Outline of the Gospel of Matthew - Part 5
The Bible Treasury, New Series
Volume 13 (1920)
And what makes this still more
striking, is the
certainty that the kingdom,
bright as it is, is by
no means the thing nearest to
Jesus. The Church,
which is His body and bride, has
a far more
intimate place, even though true
of the
same persons. Next, He lays bare the
capricious unbelief of
man, only consistent in
thwarting every thing
and one that God employs for His
good; then,
His own entire rejection where
He had most
laboured. It was going on, then,
to the bitter
end, and surely not without such
suffering and
sorrow as holy, unselfish,
obedient love alone can
know. Wretched we, that we
should need such
proof of it; wretched that we
should be so slow of
heart to answer to it, or even
to feel its immensity! “Then began he to upbraid the
cities wherein
most of his mighty works were
done, because they
repented not: Woe unto thee,
Chorazin! woe
unto thee, Bethsaida! for if the
mighty works,
which were done in you, had been
done in Tyre
and Sidon, they would have
repented long ago in
sackcloth and ashes. But I say
unto you, it shall
be more tolerable for Tyre and
Sidon at the day of
judgment than for you . . . . . At
that time
‘Jesus answered and said, I
thank thee, O Father.”
What feelings at such a time!
Oh, for grace so
to bow and bless God, even when
our little travail
seems in vain! At that time
Jesus answered,
“T thank thee, O Father, Lord of
heaven and
earth, because thou hast hid
these things from
the wise and prudent, and
revealed them unto
babes, Even so, Father, for so
it seemed good in
thy sight.” We seem completely
borne away from
the ordinary level of our Gospel
to the higher
region of the disciple whom
Jesus loved. We are
in fact in the presence of that
which John so loves to dwell on- Jesus viewed not
merely as Son
of David or Abraham, or Seed of
the woman, but
as the Father's Son, the Son as
the Father gave,
sent, appreciated, and loved
Him. So, when more
is added, He says, “All things
are delivered unto
me of my Father: and no man knoweth the Son,
but the Father; neither knoweth
any man the
Father, save the Son, and he to
whomsoever the
Son will reveal him. Come unto
me, all ye that
labour and are heavy laden, and
I will give you
rest.” This, of course, is not
the moment to
unfold it. I merely indicate by
the way how the
thorough increasing rejection of
the Lord Jesus in
His lower glory has but the
effect of bringing out
the revelation of His higher.
So, I believe now,
there is no attempt ever made on
the Name of
the Son of God, there is not a
single shaft levelled
at Him, but the Spirit turns to
the holy, and
true, and sweet task of
asserting anew and more
loudly His glory, which enlarges
the expression
of His grace to man, Only
tradition will not do
this work, nor will human
thoughts or feelings. In chap. xii. we find not so
much Jesus present
and despised of men, as these
men of Israel, the
rejectors, in the presence of
Jesus. Hence, the Lord
Jesus is here disclosing
throughout, that the doom
of Israel was pronounced and
impending. If it
was His rejection, these
scornful men were
themselves rejected in the very
act. The plucking
of the corn, and the healing of
the withered
hand, had taken place long
before. Mark gives
them in the end of his second
and the beginning
of his third chapters. Why are
they postponed
here? Because Matthew's object
is the display
of the change of dispensation
through or consequent
on, the rejection of Jesus by
the Jews. Hence,
he waits to present their
rejection of the Messiah,
has morally complete as possible
in his statement
of it, though necessarily not
complete in outward
accomplishment. Of course, the
facts of the cross
were necessary to give it an
evident and literal
fulfilment; but we have it first
apparent in
His life, and it is blessed to
see it thus accomplished, as it were, in what
passed with Himself;
fully realized in His own
spirit, and the results
exposed before the external
facts gave the fullest
expression to Jewish unbelief.
He was not taken
by surprise; He knew it from the
beginning.
Man’s implacable hatred is
brought about most
manifestly in the ways and
spirit of His rejectors.
The Lord Jesus, even before He
pronounced the
sentence, for so it was,
indicated what was at
hand in these two instances of
the Sabbath-day,
though one may not now linger on
them. The
first is the defence of the
disciples, grounded on
analogies taken from that which
had the sanction
of God of old, as well as on His
own glory now.
Reject Him as the Messiah; in
that rejection the
moral glory of the Son of man
would be laid as
the foundation of His exaltation
and manifestation
another day; He was Lord of the
Sabbath-day. In the next incident the force
of the plea turns
on God’s goodness towards the
wretchedness of
man. It is not only the fact
that God slighted
matters of prescriptive
ordinance because of the
ruined state of Israel, who
rejected His true anointed
King, but there was this
principle also, that
certainly God was not going to
bind Himself
not to do good where abject need
was. It might
‘be well enough for a Pharisee;
it might be worthy
of a legal formalist, but it
would never do for
God; and the Lord Jesus was come
here not to
accommodate Himself to their
thoughts, but,
above all, to do God’s will of
holy love in an
evil, wretched world. “Behold my
servant,
whom I have chosen, my beloved,
in whom my
soul is well pleased.” In truth,
this was Emmanuel,
God with us. If God was there,
what else could
He, would He, do? Lowly,
noiseless grace now
it was to be, according to the
prophet, till the
hour strikes for victory in
judgment. So He
meekly retires, healing, yet
forbidding it to be
blazed abroad. But still, it was
His carrying
on the process of shewing out
more and more
the total rejection of His
rejectors. Hence,
lower down in the chapter, after
the demon was
cast out of the blind and dumb
man before the
amazed people, the Pharisees,
irritated by their
question, Is not this the Son of
David? essayed
to destroy the testimony with
their utmost and
blasphemous contempt. “This
[fellow],” etc. The English translators have
thus given the
sense well; for the expression
really conveys
this slight, though the word “fellow” is printed
in italics. The Greek word is
constantly so used
as an expression of contempt, “This [fellow] doth
not cast out devils, but by
Beelzebub the prince
of the devils.” The Lord now
lets them know their
mad folly and warns them that
this blasphemy was
about to culminate in a still
deeper, deadlier form
when the Holy Ghost should be
spoken against
as He had been. Men little weigh
what their
words will sound and prove in
the day of judgment.
He sets forth the sign of the
prophet Jonah, the
repentance of the men of
Nineveh, the preaching
of Jonah, and the earnest zeal
of the queen of the
South in Solomon’s day, when an
incomparably
greater was there despised. But
if He here does
not go beyond a hint of that
which the Gentiles
were about to receive on the
ruinous unbelief
and judgment of the Jew, He does
not keep back
their own awful course and doom
in the figure that
follows. Their state had long
been that of a man
whom the unclean spirit had
left, after a former
dwelling in him. Outwardly it
was a condition
of comparative cleanness. Idols,
abominations,
no longer infected that dwelling
as of old. Then
says the unclean spirit, “I will
return into my
house from whence I came out;
and when he is
come, he findeth it empty,
swept, and garnished.
Then goeth he, and taketh with
himself seven other
spirits more wicked than
himself, and they enter
in and dwell there: and the last
state of that
man is worse than the first.
Even so shall it be
also unto this wicked
generation.” Thus He’ sets
forth both the past, the
present, and the awful
future of Israel, before the day
of His own coming
from heaven, when there will be
not only the return
of idolatry, solemn to say, but
the full power of
Satan associated with it, as we
see in Dan. xi. 3639; 2 Thess. ii.; Rev. xiii,
11-15. It is clear
that the unclean spirit,
returning, brings idolatry
back again. It is equally clear
that the seven
worse spirits mean the complete
energy of the
devil in the maintenance of
Antichrist against
the true Christ: and this,
strange to say, along
with idols. Thus the end is as
the beginning,
and even far, far worse. On this
the Lord takes
another step, when one said to
Him, “Behold,
thy mother and thy brethren
stand without,
desiring to speak with thee.” A
double action
follows. “Who is my mother? and
who are
my brethren? ” said the Lord;
and then stretched
forth His hand toward His
disciples with the words,
“Behold my mother and my
brethren! For
whosoever shall do the will of
my Father which
is in heaven, the same is my
brother, and sister, and
mother.” Thus the old link with
the flesh, with
Israel is now disowned; and the
new relationships
of faith, founded on doing the
will of His Father
[it is not a question of the law
in any sort], are
alone acknowledged. Hence the
Lord would
raise up a fresh testimony
altogether, and do a
new work suitable to it. This
would not be a
legal claim on man, but the
scattering of good
seed, life and fruit from God,
and this in the unlimited field of the world, not
in the land of Israel
merely. In chapter xiii. we have
the well-known
sketch of these new ways of God.
The kingdom
of heaven assumes a form unknown
to prophecy,
and, in its successive
mysteries, fills up the interval
between the rejected Christ’s
going to heaven,
and His returning again in
glory. Many words are not now required
for that which
is happily familiar to most
here. Let me passingly
notice a very few particulars.
We have here not
only our Lord’s ministry in the
first parable, but in
the second parable that which He
does by His
servants. Then follows- the rise
of what was
great in its littleness till it
became little in its greatness in the earth; and the
development and spread
of doctrine, till the measured
space assigned to it is
brought under its assimilating
influence. It is not
here a question of life (as in
the seed at first), but a
system of christian doctrine;
not life germinating
and bearing fruit, but mere
dogma—natural mind—
which is exposed to it. Thus the
great tree and the
leavened mass are in fact the
two sides of Christendom. Then inside the house we
have not only the
Lord explaining the parable, the
history from first
to last of the tares and wheat,
the mingling of evil
with the good which grace had
sown, but more than
that, we have the kingdom viewed
according to
divine thoughts and purposes.
First of these comes
the treasure hidden in the
field, for which the man
sells all he had, securing the
field for the sake of the
treasure. Next is the one pearl
of great price, the
unity and beauty of that which
was so dear to
the merchantman. Not merely were
there many
pieces of value, but one pear!
of great price. Finally,
we have all wound up, after the
going forth of a
testimony which was truly
universal in its scope,
by the judicial severance at the
close, when it is
not only the good put into
vessels, but the bad
dealt with by the due
instruments of the power of
God. In chapter xiv. facts are
narrated which manifest
the great change of dispensation
that the Lord, in
setting forth the parables we
have just noticed,
had been preparing them for. The
violent man,
Herod, guilty of innocent blood,
then reigned in
the land, in contrast with whom
goes Jesus into
the wilderness, showing who and
what He was—the
Shepherd of Israel, ready and
able to care for the
people. The disciples most
inadequately perceive
His glory; but the Lord acts
according to His own
mind. After this, dismissing
the’ multitudes,
He retires alone, to pray, on a
mountain, as the
disciples toil over the
storm-tossed lake, the wind
being contrary. It is a picture
of what was about
to take place when the Lord
Jesus, quitting Israel
and the earth, ascends on high,
and all assumes
another form—not the reign upon
earth, but
intercession in heaven. “But at
the end, when His
disciples are in the extremity
of trouble, in the
midst of the sea, the Lord walks
on the sea toward
them, and bids them not fear;
for they were
troubled and afraid. Peter asks
a word from his
Master, and leaves the ship to
join Him on the
water. There will be differences
at the close,
All will not be the wise that
understand, nor those
who instruct the mass in
righteousness. But every
Scripture that treats of that
time proves what dread,
what anxiety, what dark clouds
will be ever and
anon, So it was here. Peter goes
forth, but
losing sight of the Lord in the
presence of the
troubled waves, and yielding to
his ordinary
experience he fears the strong
wind, and is only
saved by the outstretched hand
of Jesus, who
rebukes his doubt. Thereon,
coming into the
ship, the wind ceases, and the
Lord exercises His
gracious power in beneficent
effects around.
It was the little foreshadowing
of what will be
when the Lord has joined the
remnant in the
last days, and then fills with
blessing the land
that He touches.
In chapter xv. we have another
picture, and twofold.
Jerusalem's proud,
traditional hypocrisy is
exposed, and grace fully blesses
the tried Gentile.
This finds its fitting place,
not in Luke, but in
Matthew, particularly as the
details here (not in
Mark, who only gives the general
fact) cast great
light upon God's dispensational
ways. Accordingly,
here we have, first, the Lord
judging the wrong
thoughts of “scribes and
Pharisees which were of
Jerusalem.” This gives an
opportunity to teach
what truly defiles—not things
that go into the
man, but those things which,
proceeding out of the
mouth, come forth from the
heart. To eat with
unwashed hands defileth not a
man. It is the
death-blow to human tradition
and ordinance in
divine things, and in reality
depends on the truth of
the absolute ruin of man—a truth
which, as we
see, the disciples were very
slow to recognize,
On the other side of the
picture, behold the Lord
leading on a soul to draw on
divine grace in the
most glorious manner. The woman
of Canaan,
out of the borders of Tyre and
Sidon, appeals to
Him; a Gentile of most ominous
name and
belongings—a Gentile whose case
was desperate;
for she appeals on behalf of her
daughter, grievously
vexed with a devil. What could
be said of her
intelligence then? Had she not
such confusion
of thought, that if the Lord had
heeded her words,
it must have been destruction to
her? “Have
mercy on me, O Lord, thou Son of
David!”
she cried; but what had she to
do with the Son
of David? and what had the Son
of David to
do with a Canaanite? When He
reigns as David's
Son, there shall be no more the
Canaanite in the
house of the Lord of Hosts.
Judgment will have
early cut them off. But the Lord
could not send
her away without a blessing, and
without a blessing
reaching to His own glory.
Instead of giving her
at once a reply, He leads her on
step by step; for
so He can stoop. Such is His
grace, such His wisdom. The woman at last meets the
heart and
mind of Jesus in the sense of
all her utter nothingness before God; and then grace,
which had
wrought all up to this, though
pent-up, can flow
like a river; and the Lord can
admire her faith,
albeit from Himself, God's free
gift.
In the end of this chapter (xv.)
is another miracle of Christ’s feeding a vast
multitude. It does
not seem exactly as a pictorial
view of what the
Lord was doing, or going to do,
but rather the
repeated pledge, that they were
not to suppose that
the evil He had judged in the
elders of Jerusalem,
or the grace freely going out to
the Gentiles, in any
way led Him to forget His
ancient people. What
special mercy and tenderness,
not only in the end,
but also in the way, the Lord
deals with Israel! In chapter xvi. we advance a
great step, spite
(yea, because) of unbelief, deep
and manifest, now
on every side. The Lord has
nothing for them, or
for Him, but to go right on to
the end. He had
brought out the kingdom before
in view of that
which betrayed to Him the
unpardonable blasphemy of the Holy Ghost. The old
people and
work then closed in principle,
and a new work of
God in the kingdom of heaven was
disclosed. Now
He brings out not the kingdom
merely, but His
Church; and this not merely in
view of hopeless
unbelief in the mass, but of the
confession of
His own intrinsic glory as the
Son of God by the
chosen witness. No sooner had
Peter pronounced
to Jesus the truth of His
person, “Thou art the
Christ, the Son of the living
God,” than Jesus holds
the secret no longer. “Upon this
rock,” says He,
“I will build my Church, and
the gates of hell shall
not prevail against it.” He also
gives Peter the
keys of the kingdom, as we see
afterwards. But first appears the new and great
fact, that Christ
was going to build a new
building, His assembly,
on the truth and confession of
Himself, the Son of
God. Doubtless, it was
contingent upon the utter
ruin of Israel through their
unbelief; but the fall
of the lesser thing opened the
way for the gift
of a better glory in answer to
Peter's faith in the
glory of His person. The Father
and the Son
have their appropriate part,
even as we know
from elsewhere the Spirit sent
down from heaven in
due time was to have His. Had
Peter confessed
who the Son of man really is? It
was the Father's
revelation of the Son; flesh and
blood had not
revealed it to Peter, but, “my
Father, which is in
heaven.” Thereon the Lord also
has His word to
say, first reminding Peter of
his new name suitably
to what follows. He was going to
build His Church “upon this rock "—Himself, the
Son of God. Henceforth, too, He
forbids the disciples to proclaim Him as the
Messiah. That
was all over for the moment through Israel's
blind sin; He was going to suffer, not yet reign,
at Jerusalem. Then alas! we have in Peter what man
is, even after all this. He who had just confessed
the glory of the Lord would not hear His Master
speaking thus of His going to the cross (by which
alone the Church, or even the kingdom, could be
established), and sought to swerve Him from it.
But the single eye of Jesus at once. detects the
snare of Satan into which natural thought led, or at
least exposed,
Peter to fall, And so, as
savouring not divine
but human things, he is bid to
go behind (not from) the Lord as one ashamed of Him.
He, on the
contrary, insists not only that
He was bound for the cross, but that its
truth must be made good in any who will come after Him.
The glory of Christ's person
strengthens us, not only to
understand His cross, but to take up
ours. In chapter xvii. another scene
appears, promised
in part to some standing there
in chapter xvi. 28,
and connected, though as yet
hiddenly, with the
cross. It is the glory of Christ; not so much as
Son of the living God, but as
the exalted Son of
man, who once suffered here
below. Nevertheless,
when there was the display of
the glory of the
kingdom, the Father’s voice
proclaimed Him as His
own Son, and not merely as the
man thus exalted.
It was not more truly Christ's
kingdom as man than
He was God’s own Son, His
beloved Son, in whom He was well pleased, who was now
to be heard,
rather than Moses or Elias, who
disappear, leaving
Jesus alone with the chosen
witnesses. Then the pitiable condition of
the disciples at
the foot of the hill, where
Satan reigned in fallen
ruined man, is tested by the
fact, that notwithstanding all the glory of Jesus,
Son of God, and Son
of man, the disciples rendered
it evident that they
knew not how to bring His grace
into action for
others; yet was it precisely
their place and proper
function here below. The Lord, however, in the same
chapter, shows
that it was not a question alone
of what was to
be done, or to be suffered, or
is to be by-and-by
but what He was, and is, and
never can but be.
This came out most blessedly
through the disciples.
Peter, the good confessor of
chapter xvi., cuts
but a sorry figure in chapter
xvii.; for when the
demand was made upon him as to
his Master's
paying the tax, surely the
Lord, he gave them to
know, was much too good a Jew to
omit it, But
our Lord with dignity demands of
Peter, “What
thinkest thou, Simon?” He
evinces, that at the
very time when Peter forget the
vision and the
Father's voice, virtually
reducing Him to mere man,
He was God manifest in the
flesh, It is always
thus, God proves what He is by
the revelation
of Jesus. “Of whom do the
kings of the earth
take custom? of their own
children, or of
strangers?” Peter answers, “Of
strangers.”
“Then,” said the Lord, “are the
children free.
Notwithstanding, lest we should
offend them, go
thou to the sea, and cast an
hook, and take up the
fish that first cometh up; and
when thou hast
opened his mouth, thou shalt
find a piece of money:
that take and give unto them for
me and thee.”
Is it not most sweet to see,
that He who proves His
divine glory at once associates
us with Himself?
Who but God could command not
only the waves,
but the fish of the sea? As to
any one else,
even the most liberal gift that
ever was given of
God to fallen man on earth, to
the golden head
of the Gentiles, exempted the
deep and its untamed
inhabitants. If Psalm viii. goes
farther, surely
that was for the Son of man, who
for the suffering
of death was exalted. Yes, it
was His to rule
and command the sea, even as the
land and all
that in them is. Neither did He
need to wait for
His exaltation as man; for He
was ever God,
and God's Son, who therefore, if
one may so
say, waits for nothing, for no
day of glory. The
manner, too, was in itself
remarkable. A hook is
[cast into the sea, and the fish
that takes it produces
‘the required money for Peter as
for his gracious
Master and Lord. A fish was the
last being for
man to make his banker of; with
God all things are
possible, who knew how to blend
admirably in the
same act divine glory,
unanswerably vindicated,
with the lowliest grace in man.
And thus He,
whose glory was so forgotten by
His disciples—
Jesus Himself—thinks of that
very disciple,
and says, “For me and thee.” The next chapter (xviii.) takes
up the double
thought of the kingdom and the
Church, showing
the requisite for entrance into
the kingdom, and
displaying or calling forth
divine grace in the most
lovely manner, and that in
practice. The pattern
is the Son of man saving the
lost. It is not a
question of bringing in law to
govern the kingdom
or guide the Church. The
unparalleled grace of
the Saviour must form and
fashion the saints
henceforth. In the end of the
chapter is set forth
parabolically the unlimited
forgiveness that suits
the kingdom; here, I cannot but
think, looking
onward in strict fulness to the
future, but with
distinct application to the
moral need of the
disciples then and always. In
the kingdom so
much the less sparing is the
retribution of those
who despise or abuse grace. All
turns on that
which was suitable to such a
God, the giver of
His own Son. We need not dwell
upon it. Chapter xix. brings in another
lesson of great
weight, Whatever might be the
Church or the
kingdom, it is precisely when
the Lord unfolds His
new glory in both the kingdom
and the Church that
He maintains the proprieties of
nature in their
rights and integrity. There is
no greater mistake
than to suppose, because there
is the richest
development of God’s grace in
new things, that He
abandons or weakens natural
relationships and
authority in their place. This,
I believe, is a
great lesson, and too often
forgotten. Observe
that it is at this point the
chapter begins with
vindicating the sanctity of
marriage. No doubt
it is a tie of nature for this
life only. None the
Jess does the Lord uphold it,
purged of what
accretions had come in to
obscure its original
and proper character. Thus the
fresh revelations
of grace in no way detract from
that which God
had of old established in
nature; but, contrariwise, only impart a new and
greater force in asserting the real value and wisdom of
God's way even in
these least things. A similar
principle applies
to the little children, who are
next introduced:
and the same thing is true
substantially of natural
or moral character here below.
Parents, and thedisciples, like the Pharisees,
were shown that grace, just because it is the
expression of what God is to a ruined world, takes
notice of what man in his own imaginary dignity
might count altogether petty. With God, as nothing is
impossible, so no one, small or great, is
despised: all is seen and put in its just place; and
grace, which rebukes creature pride, can afford to
deal divinely with the”
smallest as with the greatest. If there be a privilege more
manifest than another
which has dawned on us, it is
what we have found
by and in Jesus, that now we can
say nothing
is too great for us, nothing too
little for God. There
is room also for the most
thorough self-abnegation.
Grace forms the hearts of those
that understand
it, according to the great
manifestation of what God
is, and what man is, too, given
us in the person of
Christ. In the reception of the
little children
this is plain; it is not so
generally seen in what
follows. The rich young ruler
was not converted:
far from being so, he could not
stand the test
applied by Christ out of His own
love, and, as we
are told, “went away
sorrowful.” He was ignorant
of himself, because ignorant of
God, and imagined
that it was only a question of
man’s doing good for
God. In this he had laboured, as
he said, from
his youth up: “What lack I
yet?” There was
the consciousness of good
unattained, a void
for which he appeals to Jesus
that it might be
filled up. To lose all for
heavenly treasure, to
come and follow the despised
Nazarene here
below—what was it to compare
with that which
had brought Jesus to earth? but
it was far too
much for the young man. It was
the creature
doing his best, yet proving that
he loved the
creature more than the Creator.
Jesus, nevertheless, owned all that could be
owned in him. After
this, in the chapter we have the
positive hindrance
asserted of what man counts
good. “Verily,
I say unto you, That a rich man
shall hardly
enter into the kingdom of
heaven.” This made
it to be plainly and only a
difficulty for God to
solve. Then comes the boast of
Peter, though
for others as well as himself.
The Lord, while,
thoroughly proving that He
forgot nothing,
owned everything that was of
grace in Peter or
the rest, while opening the same
door to “every
one” who forsakes nature for His
name’s sake
solemnly adds, “’ But many that
are first shall be
last; and the last shall be
first.” Thus the point that meets us in the conclusion
of the chapter is,
that while every character,
every measure of
giving up for His name’s sake,
will meet with the
“most worthy recompence and
result, man can as!
little judge of this as he can
accomplish salvation.
Changes, to us inexplicable,
occur: many first last, and last first. | The point in the beginning of
the next chapter
(xx.) is not reward, but the
right and title of God
Himself to act according to His
goodness. He is
not going to lower Himself to a
human measure.
Not only shall the Judge of all
the earth do right,
but what will not He do who
gives all good?" For
the kingdom of heaven is like
unto a man that is
an “householder, which went out
early in the
morning to hire labourers into
his vineyard. And
when he had agreed with the
labourers for a penny
a day, he sent them into his
vineyard . . . . . And
when they came that were hired
about the eleventh
hour, they received every man a
penny. But
when the first came, they
supposed that they
should have received more; and
they likewise
received every man a penny.” He
maintains
His sovereign title to do good,
to do as He wilt
with His own. The first of these
lessons is, “Many
first shall be last, and last
first” (Matt. xix. 30)It is clearly the failure of
nature, the reversal of
what might be expected. The
second is, “So
the last shall be first, and the
first last; for many
are called, but few are chosen.”
It is the power
of grace. God's delight is to
pick out the hindmost
for the first place, to the
disparagement of the
foremost in their own strength. Lastly, we have the Lord
rebuking the ambition
not only of the sons of Zebedee,
but in truth also
of the ten; for why was there
such warmth of
indignation against the two
brethren? why not
sorrow and shame that they
should have so little
understood their Master’s mind?
How often
the heart shows itself, not
merely by what we ask,
but by the uncalled-for feelings
we display against
other people and their faults!
The fact is, in
judging others we judge
ourselves.
Here I close to-night. It brings
me to the real
crisis; that is, the final
presentation of our
Lord to Jerusalem. I have
endeavoured, though, of course,
cursorily, and I feel most
imperfectly, to give thus far
Matthew's sketch of the Saviour
as the Holy Ghost enabled him to
execute it. In the ‘next
discourse we may hope to have
the rest of his Gospel.
____________ Chap, xx, 29, We now enter on
the Lord’s
final presentation of Himself to
Jerusalem,
traced, however, from Jericho;
that is,
from the city which had once
been the
stronghold of the power of the
Canaanite.
The Lord Jesus presenting
Himself in grace,
instead of sealing up the curse
which had been
pronounced on it, makes it
contrariwise the witness
of His mercy towards those who
believed in
Israel. It was there that two
blind men (for
Matthew, we have seen, abounds
in this double
token of the Lord’s grace),
sitting by the wayside,
cried out, and most
appropriately, “Have mercy
on us, O Lord, thou Son of
David!” They
were led and taught of God. It
was no question
of law, yet strictly in His
capacity of Messiah.
Their appeal was in thorough
keeping with the
scene; they felt that the nation
had no sense
of its own blindness, and so
addressed themselves
at once to the Lord thus
presenting Himself where
divine power wrought of old. It
is remarkable
that, although there had been
signs and wonders
given from time to time in
Israel, miraculous
cures wrought, dead even raised
to life, and leprosy
cleansed, yet never, previously
to the Messiah,
do we hear of restoring the
blind to sight. The
Rabbis held that this was
reserved for the Messiah:
and certainly I am not aware of
any case which
contradicts their notion. They
appear to have
founded it upon the remarkable
prophecy of Isaiah
(chap. xxxv.). I do not affirm
that the prophecy
proves their notion to be true
in isolating that
miracle from the rest; but it is
evident that
the Spirit of God does connect
emphatically
the opening of blind eyes with
the Son of
David, as part of the blessing
that He will
surely diffuse when He comes to
reign over the
earth. What appears further here is,
that Jesus does
not put the blessing off till
His reign. Undoubtedly, the Lord in those
days was giving
signs and tokens of the world to
come: and it
was continued by His servants
afterwards, as we
know from the end of Mark, the
Acts, etc, The
miraculous powers which He
exercised were
samples of the power which would
fill the earth
with Jehovah’s glory, casting
out the enemy,
and effacing the traces of his
power, and making
it the theatre of the
manifestation of His kingdom
here below. Thus our Lord gives
evidence that
the power was in Himself
already, so that they
need not lack because the
kingdom was not yet
come, in the full, manifest
sense of the word.
The kingdom was then come in His
own person,
as is said by Matthew (chap.
xii.) as well as Luke.
Still less did the blessing
tarry for the sons of men.
Virtue went forth at His kingly
touch: this,
at least did not depend on the
recognition of
His claims by His people. He
takes up this sign
of Messiah's grace-the opening
of the eyes of
the blind, —itself no mean sign
of the true condition
of the Jews, could they bat feel
and own the truth.
Alas! they sought not mercy and
healing at His
hands; but if there were any to
call on Him at
Jericho, the Lord would hearken.
Here, then,
Messiah answers to the cry of
faith of these
two blind men. When the
multitude rebuked
them, that they should hold
their peace,
they cried the more. The
difficulties
presented to faith only
increased the
energy of its desire; and so
they cried,” Have
mercy on us, O Lord, thou Son of
David!”
Jesus stands, calls the blind
men, and says, “What
will ye that I should do?”
“Lord, that our
eyes should be opened.” And so
it was according
to their faith. Moreover, it is
noted that they
follow Him, the pledge of what
will be done when
the people, by-and-by owning
their blindness,
and turning to Him for eyes,
receive sight from
the true Son of David to sec
Himself in the day
of His earthly glory.
The Lord thereon enters
Jerusalem according to
prophecy. He enters it, however,
not in ‘the
outward pomp and glory which the
nations seek
after, but according to what the
prophet’s words
now made good literally:
Jehovah's King sitting
on an ass in the spirit of
humiliation. But even
in this very thing, the fullest
proof was afforded
that He was Jehovah Himself.
From first to
last, as we have seen, it was
Jehovah-Messiah.
The word to the owner of the ass
and colt was,
“The Lord hath need of them.”
Accordingly,
on this plea of Jehovah of
hosts, all difficulties
disappear, though unbelief finds
there its stumbling-block. It was indeed the power
of the Spirit’
of God that controlled his heart
; even as to Christ
“‘the porter opened.” God left
nothing undone
on any side, but so ordered that
the heart of this
Israelite should yield a
testimony that grace
was at work, spite of the
lamentable chill that
stupefied the people. How good
it is thus to
raise up a witness, never indeed
to leave it
absolutely lacking, not even on
the road to Jerusalem—alas! the road to the
cross of Christ. This,
as we are told by the
Evangelist, came to pass
that the word of the prophet
should be fulfilled:
“Tell ye the daughter of Zion,
Behold thy King
cometh unto thee, meek [for such
meekness was
the character of His
presentation as yet], and
sitting upon an ass, and a colt
the foal of an ass.”
All must be in character with
the Nazarene.
Accordingly, the disciples went
and did as Jesus
commanded. The multitudes, too,
were acted
on—a very great multitude. It
was, of course,
but a transient action, yet was
it of God for a
testimony, this moving of hearts
by the Spirit.
Not that it penetrated beneath
the surface, but
was rather a wave that passed
over men’s hearts,
and then was gone. For the
moment they followed,
crying, “‘ Hosanna to the Son of
David: Blessed
is He that cometh in the name of
the Lord;
Hosanna in the highest!”
(applying to the Lord
the congratulations of Ps, cxviii.). Jesus, according to our
Evangelist’s account,
comes to the temple and cleanses
it, Remark
the order as well as the
character of the events.
In Mark this is not the first
act which is recorded,
but the curse on the barren fig
tree, between His inspection of all things in the
temple and His
ejection of those who profaned
it. The fact is, there
were two days or occasions in
which the fig tree
comes before us, according to
the Gospel of Mark,
who gives us the details more
particularly than
any one, notwithstanding his
brevity. Matthew
on the contrary, while he is so
careful in furnishing
us frequently with a double
witness of the Lord’s
gracious ways toward His land
and people, gives
only as one whole His dealing
with both the fig
tree and the temple. We should
not know from
the first Evangelist of any
interval in either case;
nor could we learn from either
the first or the third
but that the cleansing of the
temple occurred on
His earlier visit. But we know
from Mark,
who sets forth an exact account
of each of the
two days, that in neither case
was all done at
once. This is the more
remarkable because,
in the instances of the two
demoniacs, or the two
blind men in Matthew, Mark, like
Luke, speaks
only of one, Nothing can account
for such
phenomena but design: and the
more so as there is
no ground to assume that each
succeeding Evangelist was kept in ignorance of
his predecessor's
account of our Lord. It is
evident that Matthew
compresses in one the two acts
about the temple, as well as about the fig tree.
His scope excluded
such details, and, 1 am
persuaded, rightly so,
according to the mind of God’s
Spirit. It may
render it all the more striking
when one is
that Matthew was there, and Mark
was not.
He who actually saw these
transactions, and who
therefore, had he been a mere
acting human
witness, would peculiarly have
dwelt on them;
he, too, who had been a personal
companion
of the Lord, and therefore, had
it been only a
question of treasuring all up
as one that loved the
Lord, would, naturally speaking,
have been the
one of the three to have
presented the amplest
and minutest picture of the
circumstance, is just
the one who does nothing of the
kind. Mark,
as confessedly not being an
eye-witness, might
have been supposed to content
himself with the
general view. The reverse is the
fact unquestionably, This is a notable feature,
and not here
alone, but elsewhere also. To me
it proves that the
Gospels are the fruit of divine
purpose in all, distinctively in each. It
establishes the principle that,
while God condescended to employ
eye-witness,
He never confined Himself to it,
but, on the contrary, took full and particular
care to shew that
He is above all creature means
of information.
Thus it is in Mark and Luke we
find some of the
most important details; not in
Matthew and
John, though Matthew and John
were eye-witnesses,
Mark and Luke not. A double
proof of this appears
in what has been just advanced.
To Matthew,
acting according to what was
given him of the Spirit,
there was no sufficient reason
to enter into points
which did not bear
dispensationally upon Israel He therefore, as often
elsewhere, presents the
entrance into the temple in its
completeness, as
being the sole matter important
to his aim. Any
thoughtful mind must allow, if [
do not greatly
err, that entrance into detail
would rather detract
from the augustness of the act.
The minute
account has its just place, on
the other hand,
if it be a question of the
Lord’s method and bearing
in His service and testimony.
Here I want to
know the particulars; there
every trace and shade
are full of instruction to me.
If I have to serve
Him, I do well to learn and
ponder His every word
and way; and in this the style
and mode of
Mark’s Gospel is invaluable. Who
but feels that
the movements, the pauses, the
sighs, the groans,
the very looks of the Lord, are
fraught with blessing
to the soul? But if, as with
Matthew, the object
be the great change of
dispensation consequent
on the rejection of the divine
Messiah (particularly
if the point, as here, be not
the opening out of
coming mercy, but, on the
contrary, a solemn
and a stern judgment on Israel),
the Spirit of God
contents Himself with a general
notice of the painful
scene, without indulging in any
circumstantial
account of it. To this it is
I attribute the palpable
difference in this place of
Matthew as compared
with Mark, and with Luke also,
who omits the
cursed fig tree altogether, and
gives the barest
mention of the temple’s
cleansing (chap. xix. 45).
‘The notion of some men,
especially a few men of
learning, that the difference is
due to ignorance
on the part of one or other or
all the Evangelists, is
of all explanations the worst,
and even the least
reasonable (to take the lowest
ground); it is in
plain truth the proof of their
own ignorance, and
the effect of positive unbelief.
What I have
ventured to suggest I believe to
be a motive, and
an adequate motive, for the
difference; but we
must remember that divine wisdom
has depths of
aim infinitely beyond out
ability to sound. God
may be pleased to vouchsafe us a
perception of
what is in His mind, if we be
lowly, and diligent,
and dependent on Him; or He may
leave us
ignorant of much, where we are
careless or self-confident; but sure I am that
the very points
men ordinarily fix on as blots
or imperfections in
the inspired word are, when
understood, among
the strongest proofs of the
admirable guidance of
the Holy Spirit of God. Nor do I
speak with such
assurance because of the least
satisfaction in any
attainments, but because every
lesson I have
learnt and do learn from God's
word brings with
it the ever accumulating
conviction that Scripture
is perfect. For the question in
hand, it is enough
to produce sufficient evidence
that it was not in
ignorance, but with full
knowledge, that Matthew,
Mark, and Luke wrote as they
have done; I go
farther, and say it was divine
intention, rather
than, as I conceive, any
determinate plan of
each Evangelist, who may not
himself have had
before his mind the full scope
of what the Holy
Ghost gave him to write about
it. There is no
necessity to suppose that
Matthew deliberately
designed the result which we
have in his Gospel,
How God brought it all to pass
is another question,
which, of course, it is not for
us to answer. But
the fact is, that the
Evangelist, who was present,
he who consequently was an
eye-witness of the
details, does not give them;
while one who was
not there states them with the
greatest particularity
—thoroughly harmonious with the
account of
him who was there, but,
nevertheless, with
differences as marked as their
mutual corroborations. If we might rightly use,
in this case, the
word “originality,” then
originality is stamped
upon the account of the second.
I affirm, then,
in the strictest sense, that
divine design is stamped
upon each, and that consistency
of purpose 1S
found everywhere in all the
Gospels. The Lord then goes straight to
the sanctuary.
The kingly Son of David,
destined to sit as the
Priest upon His throne, the head
of all things
sacred as well as pertaining to
the polity of Israel,
—we can understand why Matthew
should describe
such an One visiting the temple
of Jerusalem;
and why, instead of stopping,
like Mark, to
narrate that which attests His
patient service,
the whole scene should be given
here without a
break. We have seen that a
similar principle
accounts for the massing of the
facts of His ministry
in the end of the fourth
chapter, and also for giving
as a continuous whole the Sermon
on the Mount,
although if we enquired into
details, we might
find many and considerable.
intervals; for, as
undoubtedly those facts were
grouped, so I believe
also it was between the parts of
that sermon. It
fell in, however, with the
object of Matthew's
Gospel to pass by all notice of
thesein terstices,
and so the Spirit of God has
been pleased to interweave the whole into the
beautiful web of the first
Gospel. In this way, as I
believe, we may and
should account for the
difference between Matthew
and Mark in this particular,
without in the smallest
degree casting the shadow of an
imperfection upon
one any more than on the other;
while the fact,
already pressed, that
eye-witnessing, while employed as a servant, is never
allowed to govern
in the composition of the
Gospels, bespeaks loudly
that men forget their true
Author in searching
into the writers He employed,
and that the only
key to all, difficulties is the
simple but weighty
truth that it was God
communicating His mind
about Jesus, as by Matthew so by
Mark.: Next, the Lord acts upon the
word. He finds
men selling and buying in the
temple (that is, in
its buildings), overthrows their
tables, and turns,
out themselves, pronouncing the
words of the
prophets, both Isaiah and
Jeremiah. But at
the same time there is another
trait noted here
only: the blind and the lame
(the “hated of
David's soul” (2 Sam. v. 8), the
pitied of David’s
greater Son and Lord) find a
friend instead of an
enemy in Him who loved them, the
true beloved
of God, Thus, at the very time
He showed His
hatred and righteous indignation
at the covetous
profaning of the temple, His
love was flowing out
to the desolate in Israel. Then
we see the chief
priests and scribes offended at
the cries of the
multitude and children, and
turning reproachfully
to the Lord, who allowed such a
right royal welcome
to be addressed to Him; but the
Lord calmly
takes His place according to the
sure word of
God. It is not now Deuteronomy
that is before
Him (that He had quoted when
tempted of Satan
at the beginning of His career).
But now, as they
had borrowed the words of Psalm cxviii. (and who
will say they were wrong?), so
the Lord Jesus
(and I say He was infinitely
right) applies to them
as well as to Himself, the
language of Psalm viii.
|
|