(Chap. 20:30; 21:1-22.)
In the transfiguration we had a picture of the coming kingdom, Christ, the head and center, with representatives of its heavenly and its earthly things; on one side, Moses and Elias glorified; and on the other, the three disciples in their natural bodies. This was a turning point in the history of our Lord's course which John passes by, but it is given fully in the other three gospels. The cross, now that sin exists, is the foundation of all glory. There could be nothing stable or holy without it. It is the sole channel through which flows to us all our blessing; and Christ's decease, we know from Luke, was the theme on the holy mount. But John gives us nothing of that scene. The reason is because he is occupied with Christ as the Son; we find there, not the human side, but the Deity of the Lord Jesus Christ. His rejection by Israel, and Israel consequently rejected by God, are assumed from the beginning of John's gospel: as we read, “He came to his own, and his own received him not.” Now, the transfiguration does not bring out the Deity of Christ, but His glory as exalted Son of man, owned withal as Son of God. This was a sample of the glory of the Lord in His future kingdom, with the types of some risen, and of others in their natural state. So will it be by and by. John does not show us the mount, but the Father's house. This is for the Church. The world may see the glory, more or less, as foreshown on the mount, but this is not our best portion. We look for that blessed hope and the appearing of the glory. Our hope is Christ, to be with Him in the many-mansioned Father's house; a hope which is far beyond any blessing of the kingdom. Neither will it be displayed. The secrets of love and communion which the Church will have with Christ in the Father's house can never be the subject of manifestation to the world. Who now could or would publish the tenderest feelings of his heart? Doubtless the glory, the external pomp, and the place of power which the Church will possess in the coming kingdom will be displayed: for these form some of the chief features in the millennial reign. We shall reign with Christ, the glory of the Bridegroom enveloping, as it were, the Bride. If we discriminate what the Scriptures distinguish, we may find a marked distinction between the proper position and hopes of the Church, and the glories of the kingdom, however real, which all the glorified share, when it is established in power. Thus the Mount of Transfiguration holds an important place in the three synoptic gospels, as showing Christ in the capacity of Messiah, servant, and Son of man. As such, He will be displayed after the pattern in the mount, and, accordingly, the three evangelists, who present Christ in these three aspects, give us the transfiguration. Further, the thought of present reception by the Jews had been entirely given up, and the new thing begins to be announced immediately before it. Christ must suffer and die: and those who follow Him during His rejection will be in the kingdom, but not as subjects; they will be kings with Him when He reigns. When responsibility and even individual privileges come in, “the kingdom” is the thought; but when our corporate place is intended, “the Church” is spoken of. (Matt. 16; 18)
Here, in this chapter (21), and from verse 30 of chapter 20, a preface to it, we have the last formal presentation of the king, though not with the thought of being received; but in order to the filling up of man's iniquity and the accomplishment of the counsels of God, He presents Himself as such. We find first, that He is on His way to Jerusalem, and sees two blind men, who cry unto Him, “Have mercy upon us, thou Son of David!” If they knew nothing of the impending crisis, they notwithstanding were completely in the spirit of the scene. The Holy Ghost was acting upon them, that they might bear testimony to Jesus, who was now for the last time to be publicly presented as Heir to the throne. What a picture! The seeing ones, in their blind hardness of heart, rejecting their own Messiah, though owned of Gentiles as the born king of the Jews; and the poor blind ones, through faith loudly confessing Him the true king. Perhaps their principal, their one desire, may have been to be healed of their blindness. Be it so; but God at any rate gave to their faith the proper object and the just confession for that moment, for He was guiding the scene. His hand was upon the spring; and whatever was the thought of the blind men in crying after the Lord, God's design was that there should be a suited testimony rendered to His king, the “Son of David.” A Jew would well understand all that was implied in the title. What a condemnation of Pharisees who had rejected Christ! The highest point of view is by no means always that which is most proper; a lower one is sometimes far more right. Thus the confession of Christ as “Son of David” was more in keeping here than if they had said, “Thou Son of God.” This may sound strange where the various titles have not been weighed; but in hailing Him according to His Jewish glory, they uttered that which was in unison with what God was then doing.
And now, let me ask reverently, Why should the resurrection of Lazarus be omitted in the three first gospels? Man, if these accounts had been his work, would not have omitted it: he would deem the insertion of it in each gospel as necessary for a full and truthful account. Besides, it would have been thought far too important an item to be left out under any consideration. The omission of so stupendous a miracle, in Matthew, Mark, and Luke, points out clearly that it is the Spirit of God who wrought sovereignly and writes by each with a special purpose. If so, all which men call inconsistencies and imperfections finds no place here, unless God can make mistakes, which none will say. It was a part of the special purpose of God to omit the miracle; for He only presents those facts which suit His design in each gospel. Now this miracle of raising Lazarus does not show us Christ as the Messiah, or the Servant, or the Son of man; but as the Son of God, who gives life and raises the dead—a grand point of doctrine in John 5 and there alone found in the gospels. There were other miracles of raising from the dead in the other gospels; but the truth of His Sonship and present glory in communion with the Father is not in these others the prominent one. It is not, therefore, as Son of God that He appears in them. Take for instance the raising the widow's son at Nain. What are the circumstances brought into emphasis there? He was the only son of his mother, and she was a widow. Luke, or rather the Spirit, is careful to note this; for it is what gives point to the touching story. “He restored him to his mother.” It is the Lord's human sympathy, the Lord as Son of man, which is the object here. True, he must have been Son of God, or He could not have thus raised the dead. If the Godhead, and relation to the Father, of Him who was made flesh, had been the only truth to show, the attendant circumstances need not have been narrated; the Gospel of John might have sufficed, as it does, to display eminently the Lord Jesus as the Son.
All this manifests the extreme perfectness of the word of God, in these gospels. When the mind is subject to Him this is seen, and He teaches those who submit themselves and confide in Him. There is a blind man healed in John 9; but it is not these near Jericho who appealed to Jesus; but as Jesus passed by, He saw a man blind from his birth. Rejected of men, He was going about, seeking for objects on whom to bestow His blessing; the Son acting in grace and truth, who, unsought, saw the deep need and dealt accordingly. It was an opportunity of working the works of God. He waits for nothing, goes to the man, and the work is done, though it were the Sabbath-day. How could the Son of God rest in the presence of sin and wretchedness, whatever religious pride might feel? The Lord leaves him not until he can say, “Son of God,” and worships. Moreover, we may say, John never mentions a miracle simply for the display of power, but in order to show the divine glory of Christ. In Matthew it is the rejected Messiah. Here (chap. xx.) the thought is, that, being despised by the nation, God makes two blind men to bear testimony to Him as Son of David; and this, in the well-known spot of Israel's triumphant power, and, alas! also of rebellious unbelief entailing a curse, now of the Messiah come in grace, and with equal ability and readiness to bless.
The place (near Jericho) was accursed. But if Jesus has come as Messiah, although the Jews reject Him, He shows Himself to be Jehovah; not only Messiah under the law, but Jehovah above it; and so he blesses them even at Jericho, and they followed Him. This was the place that Israel should have taken: they ought to have known their King. The two blind men were a witness for Him and against them. There was a competent testimony—two witnesses: “In the mouth of two,” &c. Mark and Luke, whose object was not to bring out testimony valid according to the law, only mention one. There is, of course, no contradiction in this. One thing is certain, that they were both healed in the journey from Jericho to Jerusalem. Luke mentions simply the vicinity of Jericho—not as He was come nigh, but as He was nigh, which would be equally true when He left the place. The Authorized Version has increased the difficulty unwittingly.
Jesus goes to the Mount of Olives. The Jews well knew what was prophesied concerning this mountain; they ought to have entered into the spirit of what the Lord was doing.
The sending for the colt shows the Lord as Jehovah, who has a perfect right to all. “The Lord (Jehovah) hath need of him.” What more thorough than His knowledge of circumstances in the womb of the future I How evident His control over the owner's mind and feeling! Meek as He was, sitting upon an ass, the King of Zion according to the prophet, He was indeed as surely Jehovah as Messiah coming in His name: the “need” as amazing as the glory of His person. But the Lord goes onward to Jerusalem. And the multitude cry, “Hosanna to the Son of David!... Behold thy King cometh.” They apply Psa. 118 to Messiah, and they were right. They might be very unintelligent, and perhaps many of them joined later in the fearful cry, “His blood be upon us,” &c.; but here the Lord guides the scene. He comes to the city; but He is unknown: His own citizens know Him not. They ask, “Who is this?” So little understanding had the multitude, who had just been saying, “Hosanna to the Son of David!” that they answer, “This is Jesus, the prophet of Nazareth of Galilee.” But though they only see Jesus of Galilee, yet He shows Himself as King, and takes a place of authority and power. He enters into the temple, and overthrows the tables of the money-changers, &c. This may certainly be looked at as a miraculous incident; for it was astonishing that He whom they knew only as the prophet of Nazareth should dare to enter their temple, and drive out all who were desecrating it. But they turn not upon Him. The power of the God of the temple was there, and they flee, their consciences doubtless echoing the Lord's words, that they had made His house a den of thieves. But here we see not only the testimony of the crowd to the Kingship of Jesus, but the response to it, as it were, in the act of Jesus. As if He had said, “You hail me as King, and I will show you that I am.” Accordingly, He reigns, as it were, in righteousness, and cleanses the defiled temple. Into what a state had the Jews not fallen? A clear testimony it was to them what Jesus thought about them; for what more severe condemnation than “ye have made it a den of thieves.” There were two cleansings—one before our Lord's public ministry, and the other at its close. John records the first, Matthew the last. In our Gospel it is an act of Messianic power, where He cleanses His own house, or, at least, acts for God, as His King. In John it is rather zeal for the injured honor of His Father's house— “Make not my Father's house an house of merchandize.” A collateral reason why John tells us of the first cleansing in the beginning of his Gospel is, that he assumes the rejection of Israel at once. Hence their rejection by Christ, set forth in this act, was the inevitable consequence of their rejection of Him: and this is the point from which John sets out when he begins with the ways of the Lord before His ministry.
But now the blind and the lame come to Him to be healed. “He healed their diseases and forgave their iniquities.” Both these classes were the hated of David's soul—the effect of the taunt upon David's soul. How blessed the contrast in the Son of David! He turns out the selfish religionists from the temple, and receives there the poor, blind, and lame, and heals them—perfect righteousness and perfect grace.
On the one hand, there are the voices of the children crying, “Hosanna,” &c.—the ascription of praise to Him as King, the Son of David; on the other, there is the Lord acting as King, and doing that which the Jews well knew had been prophesied of their King. He was there the confessed King; but not by the chief priests and scribes, who took umbrage, willfully and knowingly rejecting Him— “we will not have this man to reign over us.” Naturally, therefore, they seek to stop the mouth of the children, and ask Jesus to rebuke them: “Hearest thou not what these say?” But the Lord sanctions their praises: “Have ye never heard, out of the mouth of babes,” &c. The power of Jehovah was there, and there was a mouth to own it, though only in babes and sucklings. It is a wondrous scene. The Lord here quotes from Psa. 8, where He is seen as Son of man after His rejection as Son of David in Psa. 2 and seq. In Psa. 8 we have the suffering and exaltation of the Son of man. Herod and Pontius Pilate, the Gentiles and Israel, gather, and do their worst. Refused, then, as the Messiah, He takes the higher place of Son of man, humbled first, and then glorified. The blind men owned Him in the first, and the babes in the last and deeper way. What has not God wrought?
He left them—a significant and solemn act. They rejected Him, and He abandons them, turning his back upon the beloved city.
As to the fig-tree, Mark says that the time of figs was not yet. Many have been perplexed at this, thinking that the Lord sought figs at a time when there could be none. The meaning is, that the time was not come for the gathering of figs; and consequently, if the tree had been in bearing, the Lord must have found figs thereon, for the time to gather them—the time of figs—was not yet. There ought to have been a show of fruit, but there was no appearance, save of leaves—outward profession. It was thoroughly barren. The Lord pronounces a curse upon it, and presently it withered away. Looking at Mark 11:1212And on the morrow, when they were come from Bethany, he was hungry: (Mark 11:12), you will see how Matthew disregards time; for the circumstance occupied two days, which he puts together without distinguishing. The sentence on the fig-tree was an emblematic curse upon the people, inasmuch as it was the national tree. The Lord found nothing but leaves, and the word is that henceforth no fruit should grow upon it forever. The nation had failed in fruit to God, when they had every means and opportunity for glorifying and serving Him; and now all their advantages are taken away, and it is not possible for them as the old stock. The remnant even now is excepted who believe in Christ, and so is “the generation to come.” The disciples wondered; but the Lord says to them further, “If ye shall say to this mountain (mountain symbolizing Israel's political place among the nations, as exalted among them), be thou cast into the sea,” &c. This has been done. Not only is there no fruit borne for God, but Israel, as a nation, has vanished—cast into the sea—scattered, and to appearance lost in the mass of people—trodden down and oppressed under the foot of the Gentiles.
Here, then, in these miracles and scenes, is a remarkable witness of the Lord's last presentation to the Jews, and an equally striking picture of the judgment of God on Jerusalem and the Jews because of their rejection of the Messiah, who, according to Dan. 9, was cut off and had nothing, only to have all things by and by far more gloriously; and if we suffer, we shall also reign with Him.
2 Cor. 4:10, 11; 5:1010Always bearing about in the body the dying of the Lord Jesus, that the life also of Jesus might be made manifest in our body. 11For we which live are alway delivered unto death for Jesus' sake, that the life also of Jesus might be made manifest in our mortal flesh. (2 Corinthians 4:10‑11)
10For we must all appear before the judgment seat of Christ; that every one may receive the things done in his body, according to that he hath done, whether it be good or bad. (2 Corinthians 5:10).—The “body” has an important place in the exhortations of the word of God. The outward man, as well as the inward, is to be a witness for Christ. A person may say, If I display the world, my heart is not in it. Whereas the truth is, if Christ is enjoyed, things unlike Him drop off like fading leaves. So with the mode of life, furniture, habits, &c., as well as external appearance. Only we must be patient to others and give the truth time to expand and work.