God's Wisdom, Man's Criticism
Matthew 11:16-24; Luke 10:13-15
By Spiros Zodhiates

Editor’s note: Dr. Zodhiates continues his exposition of Matthew’s Gospel.

[16] Jesus now told the people that “this (taúten, the feminine accusative of hoútos [5026]) generation (geneá [1074])” were like “children” (paidía [3813], little children) who could hear but were unable to understand. They were petulant and irritable because of their immaturity.

He compared His listeners to children who sat in the “markets” (agoraís [58]) where people gather and “called” (prosphonéo  [4377]) to their “fellows” (hetérois [2087], other in a different sense [MT, Nestle’s, UBS]; or hetaírois [TR], those of the same company, companions). Whom would children call to listen to them? Clearly to other children, companions (hetaireía [n.f.] akin to hetaíros [2083]). Accordingly, the Textus Receptus makes more exegetical sense.

[17] The word “piped” (eulesamen [832]) means to play a wind instrument. It is associated with the noun aulós (836), a pipe or flute usually played at weddings. “Dance” translates orchesasthe, the aorist middle deponent indicative of orchéomai ([3738], to dance, from which our English verb “orchestrate” comes).

These children expected others to dance to their tune, as Herodias’ daughter did (Matt. 14:6; Mark 6:22), and to “mourn” (ethrenesamen, the aorist tense of threnéo  [2354], to lament in an audible manner, to wail loudly, as was done at funerals; see Matt. 9:23) the way they did. They could not tolerate consistency. The word for “lamented” is interesting. It is translated from ekópsasthe, the aorist middle indicative of kópto  ([2875], to cut, strike, or beat one’s body, particularly the chest). Displaying grief was common in those days.

Mourners not only beat and cut their bodies, but they also tore out their hair and ripped their garments. No matter what tune was played, these contrary individuals did not respond accordingly. The children, in turn, were dissatisfied, and this illustration served as a lead-in to “this generation’s” immature censure of two of God’s prophets.

[18] Something was wrong with this first prophet. They said, “He hath a devil.” The Greek word translated “devil” is daimónion ([1140], a demonic spirit). The dance music was addressed to John. Austerity was not the proper response. Not only did John not dance, but he did not indulge in any form of entertainment. He was austere, sober, zealous—and, in their eyes, wrong!

[19] People directed the opposite criticism to Jesus, the second Prophet. He did not beat Himself; He simply ate and drank normally. They accused Him of being a “glutton” (phágos [5314], a man who overeats) and a “winebibber” (oinopótes [3630], one who drinks too much wine).

John’s critics considered him demon-possessed because he deprived himself of ordinary food, drink, and clothing. Yet the same critics accused Jesus of overindulgence when He conformed to normal consumption. The lesson here is simple: Whether we deprive ourselves or conform, critics will criticize. The best we can do is to ignore unjust criticisms and study God’s will for our lives as given in Scripture. Jesus endured this hostility, and because we are not above Him, we will experience similar criticisms (Matt. 10:24-25).

The insults hurled at Jesus included His associations: He was “a friend of publicans and sinners.” Indeed, in His earthly life, Jesus was not like the Pharisees whom He repeatedly called “hypocrites” (Matt. 23:13–15, 23, 25, 27, 29). Pharisees were separatists in name and practice. Jesus, on the other hand, reached out to publicans and sinners by living among them. But people could not accuse Him of discriminating in favor of the poor since, on three occasions; He accepted dinner invitations to the homes of Pharisees (Luke 7:36–39; 11:37–41; 14:1–6). In no case did Jesus compromise His ethics. He just met the needs of those who needed Him—rich or poor, famous or anonymous.

Jesus did not care what the Pharisees thought: “Who when he was reviled, reviled not again; when he suffered, he threatened not; but committed himself to him that judgeth righteously” (1 Pet. 2:23). Proof of Peter’s testimony follows here:

“But the (he  [3588]) wisdom (sophía [4678], i.e., “the wisdom of God,” not generic wisdom or man’s wisdom in general) was justified (edikaiothe , the aorist passive of dikaióo  [1344], to prove right) by (apó [575], from—either directly or indirectly) her (autes, the genitive feminine singular of autós [846]; the feminine gender of this pronoun corresponds to the feminine gender of the noun, sophía) children (téknon [TR, MT], the genitive plural of téknon [5043], those who are born of God)” (a.t.).

All the Greek texts of Luke 7:35 add “all” to “her children.” Furthermore, instead of the phrase “by her children,” the more ancient and complete Greek texts of Matthew 11:19 have “by her works” (érgon [2041]), meaning the works of Christ, the indwelling Logos who is the “power . . . and wisdom (sophía) of God” (1 Cor. 1:24).

Both statements are true, and the simplest synthesis is, “Wisdom was justified by her works of [i.e., within] her children.” This avoids the theological difficulty of God depending on humans, even believers, to “justify” His wisdom.

The argument, then, is this: The same wisdom (Lógos) of God worked both deprivation in John the Baptist and normal consumption in the Son of Man. The Pharisees criticized both works of God’s wisdom. But God—always the subject of dikaióo , since “it is God (Theós [2316]) that justifieth (dikaion, the present participle of dikaióo  [1344])” (Rom. 8:33)—justified His wisdom in both cases; that is, He decreed that both deprivation and normal consumption were right. But no matter what God did, the Pharisees declared His wisdom to be wrong.

[20–23] Jesus now tied together opportunity and responsibility. The greater the opportunity, He taught, the greater the responsibility.

In three neighboring cities in Galilee—Chorazin, Bethsaida, and Capernaum (v. 23)—Jesus had performed many powerful manifestations of His deity. He called these miracles “mighty works” (dunámeis, the plural of dúnamis [1411], power, accomplishment; vv. 20, 21, 23; see also Mark 6:2; Luke 10:13).

Jesus argued that if the miracles performed in Chorazin and Bethsaida had been done in Tyre, Sidon, and Sodom, the people would have repented, implying that miracles were generally sufficient to lead to repentance. Nevertheless, the people of Chorazin and Bethsaida, “repented not (ou [3756], the absolute ‘not’)” (v. 20). Jesus performed miracles, but they rejected them. The word “if” (ei [1487]) in this verse is the “if” of hypothesis: “if” the Gentile cities of Tyre and Sidon had been given the same opportunities, they would have repented “as if” (the objective “if”, án [302], i.e. “as if they were”) in sackcloth and ashes, that is, in great humility.