Bible Commentaries
Matthew 20

Verses 16-28

XIV

THE RICH YOUNG RULER; DEATH AND RESURRECTION FORETOLD; THE SELFISH AMBITION OF JAMES AND JOHN REBUKED

Harmony, pages 132-136 and Matthew 19:16-20:28; Mark 10:17-45; Luke 18:18-34.

This section commences on page 132 of the Harmony; the first three pages of the section constitute a distinct subsection, because all that is said in it arises from the coming of the young ruler to Christ. This coming of this rich young man to Christ, related by Matthew, Mark, and Luke, is the occasion of four distinct lessons, which I group around four passages of Scripture: The first, "One thing thou lackest"; the second, "It is easier for a camel to go through a needle’s eye, than for a rich man to enter into the kingdom of God"; the third, Peter said, "Lo, we have left all, and followed thee’ what then shall we have?"; and the fourth, "But many shall be last that are first; and first that are last." Everything in this section may be arranged around these four scriptures.

The teaching of the Bible, especially the teaching of our Lord, on the subject of riches, calls for careful interpretation. The teaching is very abundant and manifold in both Testaments. Probably no other subject is more extensively discussed. We may accept as safe the following conclusions on these teachings: To be rich or to be poor is not in itself a sin; either may be a token of divine favor. Exceptional temptations and dangers, however, attend either great riches or extreme poverty. Agur’s prayer was wise (Proverbs 30:8-9) : Give me neither poverty nor riches; Feed me with the food that is needful for me: Lest I be full, and deny thee, and say, Who is Jehovah? Or lest I be poor, and steal, And use profanely the name of my God.

But we may pray for others as John prayed for Gaius: "I pray that in all things thou mayest prosper and be in health, even as thy soul prospereth." This expresses the great law and standard. Be as rich as you please, even as your soul prospers; keep your soul on top, but do not love wealth more than God, nor trust in uncertain riches. Wealth is a trust which brings blessings rightly used or curses wrongly used. We are perfectly safe in accepting those conclusions concerning the manifold teachings in both Testaments on the subject of wealth.

Jesus said to this young ruler, "One thing thou lackest." This young ruler’s sin is discovered to him by the throbbing heart of our Lord and is found to be his refusal to accept God’s paramount authority and sovereignty in one point alone: "One thing thou lackest: go, sell whatsoever thou hast, and give to the poor, and thou shalt have treasure in heaven: and come, follow me." There seems to be more than one point here, but they are different sides to the same thought – "selling all" is the negative side; "following Jesus" is the positive side. Heavenly treasure must be preferred to earthly treasure. This young man preferred the earthly treasure. Following Christ must be preferred to following mammon. This young man preferred to follow mammon. Let the reader observe that this case is introduced with the answer, "Keep the commandments." This young man, relying upon salvation through obedience to the law, supposed that he had kept the Commandments all his life. It was necessary to prove to him that he had not kept them perfectly: "If thou wouldst be perfect." We are not to understand our Lord to teach that the universal condition of eternal life is that men must actually give all their possessions to the poor, nor that fallen man can keep the law of God perfectly, but the soul must accept God’s sovereignty in all things. It must love treasure in heaven more than the treasure on earth. It must follow Jesus. There must not be even one thing reserved from God’s supremacy; there must be a complete surrender of our mind to God’s mind. These are great matters: The question of sovereignty, the question of true objects upon which affections should be placed, and the question of obedience. We may not satisfy ourselves with compromise or reservation. We may not Compound with sins we are inclined to, By damning those we have no mind to.

The next part of this discussion hinges on "the camel and a needle’s eye." The camel was the largest animal familiarly known to the Jews of Palestine in Christ’s day and a needle’s eye one of the smallest openings. To say, then, that it is easier for a camel to go through the eye of a needle than for & rich man to enter the kingdom of God, naturally expresses not something difficult, but something that is impossible, and is so meant here; the disciples so understood it, and our Lord, later in his explanation, confirmed their construction. It was the custom of our Lord that when he desired to attract attention and to so impress the memory that his hearers would never forget, to employ very striking sayings, but men when they come to interpret these sayings, are tempted to take all the snap out of them by trying to soften the meaning, for example (See Harmony, middle column, page 133, Mark’s account, latter part of Mark 10:24): "How hard it is for them that trust in riches to enter into the kingdom of God." That seems to be an explanation of what k he says, and yet that is a gloss, a human gloss. I mean to say, that verse does not appear in the two oldest Greek manuscripts, the Sinaitic and the Vatican, and that its appearance in later manuscripts is easier to account for as a marginal gloss by the copyist (he is doing it according to his opinion of what it means), than it is to suppose that such a statement as that would have been left out of the oldest manuscripts. The interpolating copyist is trying to soften Christ’s hard saying. It is true that they that trust in riches cannot enter the kingdom of heaven. The interpolated doctrine is taught in other scriptures, but it is not a part of this scripture and should not be so received. It is one of the passages that is certainly spurious. Consider another gloss:

When I was a child in Sunday school, all the Sunday school lessons had this explanation: The Jaffa-gate at Jerusalem had a little side-gate much smaller than the other, and over that little gate was its name written, "The Needle’s Eye," and no camel could go through that little gate without getting on its knees and having its load taken off. That seemed to be, and is, a most beautiful illustration. The rich man must kneel and have his load taken off him before he can get in, but it is probable that the gate of the Sunday school lesson got its name as a development of this text, rather than being its cause.

Another explanatory gloss in this, that the Greek word of the text should not be kamelos, "a camel," but kamilos, "a cable." Those who have been about wharves or vessels and have noted the eye or loop of a cable in comparison with a needle’s eye may see how much this play upon words relieves the difficulty. It would then mean for a camel to go through the eye of a cable. But as every text has kamelos, and not kamilos, we need not believe any of it.

The disciples were exceedingly amazed and they rightly said, "Who then can be saved?" They had been taught that riches are a blessing sent from God, and that he promises prosperity to those who love and obey him. If it be impossible for a rich man to enter the kingdom of God, "Who then can be saved?" Our Lord’s answer practically says, "It is impossible for anybody to enter the kingdom of heaven," that is, in themselves. Impossible with men, but possible with God. His teaching seems to be this: That in order to enter into the kingdom of heaven there must be something apart from any power in us. Now this rich young man had been well taught, but he had never been regenerated. He was trying to keep the law of God perfectly, and a camel might just as well try to go through the eye of a needle. It is an impossibility for any man in himself, apart from an extraneous power, to enter into the kingdom of God. We may try to set our affections on heavenly treasures, but we have to be regenerated before we can do it. Christ’s questions were designed to show him just where his difficulty lay. He must be willing at least to give up everything and follow Jesus. To show that they thus understood it, it is manifest from Peter’s words: "Then answered Peter and said unto him, Lo, we have left all, and followed thee; what then shall we have?" He claims that what was required of this rich man is just what they had done. Christ found them engaged in the fishing business, making a living by it, and said to them, "Leave this business and come, follow me. I will make you fishers of men." "If then the rich man when obedient shall have treasure in heaven, what shall we have?" Or, "What shall we have hereafter, and what shall we have in this world?" Listen to the answer: "And Jesus said unto them, Verily I say unto you, that ye who have followed me, in the regeneration when the Son of man shall sit on the throne of his glory, ye also shall sit upon twelve thrones, judging the twelve tribes of Israel. And every one that hath forsaken houses, or brethren, or sisters, or father, or mother, (or wife), or children, or lands, for my sake, shall receive a hundred fold, and shall inherit eternal life" (Matthew 19:28-29).

This does not mean, "you that have followed me in the regeneration," but "you that follow me now shall have in the regeneration." The phrase, "in the regeneration," marks the time of the reward and not of the following. He is telling first what they shall have hereafter. What then, is the meaning of the word "regeneration" here? Precisely the same word, paliggenesia, is found in Titus 3:5 and there refers to the new birth of a man, but here to the new birth of the world, which in Acts 3:21 Peter calls the times of the restoration of all things and which in his second letter he describes as the destruction and renewal of the material universe (2 Peter 3:7-13). To the same great climax of the world’s history Paul refers in Romans 8:19-23 where the whole creation groaneth and travaileth in pain together with us waiting for the redemption of our bodies. It is the clear teaching of the Bible that this earth, which was cursed on account of man’s sin, shall itself have a regeneration; not only shall man be redeemed, but his habitat shall be redeemed. There shall be a new heaven and a new earth. There shall come a great fire in which the heavens shall be rolled together as a scroll and the earth wrapped in flame shall be burned, not annihilated, for out of the purgation of that fire in the dissolution of the material universe there shall come the new heaven and the new earth, like that which was pronounced good when God originally made it. "Now, you ask me what you shall have," says Jesus. "I tell you what ye shall have: in the regeneration [that is, hereafter], when the Son of man comes in his glory, ye also shall sit upon twelve thrones judging the twelve tribes of Israel." And Paul says, "Know ye not that the saints shall judge the world? . . . Know ye not that we shall judge angels?" Now, when Christ comes again he takes his own people to himself at his right hand. They sit down with him, sit on his throne and share in the judgment that he pronounces upon wicked men and fallen angels. See a similar promise in Revelation 2:26-27. In other words, Christ, the Son of man, shall lift up by his redemption, all of his people who have suffered, to sit with him on his throne, sharing with him as co-heirs of God, and that is why man, who for a little season is made lower than angels, will be lifted up above them and shall have all dominion and everything shall be in subjection to him. "Now, you apostles left your possessions, quit your business, dropped your nets and left your homes! left everything, you twelve apostles; when I said follow me, you followed me. So you will have a reward for that hereafter."

Then he goes on to show what they shall have now, and that not only is to the apostles, but to every Christian: "There is no man that hath left house, or brethren, or sisters, or mother, or father, or children, or lands, for my sake, and for the gospel’s sake, but he shall receive a hundred fold now in this time, houses, and brethren, and sisters, and mothers, and children, and lands, with persecutions: and in the world to come eternal life" (Mark 10:29-30). A hundredfold now. The question arises here, what did Jesus mean by that? If you leave one acre of land, that you will in this life receive a farm of 100 acres? That is not his meaning, but you do in this world receive some of these things in a sense. Let us suppose, for instance, that your father and mother and brother and sister and wife, every one of them, opposed your being a Christian, and that to be a Christian, you must lose the affection of every one of them. Now in this world you will receive the affection of 100 fathers, mothers, brothers, sisters, and wives. You will find that a new family and a new kingdom exists among the people of God. You will recall when Jesus was so intensely interested in teaching on one occasion that he would not even stop to eat, that his mother and his brothers came to arrest him under a writ of lunacy. Somebody said to him, "Your mother and your brothers are standing out there." He answered, "Who is my mother? Who are my brothers?" and raising his hands to his disciples, he said, "Behold, my brothers and my mother and my sisters." You get into a new spiritual family. The old earthly kinsfolk may go against you, the spiritual kinsfolk will be for you. That is what it means as to this world. In other words, "Godliness with contentment is great gain. It has the promise of the life that now is and of the world to come," both of them. Receive that deep into your heart, but receive it in the sense that the Lord meant it.

We now come to another one of the scriptures around which lessons are grouped: "But many shall be last that are first, and first that are last." This proverb he explains by a parable. The time that you have been in the service of God does not count, so much as the spirit and the quality of your services. One may say, "Here is a young Christian; he was converted only three years ago and behold how exalted, while I am still at the bottom, though I have been a member of the church forty-five years [and asleep all the time]." Who shall be the first of these twelve disciples? Is it the one that Christ called first in order of time? Is that the one? Here in the parable are some men that commenced work the first hour of the day and some that commenced the eleventh hour of the day, and these eleventh-hour men were paid first and received just as much as the ones who, as they said, had borne the burden and the heat of the day.

I heard Dr. Tom Eaton, who, by the way, was a marvelous expounder of God’s Word, before my prayer meeting in Waco deliver a lecture on this parable of the laborers. He said:

I want to inquire on what principle Christ paid the eleventh-hour men as much as he paid those that had worked longer. I think this may be recognized as the principle: These later men explain why they are not at work. They say "No man hath hired us. We have had no opportunity. We reported ready for work; we went to the place where workmen are employed. We have wanted to work we have needed the work we held ourselves in readiness to work but there were no openings." David’s men detailed to stay in camp and watch over the baggage, received an equal portion with those who went and fought the battle. They would have gone if they had been commanded to go and how many hundreds of their brethren, brokenhearted men, are begging for work I They want work. It is enough to make one weep to see a man who feels that he is called to preach, whose soul is on fire to preach, longing and hungering for the care of a church and no church calls him. Perhaps he has not the attractive qualities of some other men, perhaps the modern standard of employment is not of the right kind. Some churches have itching ears and they want preachers who will preach something pleasing to them, and daub with untempered mortar, and it does not follow that every man that is idle, is sinfully idle.

That was Tom Eaton’s explanation, and there is sense in it. But this parable gives another explanation: The sovereignty of God. If I give a man that only came at the last hour as much as I give a man who commenced at the beginning of the day on a special contract, what is it to that first man? Can’t I do as I please with my own? In other words, God is the sovereign and we must never lose sight of that.

The next section (of two pages) has two great lessons arising from one occasion. Mark 10:32 thus gives the occasion: "And they were in the way, going up to Jerusalem; and Jesus was going before them: and they were amazed; and they that followed were afraid."

What excited that amazement and fear? He was saying nothing. It was something startling and marvelous in his appearance. The shadow of an awful coming event invested his face with a pathetic solemnity, a realization of the approaching tragedy, and a sublime purpose of resignation. More than once the historians refer to this bearing of Jesus, this majestic presence, radiating his glory in a way to separate him from all other men and to put him above all other men. His disciples once saw him praying, and something in his manner convinced them that they knew not how to pray. They saw him on the mount of transfiguration radiating his glory, and they were as drunken men at the sight. Later, in Gethsemane, his presence or bearing, caused the company of soldiers who came to arrest him to fall back as if smitten with lightning.

On the occasion we are considering he answers their unspoken amazement and fear. He explains the handwriting of tragedy on his own face. He foretells minutely his approaching arrest in Jerusalem and all its attendant indignities; his crucifixion and his resurrection. But they understood it not. How blind they were, not to understand that the crosses must precede the crown! Their minds kept leaping forward to a glorious earth kingdom with its high places of honor. So Peter, immediately after his great confession at Caesarea Philippi, had said of Christ’s humiliating death: "Be it far from thee, Lord."

So here two of his disciples, James and John, working through their ambitious mother, are petitioning for the places of honor at his right hand and left hand, in his kingdom.

My old friend, Mr. Bartlett, of Marlin, once put into my hands a newspaper clipping which related a remarkable occurrence at the Pan-Episcopal Convention in London. The clipping set forth that Dean Stanley put up to preach in Westminster Abbey the bishop of Haiti, a coal black, thicklipped Negro, who, unawed by storied urn and animated bust, or the representatives of royalty, nobility, boundless wealth and aristocratic pride, calmly took this text: "The mother of Zebedee’s children said, Lord give my son John the place at thy right hand in thy kingdom and give my son James a place at thy left hand in thy kingdom," and then said, "Let us pray:

“O Lord, thou who didst make of one blood all the nations of men that inhabit the earth and didst fashion their hearts alike, give thou to the sons of Shem that betrayed thee a place on thy right hand, and give to the sons of Japheth that crucified thee a place on thy left hand, but Lord, give to the sons of Ham, the sons of that Simon, the Cyrenean, that bore thy cross, a place at the outer gate where some of the light of the heavenly city may fall on them and where they can hear some of the sweet music, but where looking earthward they can see Ethiopia stretching out her hands to God and behold her dusky children coming home in penitence to God and be the first to welcome them there."

It is a marvelous prayer, if correctly reported.

One very important lesson we may deduce from this petition of the mother of Zebedee’s children. The Romanists claim that Peter received away back yonder, that is, at Caesarea Philippi, the primacy; that he received from the hands of Christ the first place; that he was made Pope. But if indeed that question was settled then, how could John and James here suppose that the highest places were yet to be assigned, and how could the same matter of honor or precedence arise again at the last Passover supper? But look at our Lord’s reply: "Ye know not what ye ask. Are ye able to drink the cup that I am about to drink?" The sons prompted the mother to make the request and were with her. So Bathsheba, who came to David requesting that Solomon, her son, should succeed him upon the throne. Ambitious mothers! Our Lord rebukes the ambitious sons: "You ask for the high places, but high places must be preceded by high service. Are you able to drink of the cup that I shall drink of? Are you able to be baptized with that baptism that I am baptized with? Are you able to establish your title to precedence, and to do the services that obtain primacy in the kingdom of heaven?"

When the ten heard this application they were moved with indignation. The ten includes Peter; the ten includes nine others. What does it show? Virgil once asked, when he was describing how the gods intervened to destroy Troy, "Can such ire exist in celestial minds?" So here we may ask, "Can such envy exist in apostolic minds?" Did you ever notice at conventions an ambitious desire to be made prominent?

Now comes the great lesson (p. 136), Matthew 20:25-28: "Ye know that the rulers of the Gentiles lord it over them, and their great ones exercise authority over them. Not so shall it be among you; but whosoever would become great among you shall be your minister; and whosoever would be first among you shall be your servant: even as the Son of man came not to be ministered unto, but to minister, and to give his life a ransom for many." Now, I solemnly assure you that instead of craving the prominent places and positions, it is far better to crave the spirit of service and sacrifice, that will entitle you to the prominent places.

QUESTIONS

1. What are the four scriptures around which the four lessons occasioned by the rich young ruler’s coming to our Lord are grouped?

2. What may be regarded as safe conclusions on the teachings of our Lord concerning riches?

3. What was Agur’s prayer relative to riches?

4. What was John’s prayer for Gaius and its lesson?

5. What was the one thing the "rich young ruler" lacked, or what was his one sin?

6. What was the double idea in Christ’s language to him, "Go, sell," etc., and what the application?

7. Had he kept the Commandments? If not, in what point had he failed?

8. What are three great questions for every soul?

9. What couplet cited in point, and who wrote it?

10. What is the meaning of the "needle’s eye," negatively and positively?

11. What question did the illustration call forth from the disciples, what Christ’s answer and what his meaning?

12. What question did this call forth from Peter, and Christ’s reply?

13. What did Christ mean both negatively and positively by "in the regeneration"?

14. Give the Bible teaching on the "regeneration" of the earth.

15. What is the meaning of "sit upon twelve thrones," etc., and how does the thought apply to all Christians?

16. How are we to receive a hundredfold for the sacrifices we make here in this world for Christ and what was Christ’s own illustration of this thought?

17. What is the point illustrated by the parable of the laborers and Dr. Baton’s explanation of it?

18. What other point explained by this parable?

19. Explain the amazement of the disciples on the way to Jerusalem and illustrate by other scriptures.

20. How does Christ answer their amazement and fear and how did they receive the explanation?

21. How does the ambition of James and John here manifest itself? Relate the incident of the Pan-Episcopal Convention in London.

22. What lesson from this incident of the mother of Zebedee’s children relative to Peter and the papacy?

23. What was our Lord’s answer to this request and its lessons?

24. How did this request of Zebedee’s sons affect the other ten, and what does it show?

25. What is the great law of promotion in the kingdom of God?

Verses 29-34

XV

BARTIMEUS HEALED; ZACCHEUS SAVED; AND THE PARABLE OF THE POUNDS

Harmony, pages 137-139 and Matthew 20:29-34; Mark 10:46-52; Luke 18:35-19:28.

This section commences on page 137 of the Harmony. There are just seven things that I want to say about this miracle of the healing of Bartimeus:

1. This record has always given Bartimeus a lively place in the memory of each student of the Bible. The story takes hold of the imagination.

2. While our Lord healed a great many blind people, our Gospels specialize but three instances in the following order: (1) The healing of the blind man in Bethsaida recorded by Mark alone (Mark 8:22-26), found on page 89 of the Harmony; (2) the healing of the man born blind at Jerusalem as recorded in John 9, and found in the Harmony, page 108; and (3) this lesson on page 137 of the Harmony, recorded by Matthew, Mark, and Luke. And it is one of the greatest proofs of the inspiration of the Bible that when we take the three accounts and put them together in the form of a Harmony, a definite plan is just as evident in the combined narrative of the case as in the gradations of the single narratives. The same characteristic appears in the three restorations to life: (1) of the daughter of Jairus, (2) of the son of the widow of Nain, and (3) of Lazarus. So with other miracles; the combined narratives are graded in every case. Therefore in studying this miracle of the healing of blindness we must compare the first instance recorded, the one in Bethsaida, with the second instance recorded, the one in John 9, and this last instance, and we will be enabled by the comparison to notice the distinguishing features of the three miracles, which are very remarkable. I have more than once recommended Trench’s book on miracles. If we take his book and carefully read in connection and in order these three instances of the healing of the blind, then Broadus on this last one in his commentary on Matthew, and Hovey on the one in John, we learn how to gather and correlate homiletic materials for a great sermon on Christ’s healing the blind. The books of Broadus and Hovey belong to "The American Commentary."

3. The textual difficulties of this last case call for some explanation. These difficulties appear as follows: Matthew says, "Behold, two blind men sitting by the wayside;" Mark and Luke give just one, and give the surname. Matthew says, "And as they went out from Jericho," and Luke says, "As he drew nigh unto Jericho." There is no trouble at all about the first difficulty, that is, Matthew mentions that there were two and the others confine what they say to the principal one; there is no contradiction. In other words the histories of Mark and Luke do not contradict the statement by Matthew that there were two, unless they had said, "only one."

4. In the other difficulty, Matthew and Mark saying it occurred as they went out from Jericho, and Luke saying that it was as they drew nigh to Jericho, and Luke saying that it was as they drew nigh to Jericho, there seems to be a plain contradiction of Scripture. The footnote in the Harmony gives the best explanation. It is clearly stated in that footnote and it is much more elaborated in the commentary on the passage by Dr. Broadus. The point is just this: The old Jericho was abandoned for a long time after the curse that was put upon it when the Israelites first entered into the land, but it was afterward partially rebuilt. Herod, the king living when Christ was born, built a new Jericho, and if we simply understand that Luke is referring to the new Jericho, and Matthew and Mark to the old Jericho, we have the explanation.

5. This beggar, or these two beggars, both ascribe to Jesus a messianic title: "Thou son of David." It was the peculiar characteristic of the Messiah when he came that he was to be the son of David – sit on David’s throne – and that is why in the genealogies Matthew traces the descent of Jesus from David legally through Joseph, and Luke really through Mary, his mother. It had to be proved that he belonged to the royal family of David. Now these men ascribe that messianic title to him.

6. The next thing which I wish to explain is in Matthew 20:31 of Matthew’s account: "And the multitude rebuked them, that they should hold their peace." The source, or ground, of that rebuke, has been explained in two ways, and the latter way is the more probable. The first is that the Pharisees in that multitude rebuked these suppliants for ascribing the messianic title to Jesus of Nazareth. It is more probable that the disciples did the rebuking because they did not like for Jesus to be constantly obtruded upon by the persistence of these beggars. In like manner, on an earlier occasion, they rebuked the persistence of the Syrophoenician woman: "Why trouble ye the Master?" And again they rebuked the bringing to him of little children that he might put his hands on them, bless them, and pray for them.

One of the strongest proofs of the divinity of Jesus Christ was his approachableness by all men at all times. He would not allow himself to be hedged against the approach of people to him who needed help.

A rich man like Mr. Rockefeller surrounds himself with guards and with clerks, so that it is impossible for anybody to have an interview with him unless he first designates his wish to have an interview, and the reason is that he hasn’t time, and that it isn’t possible for him to receive and hear everybody who desires to come and see him) especially when they want help, but Christ faces the whole world and says, "Come unto me, all ye that labor and are heavy laden, and I will give you rest," and whether it was a Syrophoenician woman, or parents bringing little children, or blind beggars by the wayside, he would not have their approach or progress to him barred.

7. The last thing to which I wish to call attention in that miracle can be put forth in the form of a question. What thrilling song was based on a passage in this miracle? ZACCHEUS SAVED

Now, on the next section (p. 138 – Luke 19:1-28), I wish to say a few things about the case of Zaccheus. Zaccheus, like Bartimeus, strikes the imagination. In my childhood I heard a plantation Negro sing: Little Zaccheus climbed a tree, The Lord and Master for to ace.

I don’t remember the rest of the song, but it illustrates the hold of the Zaccheus story on the popular imagination. It suggests also a very valuable lesson, correcting the impression that only giants in body and strength can become masters in mind and knowledge. Big men physically are apt to look down somewhat, not only in body, but spiritually and mentally, upon men of low stature. I recall the poem in the old school book, McGuffey’s Third Reader: How big was Alexander, Pa, That people called him great? Was he so tall, like some steeple high, That while his feet were on the ground His hands could touch the sky?

We recall such men in this country as Alexander Stephens, and Stephen Arnold Douglas, the little giant, and many others of small stature who attained to great distinction. The great William of the house of Orange, the Duke of Luxemburg, General Roberts, a great British general, the Duke of Wellington, and even Louis XIV, were small men. I say that for the comfort of any one who is unable to measure up high physically as he may wish he could.

Here I ask a question: When Zaccheus says, "Behold, Lord, the half of my goods I give to the poor; and if I have wrongfully exacted aught of any man, I restore fourfold," does that language express what had been his habit before this date, or does it express a purpose of what he will do since he has met Jesus? Does Zaccheus say that from the viewpoint of a man converted that day and expressive of what he intended to do in the future, or does he designate what had been his habit to justify himself of the censure upon him by the Pharisees? They said, "Here is a sinner and Jesus of Nazareth is going to abide with a sinner." Now does Zaccheus reply, "However great a sinner I may have been, hereafter I intend to give half of my goods to the poor, and if I have wronged any man, to restore to him fourfold?" Or, "Though they call me a sinner, yet by my deeds have I proved that I am saved?"

The third observation on the case of Zaccheus is the expression, "Today is salvation come to this house." I remember once when the president of Baylor University, in the long ago, took a number of the boys out to hear an Episcopal preacher. The Episcopal preacher took the position that there was no such thing as instantaneous conversion, intending to criticize the Methodists and Baptists upon that point – that conversion was the result merely of a long previous education. As we were walking away from the church Dr. Burleson says, "What about the case of Zaccheus? He was a sinner, and a lost sinner, when he climbed that tree. He was a saved man when he came down from the tree, for our Lord said, ’To-day is salvation come to this house.’ "

I call attention to that fact because a great many preachers preach without directness and without expectation of immediate results. They think that if they will hold a meeting about nine days that on the tenth day they can get the iron so hot somebody will be converted, and they themselves have no faith in anybody being converted early in the meeting.

But great preachers expect immediate results. They are dissatisfied if somebody is not converted every time they preach. They feed their minds on that thought that God has present ability to save any man, and look for conversions. They believe that somebody will be converted that day. They pray that somebody will be converted that day:

The last thought on the Zaccheus case is what Christ said in the rebuke of the Pharisees: "He also is a son of Abraham." They counted him, because a publican, an outcast, for the publican was a Jew, who would consent to collect taxes for the Roman government, and they were held as much in abomination by the Jews as the Southern people used to hold a scalawag, i.e., a Southerner who would take office under the oppressor of the people. So "scalawag" would be a pretty good modern translation of "publican." Jesus says, "He shows that he is the son of Abraham." "All are not Jews who are Jews outwardly, but only those that are Jews inwardly," Paul says. Now this man is a Jew inwardly and outwardly; he is a fleshly and spiritual son of Abraham.

THE PARABLE OF THE POUNDS

The case of Zaccheus and what disposition he made of his money, for he was a rich man, suggested a parable. But the two reasons assigned for giving the parable of the pounds are these: "He spake a parable, because he was nigh to Jerusalem, and because they supposed that the kingdom of God was immediately to appear." Oh, how many times did our Lord warn against the idea that the coming of Christ in his glorious kingdom was immediate! Instead of its being immediate, this nobleman goes away as Jesus went away when he ascended from the dead; went to receive his kingdom and administer it from his throne in heaven; only after a long time will he come back. Let us be clear on that. He will stay there until he has done the things for which he ascended to heaven, and then when he comes back he will come back for reasons of resurrection and judgment. He will make professed Christians give an account of their stewardship. He will punish his enemies and there will not be an interval of time between his coming to reward his people and the punishment of the wicked, which the premillennialists continually affirm, but both will take place on the same occasion. This parable and a number of others make that as clear as the noonday sun. One of the reasons for speaking this parable was because so many of them supposed that this glory kingdom would come immediately. A little later we will take up a parable pretty much on the same line as the parable of the pounds, called the parable of the talents, and the two ought always to be studied together, but there were special reasons for speaking the parable of the pounds, in this connection, and when we get to the parable of the talents I will show the points of distinction between the two. So far as this one goes, two classes of people are in his mind, as here represented in the parable, the going off of the nobleman or prince to receive a kingdom: the first one is the case of those who profess to be his disciples or his people; the second case is that of those who refuse to admit his sovereignty over them, that is, the wicked, the avowedly wicked, those who openly say Jesus Christ is neither my king, nor my ruler, nor my Saviour. It is the object of this parable to show what he does in the case of his servants as he goes off, and what he does in their case when he comes back, and then to show what he does with those citizens who say that he shall not reign over them. In the case of his professed servants they are represented as agents or stewards receiving a certain amount, and here the amount is equal, ten servants each one pound, and he says, "Trade ye herewith till I come." If we profess to be Christians we acknowledge that we stand toward Christ in the relation of steward, and that what we have is given to us; that we may use it for the glory of God, and that when Jesus returns he will have a reckoning with us on that point; so that a Christian comes into judgment, not on a life and death matter, but he comes into judgment on his fidelity as a Christian. The parable shows that rewards will not be equal. All saved people will not be rewarded alike: they are saved alike, but they are not rewarded alike. The difference in their rewards is based upon the degree of their fidelity. If one man takes one pound and makes ten with it his reward is twice as great as the one who takes one pound and only makes five. That is clear. We often hear the question, "Are there degrees in heaven?" The answer to it is but another question, "Degrees of what?" If we ask, "Are there degrees of salvation?" The answer is, "No." If we ask, "Are there degrees of rewards?" The answer is, "Yes." That is evident. The servants are dealt with according to their profession, as church members are held accountable, without stopping to inquire whether they are rightfully church members. One of these servants took his pound and hid it in a napkin, and at the day of judgment he says, "Lord, here is your pound, just as you gave it to me. I rolled it up in a napkin and hid it." Now to the man Jesus replies, "Thou wicked servant," wicked because he has done no good with his opportunities, with his talents, with his money, with anything that he has had as a professed Christian. "Therefore," says the Lord, "take away from that man his pound. What good is it to him? Wrap it up in a rag and stick it in a hole. He doesn’t use it for any good purpose." As Cromwell said when he entered the British parliament and saw twelve silver images, "Whose are those images?" and the reply was, "They are the twelve apostles in silver." "Well," he says, "melt them down and put them into the coin of the realm and let them go about doing good like their name sakes." An idea is expressed in this paradox, "Unto every one that hath shall be given, but from him that hath not, even that which he hath shall be taken away from him."

There is an inexorable natural law, that an unused organ goes into bankruptcy and a used organ develops a greater power. An arm carried in a sling and unused for twelve months, loses its muscle power. So nature proves how may be taken away what one hath and to him that hath shall be given. The parable closes, "Howbeit these mine enemies, who would not that I should reign over them, bring hither and slay them before me." The slaying of the enemies and the rewarding of the servants take place at his coming and not separated by a thousand years of time. As Paul says, he visits his righteous indignation upon his enemies when he appears to be admired in his people. The two are simultaneous.

QUESTIONS

1. What is the impress made by the story of Bartimeus?

2. What three instances of healing the blind specialized by the Gospels and what evidence of inspiration do they give?

3. What are the points of likeness and the points of contrast in these three instances?

4. What authors commended on these instances of Christ’s healing the blind and the special value of a study of them on these miracles?

5. What two textual difficulties here and what is the solution of each?

6. What title did these beggars ascribe to Jesus, what is its meaning and what is the bearing of this on the harmony of the genealogies of Christ?

7. What are the two explanations of Matthew 20:31, which is preferable, and what other examples that illustrate this explanation?

8. What is one of the strongest proofs of the divinity of Christ and how contrasted with modern men of wealth and power?

9. What thrilling modern song is based on a passage in this miracle?

10. How has the incident of Zaccheus impressed the imagination and what is the couplet here given to illustrate?

11. What valuable lesson suggested by the fact that Zaccheus "was little of stature"? Quote the poem to illustrate.

12. Name seven men small in stature but great in mind.

13. What did Zaccheus mean by his saying in Luke 19:8?

14. What bearing has this incident on instantaneous conversion and what is the lesson here for the preacher?

15. What is the meaning of Christ’s saying, "He also is a son of Abraham," and what is Paul’s teaching in point?

16. What parable suggested by the case of Zaccheus and what two reasons assigned for speaking the parable?

17. How does this parable warn against the idea that Christ’s coming in his glorious kingdom was immediate?

18. What other parable ought to be studied in connection with this one?

19. What two classes of people in the mind of Christ when he gave this parable and what is the object of the parable?

20. What do "servants" and "citizens" each represent in this parable?

21 What tremendous responsibility here shown to rest upon the professed servants of Christ and what is the bearings on rewards?

22. Who is represented in this parable by the man who buried his pound?

23. Give the illustration of the twelve apostles in silver.

24. What paradox in this parable and what the explanation?

25. What does this parable teach relative to the second coming of Christ and attendant events?