Matthew 11

CHAPTER XI

VIII

Christ’s Answer to the Baptist. His Further Words of Judgment and of Grace, Chapter 11

Matthew 11:1

1 And it came to pass when Jesus finished giving orders to his twelve disciples he departed thence in order to be teaching and preaching in their cities. The two aorists report the facts. Matthew does not report how the Twelve fared on their first tour, or when they came back. Jesus himself, for the time being without the Twelve, went from one place to another as he had done before this time. The Twelve were not replacing but were only aiding him. His great purpose is expressed by τοῦ with two present infinitives. Since these infinitives are construed with the one article, preaching and teaching express one great activty. The final αὐτῶν is construed ad sensum, R. 683.

Matthew 11:2

2 Now when John heard in his prison the works of the Christ, having sent by his disciples, he said to him, Thou, art thou the One Coming, or shall we be expecting someone else? We know about John’s imprisonment from 4:12, and shall learn still more in 14:3. In his prison John heard all about the activity (τὰἔργα) of Jesus, whom Matthew here calls “the Christ” in order at once to state what these “works” actually revealed about Jesus, namely that he was “the Christ,” the Messiah. The supposition that ὁΧριστός is here a personal name is answered when we read a few chapters and see how Matthew designates the Lord’s person. We may be sure that in his confinement the Baptist longed the more for news of Jesus. That confinement in the fortress Machærus (Josephus, Ant. 18, 5, 2) permitted free intercourse with the friends of the Baptist.

After his execution they were allowed to bury the body of their master. The fact that the Baptist should continue to have disciples of his own implies no more than that he continued his work of preparing the way for Jesus, and the simplest way to do this would be to win devoted followers to whom he could convey all that God had revealed to him.

The reading διά is preferable to δύο. The question asked is John’s, and the disciples he sends are only his medium (διά is regularly used to indicate the medium) for communicating with Jesus; Luke 7:19 informs us that two were sent. Πέμψας, like the aorist εἶπεν, indicates that they executed their mission.

Matthew 11:3

3 John’s question and the unindicated reason for sending a commission to get an anwer to it have perplexed many interpreters. The discussion centers about the question as to whether John doubted, and if he did so, in what way and to what degree he doubted. In attempting to answer this question we should not separate the two parts of the question and lay undue emphasis on the first part. ὉἘρχόμενος, “the One Coming,” undoubtedly signifies the Messiah and is used in that specific sense especially also by the Baptist, 3:11; Mark 1:7; Luke 3:16, etc.; John 1:27. This designation was derived from Ps. 118:26 and Ps. 40:7, which is evident from the acclaim of the multitude on Palm Sunday, 21:9 (23:39), and from the use of Ps. 40:7 in Heb. 10:5–9. We may take it that “the Coming One” was both understood and used by the Jews. The second part of the question with its verb “shall we be expecting” matches this designation, for men expect one who is coming.

The present participle is timeless, and its substantivization indicates that coming characterizes this person. “Thou (emphatic σύ), art thou the One Coming?” has its complement in the addition, “or shall we be expecting someone else?” ἕτερον, for which word Luke 7:19 substitutes ἄλλον. The former may imply one that is different; the latter, one that is like thee, although we must remember that both were often used without this distinction. “Like thee,” after all, implies “somewhat different from thee” and not an exact duplicate.

The fact that John sends to Jesus for an answer proves John’s faith in Jesus. This answers those who think that John had lost confidence in Jesus and doubted as some moderns doubt—in disbelief. In that case John would not have directed his question to Jesus, nor would Jesus have sent an answer, and least of all the answer he did send. John’s question was prompted by a difficulty that his faith encountered. God had pointed out to him that Jesus was the Messiah, John 1:33, 34. Jesus, then, was to do all the great Messianic works, both those of grace (3:11) and those of judgment (3:12); compare Luke 3:3–6 regarding the grace, and v. 9 regarding the judgment.

Thus John believed, preached, expected. But as Jesus carried on his work, it seemed to be nothing but grace without one single act of judgment. This is what perplexed the Baptist “when he heard in the prison the works of the Christ.” Where were the works of judgment, the swinging of the fan, the crashing blows of the ax? They were not being done. How, then, was this to be explained? Would another One follow, another who would perform these works of judgment?

For we must remember that throughout the prophecies, just as in the Baptist’s proclamation concerning Jesus, one feature is not revealed by God: the interval of time between the first coming with grace and mercy and the second coming with judgment. The prophetic picture is without perspective as to time; grace and judgment are simply predicated, and the point of time when they will occur is left with God (Acts 1:7). The form προσδοκῶμεν may be either an indicative used in an ordinary question for information: “Are we expecting another?” or a subjunctive used in a question of deliberation as when people ask themselves or others what they should do: “Shall (or should) we be expecting someone else?” (R. 934). Either is in place here. The latter seems preferable psychologically.

Matthew 11:4

4 And Jesus answered and said to them, When you are gone, report to John what you are hearing and seeing: blind are seeing, and lame are walking; lepers are cleansed, and deaf are hearing; and dead are being raised, and poor are receiving the gospel preaching. And blessed is whoever is not trapped in connection with me. The addition of ἀποκριθείς, a circumstantial participle, helps to mark the importance of the answer. This answer is typical of Jesus: strongly suggestive yet reticent, decisive in substance yet not direct as far as the form of the question is concerned. “Report to John,” says Jesus. This answers the view that John had no doubts and perplexities, that these existed only in the minds of his disciples; that not on his own account but on their account John sent them to Jesus. This view casts reflection on the integrity of John as though he were asking a question when in reality it was being asked by his disciples.

It also reflects on the integrity of Jesus who says, “Report to John,” and thus continues the pretence as though John wanted to know, whereas only John’s disciples were in doubt. In trying to save the honor of John as being one who was wholly free of doubt, the honor of both John and Jesus is sacrificed. 1 Pet. 1:10, 11 states plainly that the prophets themselves searched their own prophecies, especially in regard to the time of the sufferings and of the glory of Christ. John was now doing that and he went to the right source.

Matthew 11:5

5 The mastery of the answer is the fact that it takes John back into the very Old Testament prophecies concerning the Messiah which had caused his perplexity. The reference to the blind, deaf, and lame is adapted from Isa. 35:5, 6. To the unfortunates mentioned in this passage Jesus adds the lepers and the dead and presents works of grace that were even greater than those promised by the prophet. Then, as the climax of all, Jesus cites from Isa. 61:1, the preaching of the gospel to the poor (meek) whom we have already met in 5:3, those who have come to realize that spiritually they are wholly empty and destitute. While the gospel is preached to all, only those who realize their need of it receive it. The verb εὐαγγελίζεσθαι, which is generally used in the active sense, is here and in Heb. 4:2, 6 regarded as a passive: the poor “are being evangelized.” All the other works receive their value from this last Work.

We have no reason to allegorize the blind, etc., for “what you hear and see” cannot apply to spiritual recovery of sight, etc. Jesus is speaking of his miracles of grace, and Luke 7:21 brings out the fact that just at the time when John’s disciples came to Jesus with their question Jesus was especially busy working miracles; he had also just raised the son of the widow at Nain. In his answer Jesus says nothing about the “vengeance” (Isa. 35:4) and the judgment. This omission is significant. John is to leave that in the hands of him who is so gloriously fulfilling the prophecies regarding the Messianic works of grace.

Matthew 11:6

6 That is why a gentle touch of warning is added at the end. Its gentleness lies in its form; it is a beatitude, “Blessed is,” etc. Jesus does not want John to lose the treasures and the joy that make up this blessedness; on μακάριος see 5:3. Hence the negative description of the blessed man: “whoever is not trapped in connection with me.” The figure in σκανδαλίζω is that of a trap with a crooked stick to which the bait is affixed and which, when touched, springs the trap and catches and kills the victim. The point of this verb is that the trap is fatal, the victim is killed. The verb does not refer to stumbling; for one may stumble and even fall and yet not be killed.

As regards the metaphorical “to offend,” this would have to be offense that destroys faith. Compare M.-M. 576. The danger to which Jesus points John is mortal—blessed he who escapes it. He is not to let the absence of certain works blind him to the glorious presence of the works now in full progress. Let him be satisfied with these and trust that in due time the others will follow just as these are now being done.

Except for the order to report to John the answer of Jesus is couched in general terms. Jesus states only what occurs to the blind, etc., and leaves it to John’s disciples to add that Jesus is bringing this about. This omission of his own name and person marks his humility. The verbs are present tenses to express things that happen continuously. The final statement is also general: “anyone, and thus also John, is blessed, whoever,” etc. John’s disciples are to apply this word to themselves, as also are all others who heard it.

Matthew 11:7

7 Now when these were going, Jesus began to say to the multitudes concerning John: What did you go out into the wilderness to behold? A reed swayed by wind? Well, what did you go out to see? A man enrobed in soft clothing? Lo, those wearing the soft clothing are in the houses of the kings. Well, what did you go out to see?

A prophet? Yea, I say to you, and far beyond a prophet! In the three questions the infinitives belong to these questions and τί then means “what”; or the three infinitives belong to the three secondary questions, and then τί means “why.” The R. V. translates τί “what” in verses 7, 8, and “wherefore” in v. 9; and construes two infinitives with the questions introduced by τί and places the third into the secondary question. But such a distinction is scarcely to be recommended. When the infinitives are placed forward in the secondary questions they have entirely too much emphasis.

At once, after John’s disciples have left, Jesus addresses the multitudes concerning John. The implication is that the crowds knew what had transpired. Lest any persons present draw wrong conclusions concerning John, Jesus makes John his topic, and Matthew’s formula “began to say” indicates the importance of the discourse that follows. Jesus gives his great estimate of John; and the fact that he was now in prison and was perplexed regarding the works of Jesus in no way reduces the estimate. This is a comforting thought for us who today may have perplexity in understanding the Scriptures. But Jesus aims his remarks at the hearts of the multitude (note v. 15), and what he says “concerning John” thus becomes an indictment of these people who were satisfied with neither John nor Jesus (v. 16–19).

When John was active “in the wilderness,” the uninhabited western banks of the Jordan, thousands also from Galilee flocked out to see him. Jesus now asks them, “What did you go out to see?” They are to answer that question. Three times Jesus repeats his question, which makes it the more impressive. He probes for the answer. Each of these questions is followed by another. These form a climax and at last state what the crowds really went out to see. Then Jesus confirms this as the reason for their going.

To behold “a reed as swayed by wind?” It has been well observed that Jesus could not have changed “reed” to tree, water, fish, or other objects that were found out in the Jordan wilderness. “A reed swayed by wind” is symbolic of a man who yields to popular opinion, veers with it, and has no solid convictions of his own. Some interpreters think that John now seems to be manifesting himself as a reed, by having asked the question that he did; and that Jesus is saving his reputation among the people. But this is evidently a misconception. Jesus is not worried about the impression that John’s question may make either in regard to himself or in regard to John. He is thinking and speaking only of the past (ἐξήλθετε three times) and of “what the people saw at that time. It would be strange, indeed, for Jesus to refer to the question just asked by John as a swaying reed, and then by reference to the soft clothing to revert to something entirely different.

No; all the questions form a grand whole. All of them show what John was in the wilderness and most certainly imply that he has never been or is anything else. All that is said about John is not said in John’s interest, as though his reputation needed shielding, but in order to stir up and to rebuke these callous people who, having had John and now having Jesus himself, found fault with both and gained nothing from either (v. 18, 19).

We see no reason for stressing θεάσασθαι over against the two ἰδεῖν. There is a touch of irony in the idea of going miles out into the wilderness to behold a reed swaying hither and thither in the wind as though this were a great phenomenon. The verb θεάσασθαι fits this ironical implication. The shores of the Lake of Galilee had plenty of reeds like that. Why run down to the lower reaches of the Jordan for such a view? The fact that Jesus is referring to John is evident.

What drew the people out to him was the fact that he was the very opposite of such a reed. The entire Jewish land was filled with men who were unstable, were like reeds swaying with the wind of the opinions of the day. But here in the wilderness there was a man of a different type. At this very moment he was in prison because he would not compromise regarding one of God’s commandments. Herod’s sin was passed by in silence by all the Jewish authorities and the whole Jewish nation but never for a moment by John. He arose against it as a rock.

Well, that merited that men should go out into the distant wilderness to see him. “But was that really the reason why you went out to him?” Jesus asks these people. He leaves the answer to them.

Matthew 11:8

8 The German commentators give ἀλλά the force of sondern (B.-P. 59; B.-D. 448, 4), which is slightly better than the translation “but” in our versions. But this particle only turns to a new point, the previous one having been finished. Its force is: “Well now, if that is not what you went out to see, for what, then, did you go out?” The suggestion that, perhaps, they went out to see “a man enrobed in soft clothing” (the perfect participle ἠμφιεσμένον with a present implication: having been and thus now being enrobed, cf. 6:30), carries the thought of the swaying reed a step farther. A man who yields to popular opinion, who bends to the will and the word of the influential and the mighty, will be rewarded by them, will be given a high place and the finest kind of garments. With μαλακοῖς supply ἱματίοις. The adjective “soft” (i.e., to the touch) conveys the idea of the finest and the most costly material.

The word is exactly the right one. It brings out the sharp contrast between such clothing and the rough, harsh, cheapest kind of material that was used in the coat of camel’s hair worn by John. The idea in this reference to clothing is that, if John had sought to please and to gain favor, he could have worn a courtier’s rich robes and could have basked in royal favor.

The exclamation “lo” in connection with the statement that people who wear such soft clothing are “in the houses of the kings” marks this as being far more than an ordinary piece of information. Soft and rich garments are worn also outside of royal courts. The people of Galilee could see finely robed courtiers in Herod’s palace in Tiberias without going to the lower Jordan. But this peculiar specification that softly robed gentlemen are “in the houses of the kings,” here used when speaking of John, undoubtedly intends to convey the thought that John was now in the royal house of Herod, the fortress of Machærus facing the Dead Sea, but not as a handsomely dressed courtier but as a wretched prisoner who still wore his rough coat of camel’s hair. So the question implies: “When you went out did you intend to see a man who knew how to secure royal favor and rewards? To do that you would not have had to go very far. But no; you went out to see a man who dared to rebuke even a king, who could be bought by no royal favors, who showed absolute fidelity to God and to his Word.” Yet Jesus asks, “Did you really go out to see such a man?” Again he leaves the answer to them.

“To see” does not mean merely “to look at”; for ἰδεῖν, the aorist, is used in an intensive sense as in John 3:3; Acts 2:27; consult the word in Young’s Concordance. Some have the idea that here ἰδεῖν means less than the preceding θεάσασθαι, but it means more.

Matthew 11:9

9 Once more the question for what they went out. And now the addition: to see “a prophet?” The intensive force of ἰδεῖν is plain here. Jesus does not mean “merely to look at a prophet” but “to see him so as to get into personal touch with him,” i.e., to hear him and his proclamation with their own ears, to let him move them to repentance and to the baptism for the remission of sins. Did they really go out for that purpose? All three infinitives denote purpose, and all three are construed alike.

While Jesus puts this final question, as he did the others, so that the people may give their own answer—did they really intend to regard John as a prophet of God?—he at once and most emphatically gives his own answer. “Yea, I say to you, and far beyond a prophet!” “Yea” affirms that John is a prophet, and καί adds to this an estimate that goes beyond that. We may regard the comparative περισσότερον as a neuter: “something beyond a prophet,” or as a masculine: “one beyond a prophet.”

Matthew 11:10

10 Jesus at once establishes this estimate of John. This is he of whom it has been written, Lo, I myself commission my messenger before thy face, who shall make ready thy way in front of thee. John is the one prophet who himself was prophesied. This made him more than a prophet. And John was the ἄγγελος or messenger who, not only, like the other prophets, announced Christ’s coming, but actually prepared the way for him and was immediately followed by Christ. This, too, made him more than a prophet. Mal. 3:1 is introduced as a direct quotation with the usual perfect γέγραπται with present force: “has been written” and thus now stands so.

Jesus refers to the original Hebrew not to the LXX. The translation is usually called “free,” but it is not at all “free”; it does vastly more than to give the general sense of the original. The translation is interpretative, and the interpretation is most exact as it is preserved in Mark 1:2; Luke 7:27. Jehovah addresses the Israelites who are expecting “the Lord” (Ha’adon), “the Messenger of the Covenant” (Maleach Habberith), i.e., the Messiah. Even Malachi distinguishes between Jehovah and this Lord and Messenger, as does Ezek. 34:11, etc., compared with 34:23, 24. This is what Jesus makes plain by the use of the pronouns ἐγώ and μου (Jehovah) and the three σου (the Messiah).

Jehovah himself will come to his people, but he will do so in the person of the Messiah. And John is Jehovah’s “messenger” who is to prepare the way of the divine Messiah, “in front of thee,” as the Messiah’s immediate forerunner; the relative ὅς with the future tense of the verb denotes purpose, R. 960. The sense of Mal. 3:1 is thus made plain by showing that in John and in Jesus this prophecy was fulfilled; and thus the greatness of John is alo revealed.

Matthew 11:11

11 To this prophetic word concerning John, Jesus adds his own declaration: Amen, I say to you (verity and authority, 5:18), there has not arisen among women-born a greater than John the Baptist! The verb “has arisen” refers to John’s office and his career. Hence also Jesus uses not merely his personal name but with it the title that distinguished John from all other men, “the Baptist.” “Born of women” evidently goes back to Job 14:1; 15:14; 25:4; plus Ps. 51:5, and thus strongly emphasizes the sinfulness and the mortality of men. John is one of these men, but in his career and his work he is so great that, taking all his fellow-mortals into consideration, there is none greater than he. Jesus speaks of John as being one whose great work is done; soon his life will be ended. Did these people realize who and what John was when they went into the wilderness?

It is the height of paradox when in the same breath Jesus now adds: Yet he that is less in the kingdom of the heavens is greater than he. We disregard the interpretation that John’s doubt was of such a nature as, in spite of his high office, to place him beneath a common believer in Jesus. John asked Jesus to solve a perplexity, and such an action, which itself showed complete confidence in Jesus, could not and did not reduce the estimate Jesus had of John.

Some think that Jesus here compares himself with John. Since he had submitted to John’s baptism, it is thought that Jesus calls himself the one who is now less than John but who shall presently appear far greater than John, namely as the King of the kingdom. This view contradicts 3:11, 12; John 1:26–34; 3:28–36; and when Jesus was baptized, it was John who yielded to Jesus as being the greater. Although the Greek places no emphasis on the phrase “in the kingdom of the heavens,” some would make everything turn on this phrase, and they understand it in the sense of “the Messianic kingdom” over against “the old theocracy.” The sense would then be: all those in the new covenant are greater than even the greatest in the old covenant. Thus the vast superiority of the former would be graphically presented. Yet “the kingdom of the heavens” (see 5:3) or “of God” is never restricted to the new covenant but goes back to eternity.

To say, “it comes,” always means that it existed long before this time. John was in the kingdom, for faith admitted him into it as it did all other believers. The view that John belonged to the old covenant is contradicted by Jesus himself who describes him as being an object of Old Testament prophecy which ended with Malachi. Jesus thus combines John with himself as inaugurating the promised new covenant.

He that is less than John in the kingdom is one who either has no office or has one that is less than John’s. He can be called greater than John in the kingdom for one reason only. This is not personal faith, to which the context makes no reference, nor does Jesus ever present John as a weak believer. The greatness of those who are officially less than John consists in the great treasures of revelation given to them by God. Read 13:16, 17. Jesus is speaking of the time now in progress.

In spite of his great office John could not in prison see the great miracles Jesus was working. Soon he would give up his life, and, therefore, could not see the consummation of Jesus’ work (death, resurrection, etc.). All believers who witnessed these things thereby had an advantage over John. Note how Jesus here again turns from John to his hearers. They neither prized John as they should nor understood what Jesus was now offering them. Yet by receiving all that he was presenting to them they could be greater than John who would soon be dead.

Matthew 11:12

12 With δέ Jesus adds a necessary statement, one which stresses the glorious time in which the hearers of Jesus were privileged to live. Now from the days of John the Baptist until now the kingdom of the heavens presses forward forcefully, and forceful people snatch it. We consider it of little import whether βιάζεται is the passive (C.-K. 219 at length) or the middle used in an active sense (Zahn and others, giving examples). The passive, however, cannot mean “suffers violence,” but means, “is brought with force,” namely by John and by Jesus. “Suffers violence” assumes that the βιασταί are the agents, and that both clauses mean the same thing, which is scarcely probable. In substance it is quite the same whether we say, the kingdom itself “comes forward powerfully” or “is brought forward powerfully” by John and by Jesus. This statement obviously characterizes the years “from the days of John the Baptist until now,” from the day when John began to baptize until now when Jesus was in the full swing of his work.

Of course, “until now” does not imply that this urging of the kingdom on men ceases at this moment; the matter goes on. We have no reason to make the enemies of the kingdom the agents of βιάζεται (when it is regarded as a passive) and to refer the verb to their violence against it, letting the second clause express the same thought. The trend of the entire discourse deals, not with violence against the kingdom, but with the indifference and the dissatisfaction that hinder men from entering it with zest.

The absence of the article shows that βιασταί does not refer to a special class of men but only to the quality which those who appropriate the kingdom manifest. The translation “men of violence” might pass if hostility were referred to; the idea of violence is too strong an idea in the present connection. This word is not found in the secular Greek which uses βιατός in the sense of strong, courageous. The correspondence between βιάζεται and βιασταί 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,” let us say “to grab” it all. For the opposite action see v. 16–19; Rev. 3:15.

Matthew 11:13

13 Jesus adds further explanations in regard to this time. For all the prophets and the law did prophesy until John. And if you are willing to accept it, he is Elijah, the one about to come. Why did Jesus say “from the days of John the Baptist,” etc.? Because John introduces the grand new era. For 430 years, since the last prophet, Malachi, spoke and wrote, the completed Old Testament Scriptures (“all the prophets and the law”) gave forth their utterance. “Until John” does not mean that they then ceased, but that the fulfillment came in John. Then “the days of John the Baptist,” etc., set in when the kingdom pressed forward as it had never done before.

Matthew 11:14

14 Then Mal. 4:5, the very last word spoken by that prophet, was fulfilled. John is the “Elijah” whom Jehovah promised to send, hence ὁμέλλωνἔρχεσθαι, “the one about to come,” whose work on the hearts of the people the prophet describes briefly. Since John’s work was a stern call to repentance, he resembled Elijah, cf. Luke 1:17, “in the spirit and power of Elias.” The Jews thought that Elijah himself would appear, cf. John 1:21, which, of course, even John had to contradict; compare Matt. 17:10, etc.

Jesus does not affirm that John is the promised Elijah but states the matter conditionally: “if you are willing to accept it.” This implies that they may not be willing to consider John that great promised Elijah. It is also not a matter of the understanding, as though the meaning of the prophecy were doubtful, but a matter of the will. Jesus often points to the will as the source of unbelief (23:37, “ye would not”; John 5:40). This was the case with John. All that the Jews were willing to do was to rejoice in his light for a season (John 5:35), to exult in the feeling of again having a prophet in their midst. But to treat him seriously as the Elijah to come, to wake up to the great era that began with John—that was another matter (v. 18). This heart condition Jesus touches with his “if.”

We note that Jesus does not reckon John with the Old Testament prophets, does not regard him as the last of them who completes their work. Their work was completed by Malachi. John is himself the object of prophecy, with him begin the new days of the kingdom, his place is in the New Testament.

Matthew 11:15

15 The “if” of v. 14 is justification for the call: He that has ears to hear, let him hear! This is not a concluding formula as 13:43 and Mark 4:23 show, for Jesus continues to speak. In other connections the call to use the ears may end a discourse. We retain ἀκούειν because it is found in the decisive texts. The thing that is to be heard properly so as to affect the hearer’s heart is this fulfilled prophecy, the fact that John is Elijah as Jesus presents this in his discourse on John. In “he that has ears” lies the implication of wilful guilt when those ears that were made to hear (and understand) are not used for this purpose, 13:14, 15.

Matthew 11:16

16 Without a pause Jesus now turns his attention to the deplorable conduct of his hearers. How miserably they had used their ears is shown by a telling illustration. Now to what shall I liken this generation? namely the one already indicated by the period of time mentioned in v. 12: “from the days of John the Baptist until now.” The verb is the deliberative aorist subjunctive, and the question does not imply that Jesus is casting about for an illustration, but that his hearers are now to see just what they are like. It is like to children sitting in the market places who, calling to their companions, say, We piped to you, and you did not dance; we wailed, and you did not beat your breasts. The parable is plain and simple if we leave it thus instead of inverting it or ignoring the tertium comparationis by making this generation like two sets of children. The large, open market places were convenient playgrounds for the children of the neighborhood when the market was not in progress.

Jesus has in mind a group of such children, such as he had occasionally watched. This group tried to direct the play first to one game, then to another, as their mood and fancy dictated. They expected all the other children to accept their suggestion; and when these did not comply, they pettishly cried out and blamed the others.

Matthew 11:17

17 At one time they insisted on playing wedding. So they copied what they had seen their elders doing: they piped or fluted, imitating the flutes used in wedding processions, by either blowing little whistles they had made or merely whistling with their lips. They were determined that all the other children should forthwith join them by hopping and skipping in a procession as did those who followed the pipers at a wedding. But the other children did not want to play this game, they refused to skip after the whistlers. So these complained and blamed them: “We piped to you, and you did not dance!” They wanted to have it their way and acted in an ugly fashion when they could not. Jesus purposely chooses a joyful game.

Then he selects the opposite: a sad game. All at once these children want to play funeral. So they again copy their elders. They started the loud wailing of the professional wailing women that were hired for funerals (9:23; Eccles. 12:5; Amos 5:16). And they wanted all the other children to act as the bereaved always acted: beat their breasts, head, hips, etc. But these other children refused to join in, and then the group that was determined to lead complained: “We wailed, and you did not beat your breasts, ἐκόψασθε, strike yourselves.” This sad game is purposely chosen as being the opposite of the glad one. The point lies in the fact that one group of children assumed the leadership in the games and veered, as the notion struck them, from one game to its opposite and then made loud complaint when they could not have their way. “This generation,” Jesus says, “is exactly like this group of children.”

Matthew 11:18

18 For John came, neither eating nor drinking, and they say, He has a demon! The Son of man came, eating and drinking, and they say, Lo, a glutton of a man and a winebibber and friend of publicans and of sinners. And justified was wisdom from her works. “For” gives the reason that the parable of the willful children describes this generation so aptly. But this “for” has led some into letting the piping and the mourning children represent Jesus and John (the one eating, etc., the other not), and the other children who refused to dance and to beat themselves represent the unresponsive Jewish people. But the parable has this pointed heading: “To what shall I liken this generation?” and not, “myself and John.” Then the parable continues: “It is like,” etc. Nor does Jesus present himself and John as veering from one extreme to another and then complaining that people are not ready to veer with them.

Moreover, the piping is mentioned first in the parable, the wailing second; but the stern Baptist came first and is also named first by Jesus, and he himself is named in the second place. This shuts out the interpretation that Jesus and John did the piping and the wailing. The reverse is true: John and Jesus would not accomodate themselves to the fickle multitudes with their moods and notions. The parable is not trying to explain the small success of John and of Jesus but pictures the silly, childish way in which this generation, which had both John and Jesus before their eyes, passed judgment on both. The two opposite games, wedding and funeral, do refer to Jesus and to John, but the arrangement in the parable and in the application is not parallel like this == but chiastic like this X: piping and Jesus eating and drinking first and last and in between wailing and John not eating.

These Jews were like silly children. When God sent them the Baptist, they wanted to pipe and have everyone dance with them. When the Baptist refused to join them in such a game, they called him morose, intolerable, and turned from him aggrieved and disappointed. These people likewise failed to understand the golden days of Jesus, which God sent them. Then they insisted on the game of funeral, on fasting (9:14), on rigorous traditional Sabbath observance, etc. “Not eating nor drinking,” i.e., in the way men freely did, describes John’s asceticism, who lived as a Nazarite. His whole appearance was a rebuke to his generation. Instead of heeding that rebuke, many said: “Something is surely wrong with a man who lives like this; a demon must have upset his mind!”

When Jesus came “eating and drinking” (the wording making him the very opposite of John), the Jews were again dissatisfied. Jesus moved freely among men, ate and drank with them on all manner of occasions, yet always observed every propriety and the divine ceremonial law, and was open and friendly with all. Instead of understanding the purpose of this difference between the messenger of repentance, sent in the spirit of Elijah (v. 14, 15), and the Messiah as “the Son of man” (see 8:20), made in the likeness of men and found in fashion as a man (Phil. 2:7, 8), the Jews abused him, too. What they demanded of John they condemned in Jesus; what they condemned in John they demanded of Jesus. In reality, by both actions they condemned themselves. With the same slanderous tongue that attributed a demon to John they viciously called Jesus ἄνθρωποςφάγος, “a glutton of a man,” the two nouns being used like one term, and “a winebibber,” one who ate and drank to excess.

Wine was the common drink at meals and was used at the Passover and in connection with sacrifices. The climax is reached in the addition, “a friend of publicans and of sinners” (9:10, etc.; Luke 15:1, etc.). The viciousness of the charges, both against John and against Jesus, is apparent. Jesus scorns to enter into any sort of defense.

All he does is to add the pithy statement, “And justified was wisdom from her works.” In Matthew’s account the texts support the reading ἔργων, in Luke 7:35, the reading τέκνων, to which πάντων is added. The difference may be due to the Aramaic term which, when written without the vowel points and even when pronounced, might mean either “works” or “children.” But ἀπό does not mean “by” as though the works or the children of wisdom pronounced the verdict of acquittal. The preposition indicates the source from which the acquittal is drawn: von ihren Werken her. Materially there is no difference, for the works of wisdom are always done by the children of wisdom. In this instance these are the works of John and of Jesus who were exponents of the divine wisdom which sent the Jews exactly what they needed in the actions of both John and Jesus. The verb has the full emphasis: “nothing less than fully justified was” wisdom.

The aorist is in place, since the works were performed in the past. John’s career is at an end, and the actions of Jesus which the Jews slandered were also performed in the past. The agent back of the passive is most likely “this generation.” To slander wisdom in such a childish fashion, one slander contradicting the other, is to pronounce her innocent. The verb is forensic in the fullest degree as it is wherever it is used (review the exhaustive treatment by C.-K. 317, etc.). The statement is not ironical: “This is the silly way in which this wise generation was justified by the treatment it gave John and Jesus!” By closing with the ἔργα Jesus returns to the ἔργα (v. 2) which prompted the entire discourse.

Matthew 11:20

20 Luke 10:13–15 incorporates the “woes” in the address with which Jesus sent out the Seventy. Matthew writes only “then” and adds no special circumstances. Then he began to upbraid the cities in which the most of his works of power were done because they did not repent. On the circumstantial “began” compare v. 7; it marks the importance of what follows. The terrible words that follow, which are well characterized by the severe verb “to upbraid,” reveal the gentle Jesus as being also the mighty and the terrible Jesus. The whole divine power that is behind the sweet Beatitudes is equally behind the judgment woes on all who spurn those blessings.

The cities here named formed the populous center from which Christ’s Galilean ministry radiated. Jesus says nothing about his Word and his preaching and calls his miracles δυνάμεις, “power-deeds,” and not σημεῖα, “signs.” The latter term is usually combined with his person and his Word as being productive of faith. Here Jesus remains on the lowest level and deals only with the first and natural impression which his works of might ought to produce in men’s hearts. These works ought at least to check men in their careless course of sin as the men of Nineveh halted in their wickedness when Jonah announced the destruction of their city and brought them nothing but the condemnation of the law without a word of the gospel. But these Jewish cities remained obdurate. The aorist “they did not repent” marks the awful fact.

This verb is here used in the narrow sense, denoting the act of contrition. The entire passage is obscured when repentance is here taken in the wider sense of contrition plus faith. Works of might cannot produce faith, but they ought to produce contrition and terror at the thought of Almighty God. Naturally, where this first effect is absent, all other effects, those caused by the Word, will also be absent.

Matthew 11:21

21 Woe to thee, Chorazin! Woe to thee, Bethsaida! because, if in Tyre and Sidon had been done the works of power done in you, long ago would they have repented in sackcloth and ashes. But I say to you, for Tyre and Sidon it shall be more endurable in the day of judgment than for you. Chorazin is mentioned only here, and Bethsaida only a few times. Because both were so near Capernaum they witnessed, according to Jesus’ own statement, many of his mighty works. “Woe” is an interjection and is here construed with the dative. It really states a judgment on the part of him who utters it upon those with reference to whom it is uttered; and ὅτι introduces the reason for this woe, “because.” By a conditional sentence of past unreality (εἰ with the aorist and the aorist with ἄν) the two pagan cities on the Mediterranean coast, Tyre and Sidon, are compared with the two cities on the shore of the Lake of Galilee, Chorazin and Bethsaida.

Both pagan cities on the Mediterranean had the reputation of being wicked, and the former was to be left as “a place to spread nets,” it was to be completely obliterated. Sidon was located twenty miles above Tyre.

The remarkable thing is that Jesus says that these cities would have repented if the same works had been done in them that were done in the two Jewish cities. God’s omniscience includes all possible actions. Since the possible lies between the absolutely necessary (God himself) and things that are free (such as actual human actions), the knowledge of the possible is called scientia media: under certain conditions certain possible things would become actual which, however, for lack of the conditions do not become actual; yet God knows all about them. In the second place, Jesus is here speaking of repentance in the sense of outward desistance from gross sins and crimes, the so-called peccata clamantia for which Tyre and Sidon were famous, not of the repentance which consists of spiritual conversion. The case of Tyre and Sidon thus lies in the realm of divine providence not in that of saving grace. This answers the question as to why such mighty works were not done in Tyre and Sidon.

This is only the general question why any number of possibilities (and they are countless) did not and do not become actualities. They belong to the mysteries of providence which lie beyond mortal comprehension.

Yet all these possibilities, although they never become actualities, are taken into account by the divine Mind, especially also in the final judgment which shall be meted out with absolute justice to every man. If Tyre and Sidon would have put on sacking, a dark, rough stuff worn next to the skin as the symbol of remorse and deepest humiliation, and would have sat in ashes or covered head and shoulders with ashes (Job 2:8) as a second sign of utmost sorrow and mourning, without question this possibility will not be forgotten in God’s reckoning.

Matthew 11:22

22 On πλήν as an adversative see B.-D. 449; R. 1187. In “I say to you” speaks the voice of authority which shall pronounce the sentence “in judgment day.” On the lighter sentence for Tyre and Sidon see the comment on 10:15. Also the wicked dead shall arise, and eternal punishment has degrees.

Matthew 11:23

23 And thou, Capernaum, shalt thou be exalted to the heavens? To hades shalt thou go down! Because, if in Sodom had been done the works of power done in thee, it would have remained until this day. But I say to you, that for the land of Sodom it shall be more endurable in the day of judgment than for thee. Capernaum, the worst of all, forms the climax. Here Jesus made his home, and here more numerous works of power were wrought—yet here, too, in vain.

The interrogative particle μή implies a negative reply on the part of the speaker: “Thou surely dost not expect to be so exalted because thou hast been mine own city and so highly favored by me?” Yet the speaker hints that the negative reply may not be forthcoming. With terrific force the hesitation is ended: “To hades shalt thou go down!”—whatever thou mayest expect. Note the clashing contrast between the phrases ἕωςτοῦοὐρανοῦ and ἕωςᾅδου. This contrast is intensified by the terms “up” and “down” in the compound verbs.

The English hades and hell should not be written with a capital letter; neither should heaven or the heavens be written in this manner. Here “hades,” the unseen place (a privativum plus ἰδεῖν) is beyond question the opposite of “heaven” and thus must mean hell. Here “hades” is not a translation of sheol, for Jesus is not quoting although he may have used sheol in the Aramaic. Note that Jesus does not postpone Capernaum’s descent into hades until the judgment day. Sodom had already been destroyed, Tyre and Sidon would experience a similar fate as would also Chorazin, Bethsaida, and the worst of them all, Capernaum. “Hades” cannot mean das Totenreich, the realm of the dead, into which all the dead descend as some think. If a place that was different from heaven and hades, a receptacle for all dead men, existed, it would really be pointless for Jesus to declare that obdurate Capernaum shall descend thither.

Where else would dead men go? Matthew has written “hades” only once more, in 16:18, and there, too, it has the sense of hell, the place of the damned, cf. Smith, Dictionary of the Bible, ed. by Hackett, the discussion by Bartlett under “Hell,” II, 1039; Philippi, Glaubenslehre, VI, 57. Compare Gehenna in 5:22, 29; 10:28. Speculative thought makes hades a condition instead of a place, but such a view clashes with the words here uttered by Jesus.

The cause for Capernaum’s descent to hell is the same as the one mentioned in v. 21, and is expressed by the same type of conditional sentence. But now Sodom (see 10:15) is used as a signal example of God’s wrath and judgment. Instead of “it would have repented” we now have “it would have remained to this day.” The sense is the same. Sodom would have repented in so far as to desist from its abnormal and horrible sins. Like other godless cities, God would then have let it remain.

Matthew 11:24

24 The fate of Sodom in the final public judgment before the universe of men and of angels shall be according. See v. 22 and 10:15.

Matthew 11:25

25 At that season Jesus answered and said, I openly confess to thy honor, Father, Lord of the heaven and of the earth, that thou didst conceal these things from wise and intellectual men and didst reveal them unto infants. Yea, Father, because thus it was well-pleasing before thee. Matthew connects this incident with the preceding only by the phrase “at that season,” καιρός, the time marked and distinguished by what he has just reported. Luke 10:21 adds more the Seventy had returned, and “in that hour Jesus rejoiced in the Spirit and said” what is now reported. We must assume that also the Twelve returned. The participle ἀποκριθείς is often used in a wider sense, not as indicating a response to some question but a response to some situation. So here the καιρός calls forth the words now spoken.

The verb ἐξομολογεῖσθαι with the dative means more than “to thank” or even “to praise.” The intensification by means of ἐκ adds to the idea of acknowledging or confessing the notion of greatness or of openness: “I openly confess (or acknowledge) to thy honor”; and ὅτι states what is thus acknowledged. As the Son in the essential sense Jesus uses the unqualified address “Father” and repeats this in the next verse. He is speaking to the Father but in the presence of the assembled disciples (Luke 10:23) so they all may hear him. But another relation is here to be noted, one which reveals the supreme majesty of this Father of Jesus: “Lord of the heaven and of the earth,” i.e., as the Creator and the Ruler of the universe. This majesty stands out in overwhelming contrast to the “wise and intellectual men” who close their foolish hearts against his revelations and in another contrast to the “infants” who are blessed with these revelations. What a marvel that the eternal Father of the eternal Son, to whom all heaven and earth bow in submission, should condescend to people who are nothing but infants and helpless babes!

Yet in the very word νήπιοι, “infants,” lies the hint of the reason for thus blessing them. As the Father of the Son and through this Son they are his dear little ones to whom, therefore, “these things” may be, yea, must be revealed.

The act on account of which Jesus exalts his Father is a double one: concealing certain things from wise and intellectual men and revealing them to men who, compared with these, are nothing but babes. The absence of the articles before σόφοι and συνετοί keeps the stress on the qualities here indicated. The two terms refer to one general class, and the verbal συνετός is one of the few used in the New Testament in an active sense, R. 1097. While the scribes and the Pharisees are the type here referred to, all those are included who are filled with the sufficiency of their own intellectual and educational acquirements in matters of religion. Being wise and intellectual like the rabbis with their false theology and its equally false application to life, nothing of the true revelation and theology of God can be conveyed to them. Hence Jesus says: the Father “did conceal these things from them.” The ταῦτα refers to all that formed the substance of Christ’s teaching and preaching, i.e., the gospel of the kingdom with its great principle of salvation by grace through faith in Christ.

The aorists are important: ἀπέκρυψας, ἀπεκάλυψας, and ἐγένετο. This proceeding on the part of God is something that has been settled from the very start, is a fixed and unalterable thing that has been determined by him from the beginning and is never to be changed. Only the great fact is stated by these aorists, a reason for this great act of God is not added. Yet in the designations “wise and intelligent men,” on the one hand, and “infants,” on the other, the reason for God’s act is suggested. The wise and intelligent are filled with their own wise and learned ideas, and thus God, finding them filled and satisfied with what they have, can give them nothing. The infants, however, are those who lack everything and realize their emptiness.

They are the poor that mourn and are meek and hunger and thirst, 5:3–6;18:3; Phil. 3:8. Having nothing, God can fill them with everything.

The Father’s action, therefore, comports with his whole plan of universal grace. He arranged it so that nothing should be required of us, that all should come from him. If high intellectual attainments on our part were required, this would automatically shut out all who have no such attainments. If we had to bring something, grace would be only partial and not complete on God’s part. Moreover, the fact is that no man can bring anything and if he thinks he can, he deceives himself The Father had to proceed as he did.

We must add, however, that no man is a νήπιος by nature, be his education ever so primitive. 1 Cor. 1:26 makes it plain that the sense of Christ’s word is not that the gospel is intended only for the ignorant and not for the educated. The terms wise, intelligent, as well as infants, are here used, not to describe men in their state before the gospel comes to them, but as subsequent to its work upon them. Every man, even the most ignorant, has some pet wisdom of his own with which he at first reacts against the gospel of grace. By its power this gospel removes that pet wisdom and makes men infants so that they receive everything from God. This work succeeds in the case of some of the most learned and highly educated. But some cling to their foolish wisdom in spite of all efforts of grace.

Such were not only the scribes and the Pharisees but the unlearned Jews as well who allowed these men to influence them (v. 15–24). So today some of the worst opponents of the gospel are those who follow the scientists and advanced religious thinkers of our time. All these are the wise and intelligent referred to by Jesus.

Matthew 11:26

26 With “yea” Jesus emphatically affirms what he has just said. The Father’s action has the fullest approval of Jesus. The article may be used with the vocative as the Hebrew and the Aramaic regularly use it, and the nominative form may be used as a vocative: ὁπατήρ. Does ὅτι here mean “because” (“for,” our versions), or is it a repetition of the ὅτι used in v. 25, with the meaning “that”? Have we the reason why the Father concealed and revealed as he did or simply a repetition of what he did in other words? Grammar cannot decide the issue.

Most commentators prefer “that” and supply ἐξομολογοῦμαι from v. 25. Observe that in the A. V. both ὅτι are regarded as being causal. The simple fact is that in the case of verbs of this kind it makes no practical difference whether we state why we praise or what we praise: the thing we praise is the reason for the praise.

Yet why the Father did what he did calls for an explanation. One explanation we have noted, the one that speaks of the persons concerned. But this takes us only halfway. The profoundest reason lies in the Father himself. And this Jesus gives us by saying that it was his εὐδοκία. The objection that the incomprehensible acts of God are not made comprehensible by being traced back to his equally incomprehensible will, misunderstands the εὐδοκία, a standard term in the New Testament. This is not an arbitrary, incomprehensible will or decree but the “good pleasure” or “good thought” of God, his gracious purpose and will of salvation, as the following clear passages show: Eph. 1:5, 9; Phil. 2:13; 2 Thessalonians 1:11; Luke 12:32; 2 Pet. 1:17. “In Christ he saves us out of pure mercy, without any merit or good works of ours, according to the purpose of his will,” Concordia Triglotta, 1092–3.

The ultimate source of our salvation is this great εὐδοκία. When God’s acts (concealing, revealing) are traced back to this source, the ultimate point is reached. If man was to be saved, God had to save him by his “good thought” or εὐδοκία, by devising means and ways that were in harmony with him who devised them. Since οὕτως refers to the acts of concealing and revealing, we understand ὅτι as giving the reason for these acts: “Yea, so thou didst do, Father, because thus it was eudokia in thy sight.” And who in all the universe could suggest a better plan and method than this that found God’s approval? In ἔμπροσθένσου, “in front of thee” the majesty, indicated in “Lord,” etc., (v. 25), is again evident.

Matthew 11:27

27 With the same elevated feeling and in the same exalted tone Jesus now turns from the Father to the disciples and continues to speak of his Father. All things were given to me by my Father. And no one really knows the Son except the Father; nor does anyone really know the Father except the Son and he to whom the Son may will to reveal him. Here Matthew records some of the deep things about which John delights to write. In view of 28:18; John 3:35; 13:3; 17:2, “all things” cannot be restricted. Those who attempt a restriction such as “all things connected with the eudokia, or the kingdom, or the work of salvation,” must reckon with Eph. 1:10, 22.

Since the establishment of the kingdom involves power over all hostile forces in earth and in hell, there is nothing that might be exempted from πάντα. “All things: earth, heaven, and hell; men, angels, and devils; time, death, and eternity; all things: salvation and damnation; grace and judgment; life and death; all things: truth, righteousness, glory, peace, and joy, consolation and refreshing, rest and hope, deliverance from sin, victory in temptation, overcoming the world, communion with God, the love of God, the life in God—all things have been delivered unto him. He is the almighty Lord, the Giver of divine gifts of grace, the Executor of all divine works, the Prince of life, and therefore the Captain of our salvation.” Petri.

The passive παρεδόθη has the agent added in the regular manner by ὑπό: “were handed over by my Father.” “By this he indicates that he is true man, who has received them from the Father. For neither would God deliver all things to one who was only man, nor would one who was only God receive them from another. For neither is it possible for one who is only man to be over all things, nor for one who is only God to be beneath God. Thus in this one person true God and true man are joined together.” Luther. The aorist cannot refer to the exaltation of Christ’s human nature but goes back to the Incarnation. Then “was given” to him all divine power and majesty which, however, during the days of his humiliation, he used only as needed in his ministry (as in performing the miracles), and upon the absolute use of which he did not enter until he arose from the dead in the exaltation of his human nature.

As the Son he was equal to the Father, but as man he was beneath the Father and received “all things” from him. Conc. Trigl. 1033, 55.

Καί coordinates; it is not the equivalent of γάρ. Jesus is laying the foundation for the great invitation of v. 28, etc. The first buttress is the fact that all things were given over to him as a man. The second is the fact that only the Father knows him, and he the Father; to which is added the third, and he to whom the Son reveals the Father. First we had the human nature, regarding which we must know that all things were given to it when it was joined to the divine nature. Now we hear about the divine nature as joined to the human. Between the Son and the Father there exists a peculiar relation: these two alone “really know” each other. All others are excluded.

Ἐπιγινώσκει is γινώσκω strengthened by ἐπί and means a knowing that really penetrates. This is heightened when the two subjects and the objects are noted: the Son and the Father, and their divine relation to each other. While the mutual knowledge of these persons is ineffable because of its divinity, Luther rightly points out that this knowledge is here mentioned with reference to us and our saving knowledge of the Son and of the Father. He calls it theological and not at all philosophical and by this term has in mind what especially concerns us, namely that the Father and the Son know each other’s will, mind, and thought as these pertain to us.

The third statement follows: “and he to whom,” etc. Luther writes that here there is no reluctance on the part of the Son to reveal the Father but the vast condescension of the Son of this Lord of heaven and earth (v. 25). He to whom all things have been given speaks here. “He to whom,” etc., has reference to the “infants” mentioned in V. 25. In βούγηται we have the εὐδολία; the Father’s good pleasure and the Son’s will are one. This is not an arbitrary selection of persons who are admitted to this knowledge but the pure grace which fills all whom it can induce to discard their own empty and haughty wisdom. The strong verb ἐπιγινώσκειν applies also to these persons.

They shall know with real experimental heart knowledge as children know their Father on the basis of all the manifestations of his fatherhood and his love. This is supreme spiritual blessedness but a closed book to the wise and intelligent of this world. Only by the Son’s revelation can any man really know the Father and by no wisdom of his own. “Here the bottom falls out of all merit, all powers and abilities of reason, or the free will men dream of, and it all counts nothing before God; Christ must do and must give everything.” Luther. Jesus wills to reveal the Father only through his own person, work, and Word, John 14:6; 9–11; for in no other way can a poor sinner ever come to know God.

Matthew 11:28

28 On the tremendous basis thus laid down rests the call that now follows: Hither to me, all those laboring and having been loaded down! and I myself will give you rest. Take my yoke upon you and learn from me, that I am gentle and lowly in heart, and you will find rest for your souls. For my yoke is pleasant, and my load is light. Here the good pleasure of the Father’s and the Son’s will is most delightfully voiced. Here the babes receive the revelation which, because it is distasteful to the wise, is lost and hidden from them because of this very folly. The adverb δεῦτε has the force of an imperative, “Hither to me!” The gospel has a double power: one that is efficacious; the other, collative.

In every gospel word a power comes to us that is strong to make us heed, accept, yield to that word; and at the same time in every gospel word a power comes to us that is full of heavenly gifts that are designed to place these into our hearts. “Hither to me!” draws and moves and at the same time holds out to us all that Jesus has. “I believe that I cannot by my own reason or strength believe in Jesus Christ, my Lord, or come to him,” Luther. His Word and his call enable me. “Unto me” contains all that Jesus has said about himself in the foregoing; and “unto me” means “to me alone” and not to another. Note this pronoun: unto me—and I will give—my yoke—learn of me—I am gentle—my yoke—my load. Does this make plain why he so fully revealed his relation to the Father?

“All those laboring” (present active participle) are all those who are trying to work out their own salvation, and the more serious they are, the more they will toil. “All those having been loaded down” (perfect passive participle with present implication) are all those who have let others load them down with what the latter think will secure salvation. These terms really apply to all men, for none have true rest save those who come to Christ. All the vain, fruitless striving after peace, contentment, happiness, rest, and joy, which is found the world over, is this constant laboring; and those who come with their deceptions and their proffers of help only load men down the more. Then the suffering, unrest, trouble, fear, grief, pain, an evil conscience, against which men rebel so vainly, adds to the labor and the load. In endless variety, sometimes mixed with tragedy, sometimes tragically trying to laugh it all away, this wretchedness meets us in our race. Yet a difference appears the moment Christ and his call are met.

Some cry out as did David in Ps. 38:4; others revile as did the Pharisees and the scribes, v. 18, 19, or turn disdainfully away. Normally and according to the divine intention all, actually all, ought to be drawn to Jesus. It is the height of abnormality and irrationality to spurn the divine help when it is so absolutely needed.

The emphasis is on the strong ἐγώ, “I, I myself, will give you pause or rest.” The verb is a volitive future, expressing Christ’s will, not a futuristic future (R. 924). In this “I” lies all the majesty of the previous verses and the implication that he alone can give, yes, most assuredly will give this rest. The verb ἀναπαύσω, “I will rest you, make you recover,” fits the case perfectly: the laboring shall end forever, and in place of it there shall be relief. Christ is the end of the law to those who believe. He removes the sin and the guilt, he does the saving. All we need to do is to commit ourselves to him. “Thou, God, hast created us unto thyself; hence our heart is restless until it rests in thee.” Augustine.

Matthew 11:29

29 Laboring and being loaded down are the opposites of rest, yet Jesus points out a similarity between them when he bids us, “Take my yoke upon you!” This sounds like exchanging one load for another, for a yoke is placed on an ox that by means of it he may be harnessed to a load. Indeed, the gospel and the doctrine of faith are a yoke in that they are full of commands, all of them gospel commands, however, commands to take, to trust, to feast, to inherit, and the like. The rest and the yoke are two pictures of the same blessing; by taking this yoke upon us we shall find rest for our souls. Indeed, this is a yoke that rests its bearer. The aorist ἄρατε expresses one definite act. We take this yoke when he gives us rest.

“And learn from me that I am gentle and lowly in heart” intends to encourage us to take Christ’s yoke. The aorist μάθετε means, “learn once for all.” Note that this makes a true μαθητής, disciple, i.e., one who has learned. Learn “from me,” ἀπʼ ἐμοῦ, means from contact with me, and ὅτι cannot be causal, leaving us to surmise what we are to learn, telling us only why we are to learn something that has not been told us. Once for all we are to learn that Christ is not another Moses, is not like the scribes and the Pharisees who heartlessly pile on burdens (23:4). He is πραΰς, “gentle” and mild and at the same time ταπεινὸςτῇκαρδίᾳ, “humble or lowly regarding the heart.” R. 523 calls this a locative dative, but it is, perhaps, better to call it a dative of relation. The heart of Christ is not haughty and over-bearing but humble, stooping down to us.

First, his majesty and his omnipotence as the Son, and these attributes bestowed also on his human nature in the unity of his person—this in order to guarantee all his mighty promises. Then, his gentle and humble heart—this to attract us to come to him and to take his restful yoke upon us. The idea that we are to follow his example in gentleness and lowliness is quite foreign to the connection. Nor is the yoke the cross, suffering, etc., for his sake, under which we are meekly and humbly to bow. These ideas lose the chief thought, the rest and the relief which Jesus offers us.

To this he reverts: “and you shall find rest for your souls.” This gift is the burden of his promise. He gives us rest, and thus we find the rest; hence ἀναπαύσω and ἀνάπαυσις. We find it as though it were a blessed discovery, yet the finding is caused by his giving. “For your ψυχαί” shows the nature of this rest. The souls that animate our bodies shall find themselves free from every strain and burden, with no worry, no fears, and no distress. Think of the happiness that results!

Matthew 11:30

30 But how about the yoke? Is not the Christian profession a hard life, much harder than the other type of life? Here is the answer: “For my yoke is pleasant (χρηστός), and my load is light (ἐλαφρόν).” “What can be lighter than a burden which unburdens us and a yoke which bears its bearer?” Bernhard. “Christ’s burden does not oppress but makes light and itself bears rather than is borne.” Luther. The burden and the yoke are one, the former defining the latter, and φορτίον is chosen to match πεφορτισμένοι in v. 28. We take on a new Master, and he lays on us a new load—but what a difference! Since, however, we are bound to think of the cross, affliction, persecution, and hard trials entailed in coming to Christ, let us say that all these are more than counterbalanced by the power, help, strength, and consolation supplied by him. On the other hand, those who spurn Christ’s yoke have only dismay and despair when the judgments of God begin to strike them.

R. A Grammar of the Greek New Testament in the Light of Historical Research, by A. T. Robertson, fourth edition.

M.-M. The Vocabulary of the Greek Testament, Illustrated from the Papyri and other Non-Literary Sources, by James Hope Moulton and George Milligan.

B.-P. Griechisch-Deutsches Woerterbuch zu den Schriften des Neuen Testaments, etc., von D. Walter Bauer, zweite, etc., Auflage zu Erwin Preuschens Vollstaendigem Griechisch-Deutschen Handworterbuch, etc.

B.-D Friedrich Blass’ Grammatik des neutestamentlichen Griechisch, vierte, voellig neugearbeitete Auflage besorgt von Albert Debrunner

C.-K. Biblisch-theologisches Woerterbuch der Neutestamentlichen Graezitaet von Dr. Hermann Cremer, zehnte, etc., Auflage, herausgegeben von D. Dr. Julius Koegel.

Concordia Triglotta Triglot Concordia. The Symbolical Books of the Ev. Lutheran Church.