Bible Commentaries
Matthew 11

Verses 1-30

XI 1-30 The New Order: Its Reception —The Baptist’s message, 1-6, evokes his praise as the usher of the Kingdom. 7-15, though neither he nor his Master could please the demonstrably ill-disposed, 16-19. This last thought make Mt place here, 20-24, the denunciation of the sophisticated who scorned the reaching of the Kingdom. The same thought leads by contrast to the praise of the Wisdom which chose to reveal the mystery of the Kingdom to the simple by means of the omniscient Son, 25-27. To all such the Son addresses his appeal, 28-30.

XI 1-6 The Baptist’s Message (Luke 7:18-23—1-2. The usual formula (cf. 7:28; 13:53; 19:1; 26:1) closes the discourse of ch 10 and the Baptist’s question serves to introduce the theme of ch 11. John’s arrest (cf. 14:3 ff.) had been the signal for our Lord’s preaching of the Kingdom, 4:12; it was the end of the old order. Word had come to John of our Lord’s Galilean activity and it is important to notice (in view of the interpretation of what follows) that it is this activity which provokes the Baptist’s question. This question is put through the medium of two, Luke 7:19, disciples.

3. They ask: ’Art thou the Coming One?’ (i.e. the one destined to come; cf. the underlying Aramaic participle, Joüon). It is not clear from ether NT or Rabbis that the phrase in this form was ’a common Messianic title’ (cf. the names of the Messias in Bonsirven 1, 360-9) but the Baptist had already referred, 3:11, to Christ as ’the one coming after me’ and had indicated him as the Messias. He certainly does not begin to doubt this now—he is no ’reed shaken by the wind’; nor, evidently, is he suspecting for the first time that Jesus may be the Messias. It remains either that the Baptist is hinting at the need for more incisive Messianic action (as, for instance, the outspoken denunciations of Mt 23) in accordance with John’s own zealous Messianism (cf. 3:10-12) or that, himself content with our Lord’s gentle method, he sends his disciples for their own instruction. This last view is forced to suppose that when Jesus asks the disciples to ’tell John’, 4, he enters into John’s little plan.

5. The disciples are privileged to witness miracles, Luke 7:21, which our Lord himself significantly sums up in Isaian Messianic terms; cf.Isaiah 26:19; Isaiah 29:18f.; 35:5f. That the poor (i.e. the simple and docile. cf. 5:1 note) have the good news (e?+?a??e+´????; gospel) announced to them is another sign that the’ acceptable year’ of the Lord has indeed come, Isaiah 61:1f.; cf.Luke 4:18f. The Messias is in their midst there is no room for John’s disciples to doubt it nor for the Baptist to urge a more explicit Messianic declaration.

6. Our Lord’s person and procedure, therefore, are justified in advance by prophecy; to those of goodwill (which sharpens understanding) they are no snare (’scandal’) in the way of faith.

7-15 Our Lord’s Panegyric of the Baptist (Luke 7:24-28) —The Baptist is praised not so much for his personal sanctity as for the part he has so faithfully played in the divine scheme. He is the strong bridge between the old and the new order. It is through no fault of his incorruptible temper and unassailable integrity if that bridge has not been used.

7-8. Galilee itself had been stirred by the Baptist’s rcahing (he had baptized as far north as Salim; cf. John 3:23) and Galileans like Andrew and Simon had been among his disciples, John 1:40. All knew well enough that John was an envoy of God otherwise they would not have sought the deserted scenes of his activity; clearly they did not go to admire the scenery of the Jordan banks (i.e. the ’waving reeds’—a feature of the scenery happily chosen to suggest, by contrast, the Baptist himself imprisoned now for inflexible principle). They sought a man, then? Yes, but they could not have sought him for any human dignity in him—otherwise, why the’ desert’ and not the palace ?

9-1la. They knew him, therefore, for one with a supernatural message, but they did not suspect as our Lord now assures them that of all the prophets John is the greatest, or indeed something greater than a propheta herald who proclaims the present king. John is the messenger (’angel’ DV) of the Messianic age: the messenger announced by the last of the prophets (Malachi 3:1; ’a commonplace of Messianic prophecy’; and cf. Edersheim!?, 736f.). The Lord’s words in Malachy’s text (cf. §558a) run: Behold I send my messenger and he shall prepare the way before me. By changing the pronoun Jesus significantly identifies his own coming with that of ’the Lord’ in Malachy. In the order of prophetic preparttion for the Messianic Kingdom none had such pre-eminence. That John worthily fulfilled the function is supposed throughout, but our Lord is not speaking of his sanctity; it would be idle, therefore, to introduce the question of, e.g. our Lady’s excelling sanctity in connexion with the text of 11a.11b-15. Yet (still in the order of dignity and not of sanctity) the members of the Kingdom (already in existence on earth as 11b certainly implies) are more highly privileged (’as sonship excels servitude, cf.Galatians 4:4-7’, WV note).

12. Now (de+^) from the time of John’s arrest (his ’days’ are the days of his unhindered preaching) when our Lord began to proclaim the Kingdom up to the present moment of Christ’s speaking these members have been and are occupying the Kingdom. And this by dint of earnest effort (’violence’) for indeed it is a kingdom which yields only to attack by storm. It is possible to understand the ’ violence’ and the ’bearing away in a hostile sense, e.g. WV, not KNT. The verse then becomes a denunciation of the Pharisaic opposition which seizes upon the Kingdom and bars its entrance to the simple folk who would come to it. Yet such an image is strained and the thought foreign to the context which is concerned with the praise of John’s work. The interpretation would compel 12 to be read as a parenthesis since the idea of opposition does not enter until 16. 13. This is happening before their eyes because (?a+^?) the time for prophecy’ has ended (the ’days’ of the Baptist, now over, were its last stage) and the prophesied Kingdom is now a reality.

14. This being so, the audience is asked to give a docile assent to the surprising proposition that the ’Elias’, herald of the Kingdom in Malachi 4:5f, is none other than the Baptist; see on 17:11 ff.

15. This passing of one epoch into another is mysterious: the crisis must be attentively studied to be appreciated.

16-19 God’s Wisdom misconstrued and vindicated (Luke 7:31-35)—The discourse on the Baptist and the Kingdom suggests a reference to the Baptist’s reception and to that of the Kingdom, i.e. of our Lord, its representative. The reception of each by the élite of the nation was unfavourable (cf.Luke 7:29 f.; Matthew 9:10 f.) and the attitude of our Lord’s contemporaries (’this generation’) reminds him of petulant children who refuse to join in any game of ’pretend’ no matter how wide the choice offered-grave or gay. The ’comparison is adroitly chosen since the game of ’funerals’ recalls the stern Baptist while the merrier game suggests the less unbending conduct of Jesus; cf. 9:10-15. Divinc wisdom, effecting the design of salvation through both John and Jesus, is vindicated by its result (’works’ WV; not ’children’ DV—probably a harmonization with Luke 7:35). Its effect is to demonstrate the insincerity of the opposition. The same message was delivered by John and Jesus, each using a different approach; the rejection of their contrasting methods showed that it was the message itself that was rejected. Childish obstinacy had clearly been at work but the loving wisdom of God had done all that was possible: it stood vindicated by the manifest ill-will of its opponents.

20-24 Condemnation of the Sophisticated (Luke 10:13-15)—The chronological place of this discourse is doubtless towards the end of the Galilean ministry, but logically it follows admirably the attack made upon those who had rejected Wisdom’s offer and introduces a description of those who accept that offer.

20. Matthew’s vague’ then ’introduces the condemnation; The towns are not attacked for their immorality (in the narrow sense of the word) as their unfavourable comparison with Sodom, Tyre, Sidon, shows. Their crime is spiritual obstinacy. God’s offer, so clearly supported by signs, had brought no change of heart (’penance’, cf. 3:2 note).

21. Corozain (Chorazin) and Bethsaida, towns of the lakeside, had seen much of our Lord. The ruins of the former (Khirbet Kerâzeh) stand on the slopes c 2 in. N. of lakeside Capharnaum; Bethsaida (et-Tell) was near the lakeside on the east bank of the Jordan as it enters the Lake. On the question of two ’Bethsaidas’ cf.Mark 6:45 and Abel, Géographie, 2, 229-80. Our Lord’s miracles were signs of the imminence of the Kingdom, 11:4-6, and the necessary preparation for the Kingdom was penance, 4:17. The Kingdom (and, therefore, the miracles) were first offered to Israel, but Israel refused the penance. Tyre and Sidon themselves, coastal cities of pagan Phocnicia and typical of those beyond the pale, would not have so refused.

22. In the final assessment of guilt, therefore, rejection of a divine invitation will turn the scale. It is clear how far our Lord is from the national Messianism of his contemporaries and how exactly the Apostle of the Gentiles interpreted him.

23. Capharnaum, privileged to be the adopted home of the Messias, 4:13, earns a separate condemnation and the most opprobrious comparison (Sodom!). Its pride (cf.e.g.Abd 1:4) is as high as its fall will be abysmal (cf.Isaiah 14:13, Isaiah 14:15). Yet this is not so much a prophecy of destruction, material and spiritual, as a declaration of exact and public assessment of worth when the time comes— the term ’hell’ is here, like ’heaven’, metaphorical. 695a

25-30 Revelation to the Simple (Luke 10:21-22)—The Son thanks his Father that the revelation is given to ’little ones’, 25-26. The essence of this revelation is the knowledge of the Father through the Son, 27. The Son, therefore, appeals for simple trust in himself, 28-30. The framework of the section recalls the more elaborate appeal for the wisdom of the Law in Ecclus 51:1-17 (prayer of thanksgiving), cf.Matthew 11:25-26; Matthew 51:18-30; the wisdom of the Law; cf. the knowledge of the Father in Matthew 11:27; Matthew 51:31-38; the appeal, cf. 11:28-30. Nevertheless, the wisdom our Lord asks for does not come from study, however sacred, but from personal abandonment to him—to the Son who reveals more than the Law could ever give. The passage fits excellently into the context of the whole chapter though Lk probably gives it its historical place after the return of the Seventy-two (perhaps nine months after the Baptist’s embassy). Certainly Mt’s vague ’at that time’ contrasts with Lk’s precise ’at that moment’.

25-26. Our Lord praises (DV ’confesses to’) his Father as the overruling Providence of the great plan now shown to be in action. The praise is not for the hiding’ but for the ’revealing’ (in the Semitic manner; e.g.Isaiah 12:1). The simple folk, and especially the disciples, have humbly received both the Baptist and Jesus despite the objections lodged by the sophisticated and astute, 11:18 f. Their simplicity has earned an intuition from God that pierces the difficulties; cf. 1 Corinthians 1:19-31.27. This verse has the tone of our Lord’s words as reported by the fourth evangelist and has therefore been called ’the Johannine acrolite’; its undoubted authenticity is valuable confirmation of John’s fidelity in reporting the substance of Christ’s discourses. That the sentence is found also in Lk shows that it has strong roots in the Christian tradition, and its content is in complete accord with Mt’s Christology. ’If we add the fact that a similar use of the Son—the Father occurs in Mark 13:32, this usage as a traditional saying of Christ is as strongly supported as any saying in the Gospels’ (Allen, p 123). The dogmatic force of the passage can hardly be overstated, especially if we remember that our Lord is implicitly identifying himself with the Wisdom of God (cf. his use of Ecclus 51). The Son possesses the fullness of the Father’s knowledge (pa+´?ta pa?edóTð). The bold statement that only the Father is adequate to know the Son puts both on the same transcendent plane. Moreover, the Son alone knows the Father and uses his absolute discretion in making the Father known according to the capacity. of his hearers.

28-30. The Great Appeal (Mt only). The Son asks for devotion to his own person and acceptance of his yoke as of his comfort. This is not the language of a prophet, but of the Son who holds unique relationship with the Father, 27. The ’yoke’ (current metaphor for the Law; cf.Jeremiah 5:5; Ecclus 51:34; Acts 15:10) is that of the New Legislator. It is easeful (??ðstó?) because he perfects the Law, 5:17, making outward observance subservient to inward spirit and thus developing a law of love, available and attractive to all of goodwill, 5:3 ff. Being his yoke it brings, too, the gift of his help. He asks for obedient disciples (µa+´Tete a+?p? e+?µ??+?, DV learn of me’) because (not that’) he is the perfect master—not overbearing nor of an exclusive caste (unlike the Pharisees) but gentle and of a lowly condition willingly embraced (’humble of heart’).