of the Lord might be revealed to all flesh, is here described as maleâch, whom Jehovah will send before Him, i.e. before His coming. This maleâch, (messenger) is not a heavenly messenger or spiritual being. nor the angel of Jehovah kat-'exochçn (par excellence), who is mentioned afterwards and called maleâch habberith, but an earthly messenger of the Lord, and indeed the same who is called the prophet Elijah in Mateo 11:23 (Mateo 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. Isaías 40:3; Isaías 57:14; Isaías 62:10) by clearing away impediments lying in the road, denotes the removal of all that retards the coming of the Lord to His people, i.

e. the taking away of enmity to God and of ungodliness by the preaching of repentance and the conversion of sinners. The announcement of this -messenger therefore implied, that the nation in its existing moral condition was not yet prepared for the reception of the Lord, and therefore had no ground for murmuring at the delay of the manifestation of the divine glory, but ought rather to murmur at its own sin and estrangement from God.

When the way shall have been prepared, the Lord will suddenly come.. The Lord (hâ-'âdõn) is God; this is evident both from the fact that He comes to His temple, i.e. the temple of Jehovah, and also from the relative clause whom ye seek, which points back to the question, Where is the God of judgment? (ch. Mateo 2:17).. This promise was fulfilled in the coming of Christ, in whom the angel of the covenant, the Logos, became flesh, and in the sending of John the Baptist, who prepared the way for Him.

With the coming of the Lord the judgment will also begin; not the judgment upon the heathen, however, for which the ungodly nation was longing, but the judgment upon the godless members of the covenant nation..

But compare Malachi's original words with the uniform NT quotation of them (Malaquías 3:1; Mateo 11:10; Marco 1:2; Lucas 7:27):

Malachi:

New Testament

Behold, I send my messenger, and he shall prepare the way before me.

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

While it may be true (and should be noticed therefore) that all the Synoptics concur on this rendering independent of either the Hebrew text or the LXX, as if they were citing a popular form of this prophecy extant in no manuscript remaining to our time, this version of Malachi's words is interpretative. The interpretation in the mouth of Christian Apostles is not suspect, however, and could be perfectly Jewish and stereotyped in this form long before the Evangelists made use of it.

The reason for this is obvious and commonplace in prophecy; what Jehovah does through agents He may be said to do for Himself: In Malachi's prophecy God Himself prepares to come in judgment to Israel. But even in the Hebrew text (represented in our English versions) Malachi represents God as changing from first person singular, I, my, and me, to the third person singular: the Lord whom you seek will suddenly come to his temple; the messenger of the covenant in whom you delight, behold, he is coming, says the LORD of hosts.

To the attentive reader, Jewish or Christian, this change may mean a distinction in personages between the God who intends to reveal Himself and the actual Person through whom He makes Himself known. (Study what appears to be a similar case in Ezequiel 34:11-24) Therefore, in light of the distinction in Persons between Jehovah who inhabits eternity and His actual manifestation in time, a Jewish scholar might read back into God's words the proper personal pronouns that would clarify that distinction.

Further, since this interpretative translation is particularly irreprehensible in view of the distinction between the Persons of Jesus the Son and God the Father, a distinction borne out in the fulfillment of the prophecy in question, the Christian Evangelists would find this popular rendering especially suitable

The change of wording bears the stamp of approval of inspired men who quote Malachi's words ONLY in this form, providing thus one more evidence for the conclusion we already knew from many other sources: The coming of Christ is the coming of God.

Mateo 11:11 Verily I say unto you, Among them that are born of women there hath not arisen a greater than John the Baptist. Among them that are born of women, as Plummer (Luke, 205) has it, is a solemn paraphrase for the whole human race. (Cf. Job 14:1; Job 15:14; Job 25:4) Who are the real giants of this world? Kings? Generals? Statesmen? Philosophers? How differently God measures the greatness of a man! History, too, gauges a man quite differently.

Who would have ever heard of Herod today, had he not laid violent hands on John the Baptist. Pilate, too, would have been a non-entity, had he not been partially responsible for crucifying Jesus Christ. Further, had the Lord Himself polled His audience that day, seeking their responses to the one question, Whom do you consider to be the greatest man who have ever lived? the replies would have exhausted the pages of OT history: Abraham, Moses, Elijah, Isaiah, Jeremiah, Daniel! However significant a role those men may have played in the scenes of the history of God's revelation, God's Son places the laurel on another brow.

His decision is final and inclusive: There hath not arisen a greater than John the Baptist. In the estimate of earth's Judge, John is the greatest of the race, greater even than the prophets (more than a prophet) But in what sense?

Certainly not absolutely, since Jesus proceeds immediately to amend His seemingly universal declaration. And, if our interpretation of Mateo 11:12-15 be correct, then the Lord limits John's superiority to great men who lived before the Cross. Of those, then, he is relatively the greatest.

His personal character was positively noteworthy; humble, self-denying and courageous. God's interest in John is a specimen of real piety and practical zeal for righteousness indicates that He is not so much interested in counting men, as in finding men who will count! In seeking men who can be what John was, God might be paraphrased as saying, I would that I had as many soldiers as I have men! Though the Father is not willing that any should perish, and so is pleased with numbers of godly men, yet His heart is touched by the concentrated power of a single-minded individual whose whole life stands out in a wilderness of indifferentism, unbelief and doubt, and who is willing to spend his whole life in God's service, calling men back to God.

John's superiority also lay in the function he performed in the Messianic planning. His was the unique glory of being the immediate forerunner of the Messiah. Though a great prophet like Moses and Elijah, he not only prophesied, but lived to see and point out to others the Messiah of whom he had spoken.

Note how calmly Jesus waves aside all other judgments, all other pretenders to the claim of human greatness. A man would have to be God to dare pinpoint a decision so precise, so historically justifiable as this! Jesus-' judgments are so much more striking, because He does not often append to them a bald, apologetic statement of His right to make them. He simply acts in character as earth's Judge, letting His signs identify to men His right to say what He does. (However, study Juan 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 John's greatness is obviously contrasted with that of the most insignificant person in the kingdom, a contrast that cannot help but suggest that, in some special sense, John is not to be considered as being in the kingdom.

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 Mateo 16:18-19; Mateo 16:28; cf. Lucas 19:11; Lucas 24:46-49; Hechos 1:3-8; Hechos 2:1-42; Hechos 8:12; Hechos 14:22; Hechos 19:8; Hechos 20:25; Hechos 28:23; Hechos 28:31; Colosenses 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. (Mateo 3:11-12; Juan 1:26-34; Juan 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 Bridegroom's friend;

Lives as a son of God; Is the Bride of Christ;

For all his reflection, could not fathom truths hinted to him by prophetic insight;

Grasps these truths as elementary knowledge and as part of being a Christian;

Lived under the law and dispensation of Moses

Lives under the reign of grace, superior spiritual privileges

So the interesting paradox is true: He that is less than John is greater than John. John, though a prophet of the Almighty, hence, because of this office or function, would be more highly regarded than the common godly man, yet, because he was fated to surrender his life before the new era of the risen Christ, he would not be privileged to know the advantages of even the humblest Christian. It is as McGarvey (Fourfold Gospel, 283) has it: The least born of the Holy Spirit (Juan 1:12-13; Juan 3:5) is greater than the greatest born of women, who, for whatever hindering reason, does not know the most elementary principles of the Kingdom of God.

All believers in Christ now know the great treasures of revelation given to them by God, because anyone who has lived this side of Pentecost knows of Jesus-' great victories over disease, death, and the Devil. They know of His accession to the throne of God and coming in glory. Only in this sense may it be said that we have clearer comprehension of the Kingdom of God than any of the ancient prophets or even John himself. Barclay (Matthew, II, 7) puts this succinctly:

What is it that the Christian has that John could never have?. John had never seen the Cross, and therefore one thing John could never know was the full revelation of the love of God. The holiness of God he might know; the justice of God he might declare; but the love of God in all its fulness he could never know.. It is possible for us to know more about the heart of God than Isaiah or Jeremiah or any other of that godly company. The man who has seen the Cross has seen the heart of God in a way that no man who lived before the Cross could ever see it.

IV. CHRIST'S CONCLUSIONS ABOUT THE KINGDOM (11:12-15)

At this point in His sermon on John, Jesus turns slightly aside from defending John to make appropriate observations about the kingdom of heaven just mentioned (Mateo 11:11). He seems to be answering the burning question: If John the Baptist is so important a prophet, being the very Herald of the Messiah and harbinger of the Kingdom of God, then how is the time-schedule proceeding with the actual establishment of the Kingdom? To this question Jesus responds, in general, that this is a turbulent period for God's Kingdom due to the violent misunderstanding of the true nature of the Kingdom and its King, but since the Messiah's forerunner has already appeared (see on Mateo 11:14), the Messiah Himself cannot be too far behind, and with Him the kingdom comes.

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

On the phrase hç basileìa tõn ouranõn biàzetai, it should be remarked in favor if this view that the verb biàzomai, when taken as a

(1)

transitive passive verb, may be interpreted in a good sense to mean the kingdom of heaven is sought with burning zeal. (Arndt-Gingrich, 140)

(2)

intransitive verb, may be translated: the kingdom makes its way with triumphant force. (Arndt-Gingrich, 140) despite hindrances of every sort which are raised against it.

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

The correspondence between biàzetai and biastaì is obvious, being a play on words. The energy and the force with which the kingdom comes (or is brought) instills a similar energy and force in those whom the kingdom wins for itself. They are not -forceful-' by nature and thus better than others; but the kingdom itself with all its gifts, treasures and blessings puts power and courage into them -to snatch-'. it all. The trend of the entire discourse deals, not with violence against the kingdom, but with the indifference and the dis-satisfaction that hinder men from entering it with zest.

In a bad sense, the Kingdom actually suffers (undesirable) violence, is violently treated, contrary to the will or desires of the King.

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. Mateo 16:18; Mateo 16:21; Juan 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. Mateo 8:4; Mateo 9:30; Mateo 14:22 with Juan 6:15; Marco 1:34; Marco 1:37-38; Marco 1:45; Marco 3:12; Marco 6:43; Marco 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. Juan 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 (Lucas 16:16) quotes Jesus: And every one enters it violently (kaì pâs eis autçn biàzetai), the everyone (pas) cannot mean, contrary to Plummer (Luke, 389), everyone in contrast to Jewish exclusiveness.

This is rather a hyperbole for the great majority of people who are deeply interested in the Kingdom for a multitude of wrong reasons. They are simply trying to fashion the kingdom after their own preconceived notions and create the King in their own image.

Perhaps it is neither important nor necessary to choose between these two views.
Barclay (Matthew, II, 9) attempts a harmony of these two concepts:

Always my Kingdom will suffer violence; always savage men will try to break it up and snatch it away and destroy it; and therefore only the man who is desperately in earnest, only the man in whom the violence of devotion matches and defeats the violence of persecution will in the end enter into it. It may well be that this saying of Jesus was originally at one and the same time a warning of violence to come and a challenge to produce a devotion which would be even stronger than the violence.

A. B. Bruce (PHC, XXII, 275ff.) extends his harmonic attempt even further:

The storming of the kingdom.In employing words suggesting the idea of violence, Jesus, though certainly not intending to express personal disapproval, did mean to point at features of the new movement which made it an object of aversion, astonishment, or at least of doubt, to others. It may be well to particularize some aspects of the work of the kingdom which would, not unnaturally wear an aspect of violence to minds not able to regard them with Christ's eyes, though to Christ Himself they were the bright and hopeful side of an evil time.

We may mention, first, that which most readily occurs to one's thoughts, viz. the passionate earnestness with which men sought to get into the kingdom, heralded by John and preached by Jesus; an earnestness not free from questionable elements, as few popular enthusiasms are; associated with misconceptions of the nature of the kingdom, and, in many cases, fervent rather than deep, therefore likely to prove transientstill a powerful, impressive, august movement of the human soul God-wards. (See Lucas 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 Mateo 11:12 and Mateo 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 (Lucas 16:16) on this same subject, wrote:

The law and the prophets were until John; since then the good news of the kingdom of God is preached, and every one enters it violently.

Be this an exact parallel or not, this is the finest interpretation of our text. The days of John the Baptist are no longer a period of prophesying in the classical sense, i.e. predictive description of great events in the distant future, because John's appearance ushered in a transition period of announcement of the near arrival of the Kingdom of God itself. Until John, as a phrase describing the authoritative prophetic revelations of the mind of God, marks a definite end to this function, inasmuch as that for which all the prophets and the law had made preparation, has now begun to arrive.

Luke's expression (Lucas 16:16) must mean, then, that John's revelations and Jesus-' preaching (prior to His ascension) were intended to be a description of the nature and citizenship of the Kingdom and the identification of the King, since the actual ascension to the throne of God did not take place during Jesus-' earthly sojourn.

Throughout the ministry of Jesus we will notice various occasions on which Jesus made drastic, far-reaching changes in fundamental concepts that were integral parts of Mosaic Law. (See on Mateo 9:14-17; Mateo 12:1-14; cf.

Marco 7:19; Juan 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 Mateo 28:19-20; Lucas 24:46-47; Hechos 1:3-8; and the special study The Coming of the Son of Man after Mateo 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 (Mateo 11:13) is intended as further explication of the superior greatness of the least in the kingdom of God. The prophets and the law, including John's ministry, represented a ministry of anticipation, not one of personal experience of the things prophesied.

Just five minutes of real experience of the thing awaited is worth so much more than all the centuries of anticipating it. So it is that anyone, even the most hesitant beginner in the Kingdom walks in more actual light that was available in all the long centuries before Jesus completed His revelation. There were facts that the Law, prophets and John could not know, methods they could not fathom, primarily due to their individual position in the progress of the revelation up to their time.

Mateo 11:14 And if ye are willing to receive it, this is Elijah, that is to come. In this seemingly obscure verse, lying half-hidden among so much more famous material, rests the most fundamental issue of real religion and, ultimately, the judgment of the race: if you are willing to receive it. The willingness to be taught is the key of this entire chapter, the crux of John's problem, (Mateo 11:1-6) the failure of the Jewish people in general (Mateo 11:16-19) and the favored cities in particular (Mateo 11:20), and finally, the only way to grasp God's revelation (Mateo 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. (Juan 5:40; Juan 7:17; Mateo 23:37; Apocalipsis 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 Mateo 11:15 demonstrates.

This is Elijah, that is to come. Reference here is Malachi's prediction (Mateo 3:1; Mateo 4:5-6) that, in a period destitute of faith and true fear of Jehovah, God would raise up a prophet who would lead the ungodly generation back to the God of the fathers.

The appearance of this great prophet must shortly precede some great and terrible day of the Lord who will come with terrible judgment upon the nation. But Malachi named that great messenger Elijah the prophet. It was at this point that the Jewish interpreter's problem arose: does Malachi mean that Elijah himself, who had been caught up to heaven, would personally reappear on earth, or that someone else who because of his power and energy with which that future prophet would labor, would call to mind the vigorous old Tishbite? Is Malachi speaking literally or metaphorically? (That coming prophet will be another -Elijah.

-') Most of the rabbis had apparently opted for the literal interpretation. (Cf. Juan 1:21; Mateo 17:10) For a rapid survey of rabbinic traditions about Elijah, the forerunner of the Messiah, see Edersheim's Life, Vol. II, Appendix VIII, 706ff.

The apologetic nature of Edersheim's article renders it extremely valuable in that he shows the wide divergence between the commonly held Jewish views about the coming Elijah, and the actual Christian Elijah seen in John the Baptist. This divergency of theory and reality once more demonstrates the fundamental difference between Judaism and the true origins of the message and views of Christ. Though Christianity was born in the bosom of Judaism, the secret of her life lay in her divine message from God, not in the perfection here and there of rabbinic views. But that the literal view was not necessary, is illustrated by Keil (Minor Prophets, II, 47Iff.):

But this view is proved to be erroneous by such passages as Oseas 3:5; Ezequiel 34:23; Ezequiel 37:24, and Jeremias 30:9, where the sending of David the king as the true shepherd of Israel is promised.

Just as in these passages we cannot think of the return or resurrection of the David who had long been dead; but a king is meant who will reign over the nation of God in the mind and spirit of David; so the Elijah to be sent can only be a prophet with the spirit or power of Elijah the Tishbite. The second David was indeed to spring from the family of David, because to the seed of David there had been promised the eternal possession of the throne.

The prophetic calling, on the other hand, was not hereditary in the prophet's house, but rested solely upon divine choice and endowment with the Spirit of God; and consequently by Elijah we are not to understand a lineal descendent of the Tishbite, but simply a prophet in whom the spirit and power of Elijah are revived.

Keil's argument is not conclusive, since he argues from analogy, but the value of an argument from analogy is that it shows the possible existence of what seems to be a parallel case, which, in turn, should have teased Jewish minds into looking for other, different evidence that would prove the figurative nature of the great Elijah prophecy.

In all fairness to the Jews it must be remembered that God might not have given any other evidence that would have solved the quandary before its actual fulfillment with the appearance of John. Also, if the rabbinic representatives from Jerusalem knew John the Baptist's personal name to be John, then why did they ask him if he were Elijah? (Cf. Juan 1:21) Did they suppose him to have two names, the one commonly known to all, the other to be revealed at some future moment? Their question, as interpreted by John himself, cannot be construed as a concession to the figurative view, since he obviously understands them to mean, Are you Elijah in person come back to earth in the flesh? and answers them accordingly.

He is Elijah (autòs estin Elìas), not literally, but indeed the person intended by Malachi. The angel who announced John's conception promised: He will go before (the Lord their God) in the spirit and power of Elijah. (Lucas 1:17) With this dramatic assertation Jesus intends to say two things:

Malachi's prediction has been fulfilled. Any argument that Jesus could not be the Messiah, based on the assumption that Elijah must first come before the appearance of the Christ and that he had not done so, is hereby rendered invalid. The long-awaited Elijah had indeed come in the person and ministry of John the Baptist.

As a necessary consequence of this fulfillment of the great Elijah prophecy by John, the Kingdom of God must shortly appear in the person of the Christ Himself who would usher in the Messianic age. Further, since John's great question had centered around the identity and mission of the Messiah and Jesus-' answer clustered together proofs of His divine identity in the works of the Messiah, Jesus-' audience should have been able to conclude, without His asserting it, that Jesus of Nazareth is indeed the Christ, and should therefore be believed for what He says about the Kingdom.

So it was that the coming of John presaged the conclusion of the OT era, since the Messiah was sure to be right behind the appearance of the coming Elijah.

But to take John seriously by recognizing him as the Elijah predicted by Malachi would mean that people would have to admit John's right to preach his unwelcome truth. Not only had he demanded repentance and conduct consistent with it, not only had he denied that physical descent from Abraham could give special rights to admission into God's Kingdom, but he had distinctly pointed out Jesus as God's Son, God's Lamb to take away the world's sin. So, to take John seriously demands of the multitudes that they take Jesus seriously.

Mateo 11:15 He that hath ears to hear, let him hear. This exclamation implies the willful guilt of people whose ears were made to hear and understand what Jesus had been saying, but were deliberately inattentive. Sensing how much would instantly be lost through inattention and how much trouble afterwards the Jews would bring upon themselves by not having listened to Him, the Lord pleads with them to fix these ideas firmly in mind.

This psychological attention-getter is good oratory, but more than this, it is a passionate cry for a hearing, arising as it does in the breast of Israel's truest Son. He sees not only the immediate information drain that their neglect of His revelation would foster. He could discern the outcome that only the final judgment would reveal.

This is amply demonstrated by the fact that Luke (Lucas 7:29-30) inserts here the following theological comment:

When they heard this all the people and the tax collectors justified God, having been baptized with the baptism of John; but the Pharisees and the lawyers rejected the purpose of God for themselves, not having been baptized by him.

Two small problems of interpretation arise:

Is this a parenthetical remark by the Evangelist himself, inserted into the middle of Christ's words without any indication that it is a comment of Luke's own, or is this a part of Christ's message on John? The remark itself seems to begin as a mere historical notice, but almost instantly becomes highly theological, too theological, in fact, to be merely a historical allusion reported by Luke. Further, there is no possible way of excising it from Jesus-' own words, inasmuch as Luke uses no device so to distinguish it. Because of its meaning, it fits admirably into Jesus-' own argument.

What is the exact historical allusion here? What was it that the people heard? When did they hear it? And when did they justify God? In answer it should be noticed that in Luke's Greek sentence, no object is specified (kaì pâs ho laòs akoùsas kaì hoi telônai edikaìõsan.), being left to be supplied by seeing what caused the people to act as they did. The question as to the time when they heard it is also relative to their obedience by which they justified God, i.e. when they were baptized by John.

All the people, the tax collectors, the harlots (see Mateo 21:31-32) on the one hand, the Pharisees and the lawyers on the otherall had heard the preaching of the Baptist. For the former, their accepting John's message and his baptism meant their acknowledgement of God's justice in making these claims upon them.

For the latter, their haughty refusal to repent meant the frustration of God's purpose to save them by granting them the opportunity to repent. God's counsel had been delivered by his humble servant John, but the proud Pharisees had, in their rejection of the servant, also rejected John's Lord and there would be no escaping His wrath. (Mateo 21:31-32; Mateo 23:33)

This passage, while coming before the stated conclusion of this section (Wisdom is justified by her deeds), surely serves as a fitting illustration and commentary upon that principle. Those who had rejected John could justify themselves and their conduct by the slander that no thinking man would follow a mad-man like John. Likewise, they were able to dismiss Jesus, justifying themselves all the while.

(Ironically, those who accepted God's messenger are described as justifying God!) In each case they considered the results of their decisions to be satisfactory, since in neither case did they have to make any changes in their present conduct. Unfortunately, however, it is possible for the pragmatic test to fail badly, especially if one decides on the workability of a given conclusion before all the evidence is in.

Worse yet, thinking that all the evidence has been weighed, when in reality one has seen only a small portion of it, will deceive one into relaxing, confident of his own wisdom. But the far-sighted Lord looks into the judgments of eternity and declares the final verdict on these choices made on earth: The people, the tax collectors justified God; the Pharisees and lawyers rejected and frustrated the purpose of God for themselves! (Cf.

Proverbios 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 (Romanos 12:16 b), i.e. so sure of our own conclusions that we no longer remain open to correction by the force of the evidence that is offered us to cause us to change.

The so-called ignorant masses, the notorious sinners admitted that God was right, knew that they needed whole-souled moral reformation and did what was necessary to begin it. They did not choke on their respectability and rationalizations, as did the learned doctors of the law. Jesus-' observation merely puts into words John's experience (and that of any other experienced personal evangelist): One just cannot save those who, determinedly unaware of their peril, refuse to be rescued.

V. CHRIST CONDEMNS THE CONTRARY CRITICS-' CONTEMPTUOUS CARICATURES (11:16-19)

A master speaker, Jesus outlines this portion of His message on John thus: First, He describes a picture easily understood by any parent or child in His audience, making a brief parable of it by saying, This generation is like this. Next, the Lord supplies two antithetic illustrations of the parable's meaning. Concluding this portion of His message, He enunciates a principle that not only rightly concludes the foregoing remarks, but also becomes a subtle warning to those who were guilty of repeating the very insults Jesus brings into the open here. The principle becomes also the test by which any man who has not yet decided about John and Jesus may come to a right conclusion.

A. A CAMEO (11:16, 17)

Mateo 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 Mateo 11:18 and Mateo 11:19 are Jesus-' own application of this germ-parable, since He begins the application with a conjunction used to express cause, inference, or to explain: For (gàr). But Jesus-' order in those verses must be noticed, since He mentions John first and then Himself.

Is the Lord Himself following a normal order, applying the first part of His parable, then the second, or is He, on the other hand, reversing the application hence, using a chiastic order? Graphically, the problem is this:

The problem is just when do we apply the chiasm to determine Jesus-' meaning behind His story? Do we take His application and use it to interpret the parts of His story, even if it requires a chiastic order? Or do we interpret first the story and then go on to Jesus-' application? Or, to put the problem another way, who is doing the piping and to whom? who wails and to whom? There are two groups of children who try to suggest games to their playmates (Cf. Matthew's tôis betérois and Luke's allélois). Which children are here blamed by Jesus? Commentators suggest two ways:

Following the normal order of the text, the neighborhood children playing in the square, who pettishly criticize their companions, are the Jews. John had come to them with his severe mode of life and his stern call to repentance, but they demand that he drop his austerity and join them in the gaiety of festive occasions. When it became clear that he refused to surrender his ascetic severity, they petulantly nag him: We piped to you and you did not dance! Accordingly, when Jesus appeared among them as a normal individual with a wholesome enjoyment of life, who could delight in a pleasant meal and relish the company of any person, the Jews contended that He ought to be playing at funerals, i.

e. fasting (cf. Mateo 9:14), rigorous Sabbath observance (cf. Mateo 12:1-14; Juan 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. Lucas 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 (Mateo 11:18-19), but also in order of John's 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 children's plural ye refers to John and Jesus as a group of two, while the specific complaints refer first to the one and then the other. Consider Edersheim's (Life, I, 670) comment:

The children of that generation expected quite another Elijah and quite another Christ, and disbelieved and complained, because the real Elijah and Christ did not meet their foolish thoughts.. -We have expected Messianic glory and national exaltation, and ye have not responded (-we have piped unto you, and ye have not danced-'); we have looked for deliverance from our national sufferings, and they stirred not your sympathies nor brought your help (-we have mourned to you, and ye have not lamented.-')

Or, if we may not read so much into the children's expressions as Edersheim feels to be there, at least we may hear them complaining to God's messengers as a group, first to John and then to Jesus. This would allow the plural to stand.

Following the chiastic order (i.e. applying first what came second in the story, and what came first, second, thus forming an X or Greek Chi, rather than parallels), we see the children, who suggest to the others to play with them first joyously and also at mournful games, stand for Jesus and John. Their fellows, who contrarily resist becoming involved in either game are the Jews who follow the lead of their own religious hierarchy.

(Cf. Lucas 7:29-30) The quoted words then become those of John and Jesus, taken as a committee of two, representing God's call to righteousness: Whatever our approachwhether deep-felt sorrow for sin or the joyous freedom of the Gospelyou refused both.

This interpretation has

(1)

the advantage of harmonizing more satisfactorily the plural pronouns, we and you, since they much more suitably describe two well-defined groups, whereas the other view tries to apply these plurals to individuals.

(2)

the advantage of reflecting the historic facts involved. It is McGarvey (Fourfold Gospel, 285) who notes that it was

God in His messengersHis prophets and His Sonwho came to set the world right. It was these messengers who took the initiative and who demanded the changes. It was the people who sulked and refused to comply with the divine overtures. The whole tenor of Christ's teachingthe parables of the suppers, etc.represents the Jews as being invited and refusing the invitation. It was John and Jesus who preached repentance, but there is no instance where any called on them to (change).

(3)

Though the story does not follow the chronological appearance of first John, and then Jesus, as does the application in either view (Mateo 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.

(Lucas 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. Mateo 12:39; Mateo 12:41; Mateo 12:45; Mateo 16:4; Mateo 17:17; [Mateo 23:36; Mateo 24:34?]; Marco 8:38; Marco 9:19; Lucas 9:41; Lucas 11:29-32; Lucas 17:25; see also Hechos 2:40; Filipenses 2:15; Hebreos 3:10), one would wonder how it be justifiable to think of His having included Himself here. The answer may be that the men of this generation create the same sort of situation as that faced by children playing in the marketplace who scold their fickle playmates.

Despite the tortuous attempt at getting at the proper interpretation of Jesus-' parable, its meaning is evident. It is a picture of that selfish stubbornness, or stubborn selfishness, that always wants its own way. The Pharisees, scribes and their followers were fundamentally unwilling to act upon the ideas and leadership of another. They wanted to rule, not surrender the government of their lives.

This is the basic explanation for their exterior fickleness and is the cause of it. They could not be satisfied with what was offered, not because of the character of the game suggested, but because they were determined to make no response. When this is the case, people sit sullenly and obstinately unresponsive, regardless of what offer is made them. Barclay reminds us that

The plain fact is that when people do not want to listen to the truth, they will easily enough find an excuse for not listening to it. They do not even try to be consistent in their criticisms; they will criticize the same person and the same institution from quite opposite grounds and reasons.

The fault of the people's dissatisfaction lay, not in the fact that Jesus or John offered questionable alternatives, but in the fact that anything that varied from the preconceived notions of their detractors was suspect. Thus it was easy to question whether John be a real prophet of God, or whether Jesus be the Christ, since neither neatly fit into the common prejudices.

This simple illustration brilliantly demonstrates how shrewd a grasp Jesus had of His age. The smiling, applauding crowds did not deceive Him. Although He did not intentionally annoy them by refusing to go along with their wishes, He knew that these fickle crowds would ultimately oppose Him, because He would not merely please, entertain and feed them indefinitely.
This bright little picture of children sitting in the village square makes us ask how often had Jesus Himself played these children's games as a boy? This is probably not just a good illustration, but an experience lived by this keen Observer of children. Jesus had time to stop to watch children's play. Had He heard these same complaints uttered by His brothers and sisters?

B. A CONTRAST IN CARICATURES (11:18, 19)

Here Jesus exposes their fickleness by showing how they required of John what they condemned in Him and demanded of Him what they had condemned in John.

Mateo 11:18 For John came neither eating nor drinking, and they say, He hath a demon. Luke (Lucas 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 Mateo 3:1; Mateo 3:4) But this ascetic way of life was John's sagacious adaptation of himself to his particular mission to bring repentance to Israel.

Before Jesus-' revelation of the compatibility between deep-felt repentance and carrying on a normal life, perhaps the popular mind in Israel would not have been willing to accept John's stern message from a man who, himself, were a person living a normal life, eating common food. This very striking difference, to which Jesus had alluded earlier, had caught and held the nation's attention. And for a short while, John too had been the idol of the populace.

In those days his hardy life, his simple, course garments and his desert fare had not at all hurt his public image; rather, it would have tended to enhance it. Later, however, though people had streamed to him in droves, they slunk away rather than repent. Their comment: Too strait-laced for us!

He has a demon. (cf. Juan 7:20; Juan 8:48-49; Juan 10:20 later said of Jesus) This violent slander is what is necessary to justify those who utter it to cover their rejection of God's counsel.

It is not too likely that anyone really thought John to be actually possessed by a demon. This vilification probably only means to discredit John as a crank or a fanatic. One of the master strokes of Jesus-' style is to state the accusation in its most blatant form. He does not even try to offer any defense against so infamous a charge. The lives of both John and Jesus were so above reproach that these low vilifications were doomed to topple of their own weight.

Mateo 11:19 The Son of man came eating and drinking, and they say, Behold, a gluttonous man and a winebibber, a friend of publicans and sinners. The psychological impact of this application of Jesus-' parable of the playing children lies in the fact that it ends with Jewish rejection of Jesus, for this is the real issue.

Although their repudiation of John held a menace to their ultimate salvation, since they were likely to reject John's God-inspired testimony to Jesus, still the final judgment is decided, not on What will you do with John the Baptist?, but What will you do with Jesus? Putting Himself last in the application, the Savior leaves this latter question in the mind of His audience, stabbing their conscience.

Eating and drinking could be taken two ways, depending upon the mentality of those who laid this objection to Jesus:

From the standpoint of the extremely ascetic themselves, or of those whose view of piety would have been affected by them, the fact that Jesus ate normal food (bread and wine of Mateo 11:18; cf. Lucas 7:33) would be offensive, since piety, in their view, must express itself in frequent fasts. (Cf. Mateo 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, Juan 2:1-11; Matthew's farewell, Mateo 9:10-13; Lucas 5:29; The Pharisee Simon's house, Lucas 7:36 ff.

; Another Pharisee, Lucas 11:37 ff.; A Pharisee Ruler, Lucas 14:1-24; Zacchaeus, Lucas 19:1-10) Even if these are merely a few of His many social contacts, He is damned by the carping detractors for not being holy enough.

Ironically, there was just enough truth in the sneers of the crowds to make these insults plausible: the libel lay in the exaggeration each phrase represents:

gluttonous man. (phágos) As indicated above, Jesus ate normal food and appreciated a pleasant meal. Since His mission was aimed at not one area of human life, but addressed to all aspects, Jesus could not follow habits peculiar to only one area. Rather, His manner of life reflected an even balance in all things, including His food and drink.

winebibber. (oinopótçs) Did Jesus drink wine? He says He did. This is no great surprise. The greater surprise, especially in THIS context, would be to learn that He did NOT drink! The conduct of Jesus is thrown into deliberate contrast with that of a man who, for religious reasons, deliberately abstained from this very thing. The very affirmation, that the Son of man has come eating (bread) and drinking (wine), is found in a context where His moderation is neatly placed half-way between both extremes,with teetotal abstinence in John's case, and with excess in the slander that He was a wino among other things. (See special study: Should Jesus Drink Wine?)

Should anyone object that any wine that Jesus might have drunk would have been a non-alcoholic drink made of water mixed with cooked grape syrup, then the objector must explain the accusation of Jesus-' critics. While it is true that the most unreasonable charges can be levelled against a man who has no dealings at all with that on which the charges are supposedly based, yet there has to be some shred of truth (however badly distorted) that makes the charge even credible.

If the wine here referred to is merely a non-alcoholic beverage, then what is the point of calling Jesus a soft-drink man? After all, the oinos of Lucas 7:33, which Jesus says He drinks, and the oinos of oinopòtçs in Mateo 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 Mateo 9:12-13)

C. A CONFIDENT CONCLUSION (11:19b)

And wisdom is justified by her works. (Lucas 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 Juan 1:11-13, as well as its triumph.

is justified. Lenski (Matthew, 444) feels that, because this verb is aorist (edikaiõthç), Jesus refers to actions performed in the past, John's career now ended and Jesus-' deeds now slandered. However, though the verb is aorist passive, it need not be taken merely as a past tense, since it can be interpreted as a gnomic aorist, stating a general truth: Wisdom is (and always will be) vindicated by her deeds, works, outcome, results, etc.

The same view is arrived at, following the approach of Plummer, (Matthew, 163): It is certain to be justified. the event is regarded as so sure to happen that it is spoken of as past. The pragmatic success of John and Jesus is noted by Barclay, (Matthew, II, 11):

The Jews might criticize John for his lonely isolation, but John had moved men's hearts to God as they had not moved for centuries; the Jews might criticize Jesus for mixing too much in ordinary life and with ordinary people, but in Him people were finding a new life and a new goodness and a new power to live as they ought and a new access to God.

While the pragmatic test is not a final one whereby men, limited as they are by time and space, may know the truth or falsity of philosophy, since they cannot know ALL the long-range effects of the theory, yet, given all other evidences for the validity of a theory, it is of no use whatever unless it also works! Jesus is not pinning the ultimate truthfulness of His entire message on its workability, since its authenticity is proved by His signs, or miracles.

(See on Mateo 11:4-5) But if the proof of the pudding is in the eating, then the real significance of Jesus-' ministry lies in His ability really to make men over. Should it be possible that His miracles identified His message as divine and yet that message fail to give men transforming power, of what use would the miracles be? Worse still, His message would be suspect, worse than useless.

But the best part about the ministry of John who prepared the way, and that of Jesus, is that they did not merely flash their divine authority to speak, but actually produced the results that they were sent to accomplish. John actually brought men to repentance and to Jesus. Jesus actually brought men to forgiveness and the new birth, and made them fit for the presence of God.

FACT QUESTIONS

How did John in prison learn about the deeds of Jesus?

According to Matthew, about what, exactly, did John heat? the works of _______

In what general context does Luke place this incident? What were some of the deeds of Jesus to which Luke thus alludes? Why, then, does Matthew place this incident in some other context? Harmonize this apparent contradiction in fact.

State the exact point of John's question to Jesus. Affirm or deny the following proposition and tell why: John in prison was weakening in faith in Jesus as the Messiah.

State the reasons why John may have propounded such a question to Jesus.

State and explain the answer that Jesus sent back to John. Show how Jesus-' answer fulfills prophecies regarding the Christ, hence identifies Jesus as the Messiah to all who had eyes to see it.

State the evidence that Jesus gave John. Was this evidence different in kind from the evidence Jesus provided other people? What does your answer to this question indicate about the nature of the evidence that God gives to help all people believe Him?

What Old Testament prophet did Jesus cite in reference to John?

Give specific illustrations of Jesus-' miracles to which He made reference in His answer to John. For example, name some of the dead raised to life prior to the arrival of John's question.

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 Lucas 1:17; Juan 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, John'S, or that of the Jews of His day?

15.

What two outstanding proclaimers of God's 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. (Lucas 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 teetotaler's abstinence nor the drunkard's excess, but the moderate's evenness of balance in all things.

Jesus affirmed that He habitually drank wine, saying so to a people accustomed to think of wine as a blessing.

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

But the Jews knew wine to be the generous blessing from the Lord. (Génesis 27:28; Salmo 104:15; Isaías 55:1; Oseas 2:8-9; Oseas 2:22; Joel 2:19-24; Amós 9:13-14)

(1)

They spoke of bread and wine as the staple articles of diet. (Génesis 27:25; Génesis 27:37; Deuteronomio 11:14; Números 6:20; Jueces 19:19-21; 2 Samuel 16:1-2; 2 Crónicas 11:11, etc.)

(2)

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

(3)

Wine appeared as a normal expression of ordinary hospitality. (Génesis 14:18; Jueces 19:19-21; 1 Samuel 16:20; 1 Samuel 25:18; 1 Crónicas 12:40; Juan 2:3-10)

(4)

Wine was commanded as a drink offering to God (Éxodo 29:40; Levítico 23:13; Números 15:5; Números 15:7; Números 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. (Deuteronomio 14:22-26; Deuteronomio 12:17-18; Isaías 62:8-9)

(6)

The Jews knew of its value as an anesthetic (Proverbios 31:6-7; Lucas 10:34) as well as its necessity in case of bad water or stomach infirmities (1 Timoteo 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 (Lucas 7:33-35 and Mateo 11:18-19) will show, it was this very normalness about Jesus-' conduct that drew fire from the cynics.

In collision with the popular view as to what a holy man should be, Jesus wore no hair shirt, fasted so secretly that no one ever knew about it (if He ever did), ate common food, drank common drink and made no extraordinary effort to let His real holiness appear in a superficial manner. But His real character was so well attested, that He did not need to dignify the accusation of being a winebibber and a glutton by even bothering to answer it. The facts people knew about His life spoke for themselves.

So, the real question is not Should Jesus drink wine? as our tongue-in-cheek title would have it, for, as a matter of fact, He did. But this is not the point to be discussed with the modern Christian, disturbed by the excess in certain areas surrounding the use of wine or other forms of alcohol. The question is really Should a Christian follow his Lord's example in drinking wine today?

Although the apostolic doctrine is replete with stern denunciations of drunkenness wherein is riot and excess, yet the Apostles do not enjoin unconditional and perpetual abstinence as the way around over-indulgence. Theirs too is the route of habitual moderation in all things (1 Corintios 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. (Colosenses 2:16-23)

Beyond his dispraising of drunkenness and other forms of excess connected with the attitudes and activities under the influence of alcohol, the Apostle Paul, for instance, can find no rational basis for abstaining either from meat or wine in normal practice, since he knows that all God's gifts (the context is food) are to be received with thanksgiving. (1 Timoteo 4:1-5) However, under special circumstances Paul could conceivably dispense with ANY given food, for instance, if it caused a brother to stumble.

(Romanos 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 Romanos 14:1 to Romanos 15:7; 1 Corintios 6:12-20; 1 Corintios 8 all; Mateo 10:23-33) This is a necessary conclusion, since Paul could delineate no objective or absolute principle whereby wine or any food should be proscribed under any and all circumstances.

Further, in seeking qualified personnel for the highest tasks in the Church, the Apostle demanded that no excessive drinkers be tolerated in the eldership or in the diaconate. (1 Timoteo 3:3; 1 Timoteo 3:8; Tito 1:7) In giving directions for producing Christlike piety in the Church, he only urges Titus (Mateo 2:3) to bid older women not to be slaves to drink.

However, in neither case does he suggest abstinence as a necessary quality. Rather, when he felt called upon to give his advice to a young abstainer, Paul counselled Timothy specifically in favor of wine, as opposed to water. (1 Timoteo 5:23)

Should Jesus Drink Wine? may be an amusing question, but it will stand for serious reflection. Jesus was a Jew living in first-century Palestine. Out of proper moral consideration for the needs and views of His people, He ate and drank the food common to His people. It is a fair question whether He would follow His first-century practice while living, say, among twentieth-century Americans, whose history and attitudes toward alcohol may well be quite different than that of first-century Jews. But here it may be objected that twentieth-century Americans may need instruction by the Son of God, so that their (mistaken?) conscience be edified, i.e. formed along entirely different lines.

WHEN IN ROME, DO AS THE ROMANS?

Lest some, caught up in the confusing currents of a relativistic age and maddened by the spineless morality of situation ethics, mistake this position taken here to be the same drivel, let it be vigorously denied that situation ethics has anything to do with Christianity.
The assertions made earlier that Jesus did in fact drink wine in His own situation in the first century, primarily because He chose to conform His practice with that of His own people, the Jews, cannot be construed in any fashion to justify the character-rotting influence of that immorality passing under the current name of situation ethics.

Situation ethics, as I understand the phrase in its popular use, refers to a life guided by NO ABSOLUTE moral principle. There is no absolute morality, that is, except for the pervasive rule of thumb that each situation must be dealt with as a separate entity without any necessary reference to any other situation. According to its various practitioners, each moral decision must be made without reference to the (im)moral standard of reference of the individuals involved, be it hedonism, opportunism or whatever.

There is a chasmic contrast between this view of ethical decisions and that practiced by Jesus of Nazareth and expected of His disciples. Whereas situation ethics has no fixed code of absolutes within the sphere of which ethical judgments are made, Christ's doctrine proclaims a rigid standard of inflexible righteousness. This standard outlines clearly what is meant by drunkenness, fornication, theft, lying, etc.

By forbidding these and commanding their ethical opposites, i.e. temperance, purity, integrity, etc., Jesus unveiled a code of absolutes as demanding as the very character of God Himself! (See Jesus-' Purpose For Preaching This Sermon, notes on the Sermon on the Mount, Vol. I, 188ff.) What is NOT spelled out in regard to these standards is how they are to be applied in every case. To a certain degree every situation faced by Jesus-' disciple will be different from every other.

So, instead of writing new rules of conduct for each new situation, Jesus placed into the hands of His disciple a few simple directives by which he may decide how to act ethically in each situation. (There directives may be gleaned from great blocks of Scripture on this subject, such as Romanos 14:1 to Romanos 15:7; 1 Corintios 6:12-20; chap.

8; Mateo 10:23-33; Mateo 16:14; 1 Juan 3, etc.)

Thus it is that the Christ and His disciples are armed, not with some self-seeking, self-serving philosophy, but girded with the revelations of the living God in an enlightened conscience, face each situation and decide what each must do (1) to please the Father, and (2) to serve his fellow man best in that situation, and (3) what will achieve his own highest goal.
Now to return: should Jesus (or His disciple) drink wine? But to ask this question is to see another: what other moral considerations were weighed into His decision which brought Him to act as He did in that given situation? If we fail to see these, we should badly interpret why He pursued that course, and, as a natural consequence, we would misapply His example in our own period.

He drank wine in an age that knew no automobiles racing along a narrow ribbon of concrete within a cubit of oncoming traffic. He drank wine in a society not yet pressed for time, where the need for ready reflexes to operate fast-moving machinery was small. He lived in an age that moved in terms of the sun, not the timeclock. His was an era of walkers, not riders, to whom sedentary living was less a problem.

But He also lived in an age as profligate as any other, an age that sought its amusements in the arms of Bacchus, an age when many a party devolved into revelry. Even so, Jesus could trace a clear line of godly conduct between asceticism and excess. In our own highly industrialized machine age, common sense considerations of safety may cause the Lord to counsel against alcohol in any situation where consideration for others and one's own safety is compromised by slower reflexes.
In light of Jesus-' practice, another interesting, if unsolvable, puzzle is the question why the Lord did not concern Himself greatly with the long-term effect of alcohol on the brain about which modern research has so much to say.

Is it possible that Jesus-' answer to this query might be: Do not drink to excess, and you need not fear the adverse effects of alcohol on your brain? After all, is not His practice somewhat indicative of the conclusion that a moderate use of alcohol by a God-oriented man need not fear long-range negative effects on any part of his body, presuming that this man eats, sleeps and exercises normally? Or to state the problem differently, would not Jesus, Revealer of God and Creator of man, surely have revealed something of the lethal danger of drinking what is held to be a poison? Is it too much to argue that His silence on the subject and His personal practice, taken together, argue that our body chemistry can absorb and profitably use a certain amount of alcohol?

IS ALCOHOLISM A SICKNESS?

Another ramification of the conclusion that Jesus Himself drank wine, though never to excess (a conclusion drawn from His unanswerable denunciation of drunkenness as sin and from His own unimpeachable character, Juan 8:46; Hebreos 4:15), is the dilemma: should we consider the alcoholic a sinner or a sick man? To put the question in other terms: did Jesus escape alcoholism by righteousness (moderation), by maintaining a healthy body, or both?

While modern research has tended to demonstrate the direct connection between long-term embibing and many mental and physical debilities, sicknesses to which both psychological and medical cures must be applied, what is the meaning of the statement: The alcoholic is a sick man? This declaration, while declaring an objective reality, is often made with emotional overtones that suggest that the alcoholic can no more be charged with the responsibility for his condition than would a child suffering from measles.

On the other hand, some religionists talk as if the alcoholic could be transformed into a proper citizen simply by immediate and permanent swearing off of alcohol, without any recourse to medical or psychological help to repair the damage that has been done to his body, mind, life, as if correcting the alcoholic's responsibility for his weakened condition were the whole of his rehabilitation.
Before we hasten to decide whether the alcoholic is either a sick or a sinful man, let us remember that some dilemmas are badly stated, including this one.

There is a third alternative: the alcoholic may be both a sick and a sinful man. His sin has made him a sick man. Forgiveness of his sin will not make him a well man. Making him a well man in body and mind, insofar as modern science is able to effect this, will not make him acceptable to God. He must be both saved and healed. His rehabilitation in both these respects may require much time and may witness many set-backs, but it must take place in both areas, i.e. healing of the body and purifying the conscience and reinforcing the will, if the whole man is to be brought back to normalcy.

There is one sad, tragic fact that may face the alcoholic which, repent as he might, he cannot change: damage to his body as the natural consequence of alcohol's ruinous effects. A man may repent a thousand times of his carelessness in handling a power saw, but his tears and his undoubted change for the good cannot give him back his right arm sawn away in the accident. If this analogy applies to the alcoholic in any way, it becomes a stern warning to any who drink, that alcohol is capable of bringing upon him a blight that no amount of repentance can correct.

Numerous are the instances where Jesus performed this very healing of both body and soul by curing the body and forgiving the sin. He not only purified the conscience but also provided the Gospel whereby the whole man can be transformed into a strong, stable character. What is most remarkable is that Jesus held all sinners responsible for the mess into which they get themselves (Cf. Juan 5:14; Mateo 12:45), especially drunkards (Lucas 21:34; Romanos 13:13; 1 Corintios 5:11; Gálatas 5:21; Efesios 5:18).

Accordingly, if people were merely sick due to some physical weakness related to causes not dependent upon their choice, then, presumably, Jesus could not justly hold them responsible for the bad results of their actions. So, the fact that He judges men responsible for their drunkenness, lays the charge for failure, not merely upon constitutional weaknesses, but upon the quality of the heart of the individual.

Rather than become a scientist or a doctor to heal all mankind by giving out useful remedies or advice on physical health, He dealt with man's fundamental problem: his relation with God and man. If THIS problem be not solved, physical or mental healing if only to live a few more years in constant danger of being corrupted again, solves nothing.

HOW DID JESUS ESCAPE BECOMING AN ALCOHOLIC?

As completely out of place as this query may seem, yet to answer it may lead us to grasp something of the answer to our other question, Should Jesus-' disciple drink wine? How is it possible to harmonize the potentially catastrophic danger that alcohol represents both to the individual and to society, with Jesus-' practice of taking wine? The secret lies in being guided by all the moral directives that prompted Jesus.

By taking His view of the world, by having a conscience molded by the will of God and by showing the same forthright obedience to the Father as did He, by knowing no other dependence than upon the daily provision of the Father, one will be pleased to learn that he is not troubled by those diseases that excess and indulgence bring in their wake.

EXPOSITORY SERMON CHAPTER ELEVEN LOOKING FOR ANOTHER CHRIST

Introduction:

WHY look for another Christ? Because some are disappointed in the Christ given to us! This is not so surprising in light of the experiences of the people described in this chapter:

THE PERPLEXITY OF THE LOYAL-HEARTED (Mateo 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 God's 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.

John's personal problem was the disproportional exaltation of Jesus-' divine office as Judge, to the detriment of His merciful human ministry as the Son of man come to seek and save the lost.

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 John's understanding of the coming Christ.

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

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

Jesus-' answer: He appreciated the honest perplexity of His loyal prophet. He corrected His understanding and vindicated him completely. Notice the correction (Mateo 11:6): Tell John that although human intellect has failed to give him complete understanding of his problem, his intellect must submit to the wisdom of my methods and results.

If his intellect judges my way not to be the best, it must see what I am accomplishing, even if it means turning his back upon his prejudices about what I should be doing. John must be content to say, -God's methods are against my wisdom: I cannot understand why He does what He does, but I follow because HE leads me, for I have learned to trust Him.-'

II. THE FICKLENESS OF AN UNREASONABLE AGE (Mateo 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 (Mateo 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 (Mateo 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 Hechos 1:11; Filipenses 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.

с.

But He will be the very Christ whom John the Baptist said would come in blazing glory.

But He will appear in His power and majesty to bring to a glorious conclusion the mission which He undertook in shame and weakness.

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

The same Jesus who was crucified in shame, raised in glory and now reigns at the Father's right hand, is even now perfecting His mission with an eye to that day when He will come for His saints.

D. What then is to be our reaction?

We must ask ourselves, Am I willing to admit my ignorance and ask instruction; am I willing to yield my emotional nature and take only His inspiration, dancing only to His piping, and mourning only to His lamentation; am I willing to take my will and submit it wholly to His authority; am I willing to take the place of unutterable weakness and depend upon His strength? Am I willing to confess my absolute and utter imperfection and give myself to Him for perfecting of all that concerns me?

This is the passage from proud independence to simple confession of weakness. So men enter into this Kingdom. So men find their rest.. Our very pre-eminent respectability prevents the definite daring necessary to get into God's Kingdom. We are prone to drift upon easy seas, to admire the visions of the beautific land, consent to the beauties of the great ideal, and never enter in because we will not. consent to yield to the claim of the King..

Let this be the hour when you have done with your dilettante fooling with sacred things. Let this be the night when you translate your sickly anemic imagination into grip, force, go and determination.

(The above outline and some of its points were suggested by G. C. Morgan's sermon The Kingdom By Violence in 26 Sermons by Dr. G. Campbell Morgan, Vol. II, p. 229ff.)

Another outline of this chapter might be:

JESUS JUDGES HIS CONTEMPORARIES AND HIMSELF

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

II.

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

III.

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

IV.

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

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

EXPOSITORY SERMON CHAPTER ELEVEN
REST IN A RESTLESS WORLD (11:20-30)

Introduction:

The newspapers of the world report riots that picture the great unrest of our world. In the great cities of the world every day is heard news of strikes, riots, protest movements, wars and famines. We wonder where this will all lead to or when it will end. Men's hearts faint for the fear and anxiety over the things that are coming over the world. And why should that be?

There is NO REST IN OUR RESTLESS WORLD, BECAUSE THERE IS NO CERTAINTY.

One woman is uncertain, because another woman could take her husband away from her, and she is not sure that he would not like to go with the other woman!

The student is not sure that he can pass his exams, in order to find a small place in our society,

The worker can not be sure that tomorrow a machine will not take away his position and work for him.

The big industrialist can not be sure that he can hold his wealth.

The politicians can only try to establish a better government, but they can never be sure of the outcome.

In whatever other area we can discuss, there exists no rest-bringing security. We can certainly say that the one thing in our world that is certain, is our UNCERTAINTY! And our uncertainty troubles us!

But over the centuries we hear a mighty voice that says: Come to me! I will give you rest! In our dark world full of care and strife, difficulties and problems, anxieties and fear, these words bring us comfort, inspiration, encouragement and rest.
Let us listen to this voice from a bit closer by. What does Jesus mean to say to us?

JESUS CONDEMNS THE UNBELIEVING BECAUSE THEY DID NOT REPENT (Mateo 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 God's personal revelation:

Even though He had revealed God's 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! (Mateo 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 God's will, preached by Jesus Himself!

(2)

But the light against which we sin, will be the measure whereby we will be judged!

(3)

The greatness of the quantity of information that we have received concerning God's truth, does not release us from the responsibility to repent and trust Jesus!

To people who thought that to do nothing was as sufficient as repenting. Their sin was the sin of refusing to take a positive stand for Jesus Christ!

(1)

How many people today exalt Jesus as a Superman, a Man born before His time, perhaps a great Prophet, yes, even as God's Son?

(2)

And yet they do nothing with Him! They take no responsibility for what they know about Jesus of Nazareth!

So why does our world have unrest, insecurity, desperation? BECAUSE WE WILL NOT TRUST JESUS AND REPENT!

Let us listen further to His words:

JESUS LAYS DOWN HIS OWN CONDITIONS, WHEREBY WE CAN RECEIVE GOD'S TRUST AND REST. (Mateo 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 God's idea.

Even though there were a very few simple people that truly accepted Jesus, yet Jesus THANKS the Father for them.

Jesus recognizes the universal Lordship of His Father. This too is an anchor for our souls, if we acknowledge that there is no place in this universe, no problem in our world over which our God is not fully Master and fully in charge!

Jesus praised and thanked God that His plan really works to save those people who can be taught.

But what is God's method to save the world? By revealing these eternal truths to humble seekers, to -little children.

Who are the wise and understanding of this world, from whom God has hidden His will? These are the people who are wise in their own eyes and proud of their own understanding.

So far as the world could see it was Pilate who was a greater man than Peter, but Jesus could do much more with a Peter than with Pilate!
The high priest Caiaphas went far higher in the human society than Matthew, but that publican could become an Apostle for eternity, because he could forsake everything to follow Jesus!

Who are the little children, to whom God has given great revelations of His will? These are the humble people who open their lives to follow Jesus-' leadership and accept His teaching.

The doors of God's 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. (1 Corintios 1:18-31)

Yes, this is God's plan and Jesus thanks Him for it.

III

JESUS ACCEPTS THE MORAL RESPONSIBILITY FOR THE ENTIRE HUMAN RACE AND PRESENTS HIMSELF AS THE ONLY POSSIBLE REVEALER OF GOD (Mateo 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 God's Son, because we know that, at the end of the world, everything will be the inheritance of Jesus.

But here Jesus is not speaking about the glory and wealth that shall be His,

He understands very clearly that the weight of the sins of the whole world have been laid upon HIM!

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. (Isaías 53:6)

Our own unwillingness to repent was laid upon God's 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 God's Will are thieves and robbers! (Juan 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! (Juan 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 (Mateo 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 God's 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.