Ask
The Essence of This Righteousness with Respect to Man’s Relation to Man
Jesus begins this section by saying: 7:1. Do not pass judgment (on others) … As in 6:1, 19, 20; 7:7; etc., a principle is first stated, then explained. Just what did the Lord mean when he said, “Judge not” (A.V.)? Did he mean that all manner of judging is absolutely and without any qualification forbidden, so that with respect to the neighbor we are not allowed to form and/or express any opinion whatever, at least that with respect to him we must never voice an adverse or unfavorable opinion? In the light of what Jesus himself says in this very paragraph (verse 6), where he implies that we must regard certain individuals as being dogs and hogs, and of John 7:24; cf. I Cor. 5:12; 6:1–5; Gal. 1:8, 9; Phil. 3:2; I Thess. 2:14, 15; I Tim. 1:6, 7; Titus 3:2, 10; I John 4:1; II John 10; III John 9, and a good many other passages that could be added, it is clear that no such wholesale condemnation of forming an opinion about a person and expressing it can have been intended.
Jesus himself had arrived at certain conclusions regarding scribes and Pharisees, and he did not hesitate to express them (Matt. 5:20; 6:2, 5, 16; 15:1 ff.; 23:1 ff.). Though it is true that we, on our part, cannot read what is in our neighbor’s heart, as Jesus was able to do (John 2:24, 25), so that our judgment must be more reserved and can never be final, there is nothing in the teaching either of Christ himself or of the apostles after him that relieves us of the obligation to form opinions about people and to act upon the basis of these opinions, which also implies that at times it will be our duty to express our judgments. Matt. 7:1 has been used at times as an excuse for laxity in exercising church discipline, but in the light of its context, and also of 18:15–18 and John 20:23, such use of this passage is without any justification.
What, then, did Jesus mean? He means (see verses 3–5) that it is wrong for anyone to concentrate his attention on the speck in his brother’s eye and, while thus occupied, to ignore the beam in his own eye. The Lord is here condemning the spirit of censoriousness, judging harshly, self-righteously, without mercy, without love, as also the parallel passage (Luke 6:36, 37) clearly indicates.
To be discriminating and critical is necessary; to be hypercritical is wrong. One should avoid saying what is untrue (Exod. 23:1), unnecessary (Prov. 11:13), and unkind (Prov. 18:8). One of the best, and also one of the most interesting, expositions of this truth I have come across is that by L. B. Flynn, in his book, Did I Say That?, Nashville, 1959; see especially chapter 3, which bears the title, “A Keen Sense of Rumor.”
That the sin here condemned was very common is clear, for example, from the fact that David condemned to death the rich man who, so the king had been made to believe, had stolen and killed the poor man’s little ewe lamb, not realizing that in thus condemning him he (David) was passing sentence on himself (II Sam. 12:1–7)!
This inclination to discover and severely condemn the faults, real or imaginary, of others, while passing lightly over one’s own frequently even more lamentable violations of God’s holy law, was common among the Jews (Rom. 2:1 f.), especially among the Pharisees (Luke 18:9; John 7:49), and is common always and everywhere. According to the words of Jesus here in 7:1, that you may not have judgment passed on yourselves, the habitual self-righteous faultfinder must remember that he himself can expect to be condemned, and this not only by men but also and especially by God, as 6:14, 15 has already indicated. Cf. 18:23–35.
For the sake of emphasis the thought expressed in 7:1b is repeated in somewhat different phraseology: 2. For in accordance with the judgment whereby you pass judgment you yourselves will be judged; and in accordance with the measure whereby you measure it will be measured back to you. Meaning: The standard of judgment that you apply to others will be applied to you. If you judge without mercy, you will be judged without mercy. Similarly, if you judge kindly, you will be judged and treated kindly. There will then be poured into your lap “good measure, pressed down, shaken together, and running over.” You will be thus judged and rewarded by God, to be sure (6:14, 15; cf. Rom. 2:16, 3:6), but the human agents are not excluded (Luke 6:34, 38).
A figurative description of, and a warning to, carping critics follows in verses 3–5. And why do you gaze at343 the speck in your brother’s eye, while the beam that is in your own eye you do not (even) observe? Or how can you say to your brother, Let me take the speck out of your eye, and look! a beam in your own eye? You hypocrite, first take the beam out of your own eye, and then you will see clearly (enough) to take the speck out of your brother’s eye. The beam is a heavy piece of timber fit to be used for the rafter or joist of a building. The “speck” or “mote” is a small piece of straw or of wood, a tiny chip from a beam, perhaps. Now in the figure which Jesus uses he asks the average listener how it is that he is gazing at a mere speck in his brother’s eye, and that he even requests permission to remove that speck, while at the same time he completely overlooks the incomparably larger beam in his own eye. Cf. John 8:7!
The question is: Who is this would-be eye-doctor? Answer: he is called a “hypocrite,” a word which Jesus generally uses to characterize the scribes and Pharisees of his day (5:20, cf. 6:2, 5, 16; 15:1, 7; 23:13), a class of individuals whom the Lord describes as “those who trusted in themselves that they were righteous and who despised all others” (Luke 18:9). Any person with a Pharisaic disposition is meant, therefore. Since in the hearts of all, including even Christ’s followers to the extent in which grace has not yet fully transformed them, there houses a Pharisee, the conclusion follows that this passage applies to all, in the sense that all need to examine themselves (I Cor. 11:28), lest without self-examination and self-discipline they find fault with and strive to correct someone else. A person may be ever so good in his own eyes (Cf. Luke 18:11, 12); yet, if he is not humble, then, as God sees him, there is a beam in his eye, the beam of self-righteousness. This makes him a blind eye-doctor who tries to perform an operation on someone else’s eye! However grievous the other man’s error may have seemed to the eye of the would-be corrector, was it not a mere “speck” compared with his own self-righteousness, a defect so glaring that in the sight of God it amounts to a beam in the critic’s eye?
When by sovereign grace this beam has been removed, the former fault-finder will be able to see clearly enough to take the speck out of his brother’s eye; that is, he will then be able to “restore such a person in the spirit of gentleness,” and, examining himself in the light, let us say, of I Cor. 13, will look to himself lest he also be tempted (Gal. 6:1).
It is clear from the last clause, in which mention is made of removing the speck from the brother’s eye, that it was not Christ’s purpose in verses 3–5 to discourage mutual discipline. On the contrary, both self-discipline and mutual discipline are encouraged in this saying. Moreover, to prevent any notion from taking root that the hypercritical attitude denounced in verses 3–5 might mean that in dealing with errorists patience must be endless, the Lord now adds: 6. Do not give what is holy to the dogs, and do not fling your pearls before the hogs … “Brothers” (see verses 3–5) and “dogs” or “hogs” (verse 6) must not be treated alike. Believers must discriminate carefully.
In order to understand this saying it is necessary, first of all, to discover what is meant by “dogs” and “hogs.” Among the Jews the dogs of the street were held in low esteem. The reference here is not to little pet dogs but to pariahs, large, savage, and ugly. One could see them almost everywhere, prowling about the garbage and the rubbish thrown into the streets. They were considered unclean and filthy (Prov. 26:11; cf. II Peter 2:22; Rev. 22:15). They threaten (Ps. 22:16, 20), howl and snarl (Ps. 59:6), are greedy and shameless (Isa. 56:11). In brief, they are contemptible (I Sam. 17:43; 24:14; II Sam. 9:8; 16:9; II Kings 8:13). To be eaten by dogs was a sign of God’s special curse resting upon a person (I Kings 14:11; 16:4; 21:24; cf. I Kings 21:19; 22:38).
As to hogs or pigs (in Matt. 8:30–32 and parallel passages, the chosen refuge of demons), these are here viewed as being similarly contemptible and filthy. The Old Testament mentions swine among the unclean animals (Lev. 11:7; Deut. 14:8). In Isa. 65:4; 66:3, 17 the eating of swine’s flesh is called an abomination. For the prodigal son to be sent into the fields to feed the pigs must have added to his misery (Luke 15:15, 16). Dogs and hogs are mentioned together not only here in Matt. 7:6 but also essentially in II Peter 2:22: “The dog returns to its own vomit, and the sow has bathed herself, only to wallow in the mud again.”
It is clear that by Jesus the expression “what is holy”—that is, set apart from the common sphere, standing in close relation to God and consecrated to him344 —and “pearls” are here used synonymously. The Greek word for pearl is margaritēs, from which the given names Margaret and Reta (or Rita) have been derived. Pearls, obtained from the Persian Gulf or from the Indian Ocean, were fabulously priced, way beyond the purchasing power of the average person. In order to obtain a pearl of great value a merchant might have to sell all his possessions (Matt. 13:46; cf. I Tim. 2:9; Rev. 17:4; 18:12, 16; 21:21).
Combining all this, we are now able to conclude that here in 7:6 Jesus is saying that whatever it is that stands in special relation to God and is accordingly very precious should be treated with reverence and not entrusted to those who, because of their utterly wicked, vicious, and despicable nature, can be compared to dogs (see also Phil. 3:2) and hogs. This means, for example, that Christ’s disciples must not endlessly continue to bring the gospel message to those who scorn it. To be sure, patience must be exercised, but there is a limit. A moment arrives when constant resistance to the gracious invitation must be punished by the departure of the messengers of good tidings.
Christ’s further sayings and also his actions serve as a commentary on Matt. 7:6. How patient he was with Thomas (John 20:24–29) and with Peter (John 21:15–19), but for Herod Antipas, who often had been warned (Mark 6:20) but had disregarded all of these admonitions, Jesus had not a single word (Luke 23:9). He pronounced a curse upon Capernaum, which had failed to take his messages to heart and to apply to itself the lesson taught by his mighty works (Matt. 11:23). He instructed his disciples not to remain too long in those places that would reject their preaching (Matt. 10:14, 15, 23). In the parable of The Barren Fig Tree (Luke 13:6–9) he showed that God’s patience, though prolonged, is not endless. Cf. Prov. 29:1.
The apostles took this lesson to heart, as we see, for example, in the case of Paul (Acts 13:45, 46; 18:5, 6; cf. Rom. 16:17, 18; Titus 3:10). Staying on and on in the company of those who ridicule the Christian religion is not fair to other fields that are waiting to be served, especially in view of the fact that the harvest is plentiful but the laborers are few (Matt. 9:37; cf. John 4:35). Besides, the capacity of the disciples to endure persecution so that they will be sufficiently vigorous to continue the work elsewhere has its limits; note the words of the Lord (Do not fling your pearls before the hogs) lest they trample on them with their feet, and turn and tear you to pieces. In the illustration Jesus pictures the hogs in the act of trampling on the pearls with their feet, thereby treating them with utter disdain. The suggestion may be correct345 that, since pearls resemble peas or acorns, these hogs, having greedily tasted a few and having discovered that they can do nothing with them, in anger trample the pearls underfoot and turn and tear to pieces those who had flung such non-edibles in front of them. “Let this not happen to the pearl of gospel proclamation nor to yourselves,” says Jesus as it were.
As to specific reference, the terms “what is holy” and “pearls” are rather indefinite. They undoubtedly apply to other things besides the gospel message. The office of the ministry, the eldership, and the diaconate must not be entrusted to the unqualified. The Didache or Teaching of the Twelve Apostles (IX.5) makes still another—I believe legitimate—application, as follows, “But let no one eat or drink of your eucharist [Lord’s Supper] except those who have been baptized in the Lord’s name. For concerning this also did the Lord say, ‘Do not give what is holy to the dogs.’ ”
Jesus continues: 7, 8. Ask, and it shall be given to you; seek, and you shall find; knock, and it shall be opened to you. For whoever asks receives, and the one who seeks finds, and to him that knocks it shall be opened. Is there a connection between these verses and verses 1–6? There are those who see no connection at all. This, however, would be strange. In the entire sermon up to this point we have witnessed a very logical development of ideas, an easy thought transition from one paragraph to the next. Must we suppose that here at 7:7 we are face to face with a sudden break in continuity? I cannot believe it. In the preceding verses Christ has been speaking about man’s relation to man. In verse 12 he again—shall we say, “he still”?—dwells on this. Is it not reasonable to assume that also the intervening lines (verses 7–11) refer to a phase of this same theme?
The connection, as I see it, is not difficult to establish. The Lord has been admonishing his listeners to abstain from judging others (verses 1–5), yet also to judge (verse 6); not to be hypercritical, yet to be critical; to be humble and patient, yet not too patient; etc. After a detailed examination of the entire preceding paragraph (verses 1–6) the question cannot be suppressed, “And who is sufficient for these things?” (II Cor. 2:16 A.V.). This question Jesus answers by urging the necessity of persevering prayer accompanied by earnest effort. To be sure, the threefold exhortation (“ask … seek … knock”) is general. It pertains not only to asking for wisdom in the matter to which reference has just been made, but in all matters. In fact, it refers to asking for the fulfilment of every need, particularly every spiritual need. Hence, the same threefold exhortation occurs also in a different context (Luke 11:9 f.). And why not? It surely takes but little imagination to understand that an authoritative advice, so singularly precious and so thoroughly practical, would not be spoken just once and then forever laid at rest. Do present-day speakers (including ministers!) never repeat themselves? Accordingly, though the content of verses 7–11 is much broader than any link with the preceding would indicate, it is natural to assume that verses 1–6 occasioned the present beautiful little paragraph. Certainly Christ’s audience, having listened carefully to Jesus as he urged them to undo habits of long standing and to adopt a mode of life entirely different, and having noticed besides that what he asked of them seemed to be almost self-contradictory, was looking for a solution of this complicated problem. The Lord does not fail them.
Let us, then, first of all examine the threefold exhortation; next the promise that accompanies the exhortation and that shows that our obedience to the command will not be in vain. The simplest form of the command is:
Ask
Note the rising scale of intensity, which may be presented thus: “Ask, seek, KNOCK.” Asking implies humility and a consciousness of need. The verb is used with respect to a petition which by an inferior is addressed to a superior. The Pharisee of the parable (Luke 18:10–13) asks nothing. He tells the Lord how good he is. The publican aks, that is, pleads, “God be merciful to me, the sinner.” Asking also presupposes belief in a personal God with whom man can have fellowship. When one asks, he expects an answer. Hence, this implies faith in a God who can, does, and will answer, that is, faith in God the Father. Having such a faith makes the prayer warm and personal. Such a supplicant would not be able to say, “O God, if there be a God, save my soul if I have a soul.”
Seek
Seeking is asking plus acting. It implies earnest petitioning, but that alone is not sufficient. A person must be active in endeavoring to obtain the fulfilment of his needs. For example, one should not only pray for a deep knowledge of the Bible but should also diligently search and examine the Scriptures (John 5:39; Acts 17:11), attend the services (Heb. 10:25), above all strive to live in harmony with God’s will (see this very section: Matt. 7:21, 24, 25; cf. John 7:17).
Knock
Knocking is asking plus acting plus persevering. One knocks again and again until the door is opened. In reality, however, perseverance is probably already implied in all three imperatives, since all are in the present tense; hence, a possible rendering would be “continue to ask, to seek, to knock.” This all the more in view of Luke 18:1, 7; cf. Rom. 12:12; Eph. 5:20; 6:18; Col. 4:2; I Thess. 5:17. But what is probable for all three is a certainty with respect to the last, the very idea of biblical knocking already implying perseverance. One continues to knock at the door of the kingdom-palace until the King, who is at the same time the Father, opens the door and supplies whatever is needed (Luke 11:5–8).
As to the promise that is fulfilled when the command is obeyed, in each instance the correspondence between command and promise is exact: hence, ask is followed by given; seek by find; and knock by opened. Note that in verses 6 and 7 this promise, in one form or another, occurs no less than six times. The first three promises, those of verse 7, are virtually repeated in verse 8, and even strengthened by the introductory word whoever, the inclusiveness of which is re-emphasized by the one who and to him that, as if to say, of those who obey the command not a single one will be disappointed. An answer to the kind of prayer that is accompanied by seeking and knocking is promised to every sincere follower of the Lord.
The certainty that persevering prayer accompanied by the activity of faith will be rewarded is strengthened by an argument from the less to the greater, verses 9–11. Or what man is there among you, who, when his son asks him for bread, will give him a stone? Or also (if the son) asks for a fish, will give him a serpent? If, therefore, you, evil though you are, know how to give good gifts to your children, how much more will your Father in heaven give good things to those who ask him! Meaning: If even an earthly father—note the words “what man”; the supposition is very general—though evil (Ps. 51:1–5; 130:3; Isa. 1:6; Jer. 17:9; John 3:3, 5; Rom. 3:10; Eph. 2:1), will satisfy the reasonable desires of his son, then surely your heavenly Father, who is the source of all goodness, will give good things to those who address to him their humble petitions.
Details of the interpretation:
1. If the son asks for bread (the staff of life, the main dish), his father will not give him a stone, perhaps resembling a cake of bread. He will not deceive his child. Similarly, if the son will ask him for a fish, as a side-dish, which would be very natural in this region where fish was abundant, the father will not give him a serpent. Was Jesus thinking of a snake as an ersatz eel? At any rate, for a real father such an act of base deception would be unthinkable.
2. All the more, then, the heavenly Father will not disappoint his children. This, however, does not mean that he will always give them whatever they ask. It means that he will not give them anything that is bad for them. He will give “good things” to those who ask him. On the basis of Luke 11:13 the conclusion is valid that the heavenly Father will give his children the Holy Spirit and all his benefits. He will supply whatever they need.
3. Note the importance of prayer in this connection. The Father loves his children and cares for them, but he wants them to ask for the things they need.
Christ’s followers may rest assured therefore that in answer to their prayers the Father will also day by day provide solutions for the problems with respect to man-to-man relationships, the difficulties arising from the earnest attempt to follow the instructions given in verses 1–6. As far as the succeeding context is concerned, could anything be more appropriate as an introduction to the command to treat our neighbors as we like to be treated by them than the admonition “Ask … seek … knock”? Is it not true that in matters such as these the Father’s constant help is definitely needed?
As a very appropriate conclusion not only of 7:1–11 but of the entire large division beginning at 5:17 (and see also 5:5, 7, 9, 13–16) Jesus now presents his own version of
The Golden Rule
12. Therefore whatever you want (other) people to do for you, do so also for them.…
In order that the believer may be ready for any emergency, that is, in order that he may know at any definite moment how to conduct himself toward his neighbor, the Lord here in verse 12 lays down a rule which, as it consists of measuring one’s duty by one’s self-love, is like a pocketknife or carpenter’s rule, always ready to be used, even in a sudden emergency when there is no time to ask for the advice of a friend or to consult a book. How does this Golden Rule compare with similar rules outside of Christianity? Is it true, as some seem to believe, that Matt. 7:12 furnishes common ground upon which the believer and the unbeliever can together rear their palace of peace, goodwill, and brotherhood?
There are those who contend that the difference between Christ’s rule and that of others, for example, the one laid down by Confucius, consists in this, that the latter rule is merely negative, while Christ’s rule is positive. Jesus said, “Whatever you want (other) people [literally: men] to do for you, do so also for them,” but Confucius said, “Do nothing to your neighbor which afterward you would not have your neighbor do to you” (Mahabharata XIII.5571). As I see it, however, the difference on this score has been exaggerated. To be sure, when the worst possible interpretation is given to the negative rule, as if it meant no more than, “Do not kill your neighbor and do not steal his marriage partner or his property, for you would not like to have him do this to you either, so, leave your neighbor severely alone,” then it must be admitted that in its positive form the rule is far better. However, even in its negative form this rule can be interpreted far more favorably. It can also mean, “Do not treat your neighbor with anything less than genuine love, for you yourself would not want to have him treat you with anything less than genuine love.” Thus construed, the negative implies the positive. And must we not in fairness to Confucius grant that he had at least something of this positive implication in mind? Are not his words that were quoted preceded by the line, “This is the sum of all true righteousness, Treat others as you would yourself be treated”? That surely is positive.
Similarly, Jesus teaches that the law with its negative commandments (“You shall not kill; you shall not commit adultery,” etc.) is fulfilled in obedience to the positive rule, “You shall love your neighbor as yourself” (Matt. 5:21 ff.; 19:19; 22:39). Rom. 13:9 is conclusive on this point, “For this, ‘You shall not commit adultery, You shall not kill, You shall not steal, You shall not covet,’ and if (there be) any other commandment, is summed up in this one rule, ‘You shall love your neighbor as yourself.’ ” Now it is true that in Christ’s teaching the emphasis on love for the neighbor, not merely kind treatment, a love, moreover, that is bestowed even upon the enemy, receives greater emphasis than it does outside of Christianity. But it will not do to declare that a rule expressed negatively is, because of that very fact, necessarily inferior to one stated positively.
Nevertheless, there are important differences between Christ’s truly Golden Rule and somewhat similar rules that have come to us from the non-Christian religions or are favored by religious liberals. That such rules have a relative value must be admitted. There is a sense in which unbelievers do good (I Kings 21:27–29; Matt. 5:46; Luke 6:33; Acts 28:2; Rom. 2:14). Yet, there are important differences between Christ’s Golden Rule and whatever may resemble it. These differences are as follows:
1. The non-Christian religious prophet views his rule as a requirement which man is able to fulfil in his own strength, or at best in the strength of someone or something other than the true God, who revealed himself in Jesus Christ. Scripture emphatically denies that he has this ability (John 3:3, 5; II Tim. 3:2; Titus 3:3; etc.). Apart from the operation of the Holy Spirit in the hearts and lives of God’s children obedience (even in principle) upon which God’s approval can fully rest is impossible (Rom. 7:24; 8:3–8; Phil. 2:12, 13; II Thess. 2:13).
2. The religious liberal has a tendency to separate the rule of love for man from the commandment of love for God. He generally minimizes the latter’s importance. According to his view the Golden Rule is the sum and substance of all ethics. The one important thing in life, as he sees it, is rendering service to fellowmen. It is in support of this contention that an appeal is made to Christ’s Golden Rule. But such an appeal is unjustified, for in the sermon the Golden Rule is preceded by a lengthy discourse in which Jesus, by clear implication (cf. Matt. 22:37), teaches us to love God above all. This, as has been shown, implies the inner devotion of the heart to God and undivided trust in him amid all circumstances of life. Now it is in the light of that attitude toward our heavenly Father that we, as his children, are exhorted to love our neighbor, whom God created as his image. To be sure, the rule of the modernist resembles Christ’s Golden Rule. Its music is the same in pitch, but not in quality, just as a note played on the piano differs very much in quality from the same note played on an organ. The musical instrument behind the note—that is, the background—is different.
3. The same people who commit the error stated in point 2 generally also misconceive the purpose of the rule, as if it meant, “Therefore whatever you want (other) people to do for you, do so also for them, for in the end that will pay.” Just like honesty, it is “the best policy.” In this way the rule’s gold degenerates into the pyrite of utilitarianism. Christ’s truly Golden Rule is different. It ends with the words for this is the law and the prophets. It is that, indeed, for the summary of the law and the prophets (that is, of the Old Testament; see p. 288, including footnote 279) is love (Matt. 22:37–40); and love, honest and true, implies self-denial and outgoingness, expressed so beautifully in such passages as Isa. 53:4–6, 12; Matt. 20:28; Mark 10:45; John 3:16; 10:11; Rom. 8:32; II Cor. 8:9; Gal. 2:20; Eph. 5:2; I Tim. 1:15, 16 (climaxed by the doxology of verse 17); and I Peter 2:24.
Notice again the word “Therefore” at the beginning of verse 12. Not only does it link the present passage with the entire large division introduced by 5:17, for through Christ’s work in human hearts “the law and the prophets,” mentioned both in 5:17 and here in 7:12, attains fulfilment, but it also connects closely with the immediately preceding verses; as if to say, “How much more will your Father in heaven give good things to those who ask him. Therefore—that is, out of gratitude for the Father’s continuing gifts—you should love your neighbors even as you desire that they love you, in order that the stream of love toward the undeserving may flow on and on, not only to your hearts, but also through and from your hearts until it reaches even the most unworthy. Thus, indeed, you will be sons of your Father who is in heaven, who causes his sun to rise on evil (people) and good, and sends rain on righteous and unrighteous (5:45).” This, indeed, and this alone, is The Golden Rule.
Exhortation to Enter the Kingdom
The final main division of the sermon begins at this point. First Jesus says something about
The Beginning of the Way: The Narrow Gate and the Constricted Way versus the Wide Gate and the Broad Way
Jesus has described the citizens of the kingdom, their blessedness and their relation to the world (5:1–16); and also the righteousness which the King grants to and demands of them (5:17–7:12). Hence, it is natural that now in this final division of the sermon he urges all who are reached by his message, whether at the time it was delivered or later, to enter into the kingdom (7:13–27). If they have already done so, then let them enter it more fully than ever before, or, to change the figure somewhat, let them make sure that they continue stedfastly on the way to which the gate has admitted them. In due order the Lord describes the beginning of the Christians’ path, urging his listeners to choose it rather than the unbelievers’ boulevard (verses 13, 14); tenders warnings with respect to his followers’ progress upon this “way” (verses 15–20); and last of all contrasts the two final destinations (verses 21–27).
Accordingly, Jesus begins by saying: 13, 14. Enter by the narrow gate; for wide (is) the gate and broad the way that leads to destruction, and many are those who enter by it. For narrow (is) the gate and constricted the way that leads to life, and few are those who find it.
It should be noted that Jesus has already, by way of implication, pictured entrance into his kingdom as being both inviting and difficult, that is, as attended by circumstances both favorable and unfavorable. Favorable, for those who enter are signally blessed. They are the possessors of the kingdom they have entered, are comforted, inherit the earth, shall be fully satisfied, etc. Unfavorable, in the sense that they will be persecuted, insulted, and slandered; and that they are burdened with heavy obligations; for example, they must practice a righteousness that excels that of the scribes and Pharisees; must love even their enemies and pray for their persecutors; must not be hypercritical but must nevertheless be discriminating, etc. Such things are “unfavorable” in the sense that they clash with men’s natural tendencies.
It is clear, therefore, that our Lord does not follow the method that is used by certain self-styled revivalists, who speak as if “getting saved” is one of the easiest things in the world. Jesus, on the contrary, pictures entrance into the kingdom as being, on the one hand, most desirable; yet, on the other, not at all easy. The entrance-gate is narrow. It must be “found.” And the road with which it is linked is “constricted.” J. M. Gibson’s remark is to the point, “[Christ’s] appeal is made in such a way as shall commend it, not to the thoughtless, selfish crowd, but to those whose hearts have been drawn and whose consciences have been touched by his presentation of the blessedness they may expect and the righteousness expected of them.”346 Is it not true that the really great evangelists—think of Whitefield, Spurgeon, and their worthy present day followers—stressed and are stressing this same truth? Was this not also the lesson that Joshua was trying to teach the Israelites (Josh. 24:14–28; see especially verses 14–16; 19)? Cf. Acts 14:22.
The passage speaks of a. two gates and two ways, b. two kinds of travelers, and c. two destinations.
First, then, the two gates and the two ways. It is clear from the description that these—gate and way—should be combined: narrow gate and constricted way, wide gate and broad or roomy way. Which is first, the way or the gate? Does a person enter the gate in order to be admitted to the way, or does he follow the way in order to reach and go through the gate? If it be true that Jesus, in mentioning the gate, was thinking of what happens when a person dies or at the second coming, then obviously the way precedes the gate. This presentation has become rather popular; for example, on the basis of Scripture we speak of entering Jerusalem the Golden through its pearly gates (cf. Rev. 21:21; 22:14). In this connection one might also refer to Luke 13:23–30, where entrance through the narrow “door” brings one into “the kingdom of God” in its final or eschatological phase.
On the other hand, however, Matt. 7:13, 14 in each case mentions first the gate, then the way. The question is legitimate, therefore, “Which is first, the way347 or the gate?
Among the commentators who have struggled with this question—some apparently have not, for they ignore it—the following positions have been taken:
1. “Possibly Christ’s precept was simply, ‘enter through the narrow gate,’ all the rest being gloss.”348
Objection: The available manuscript evidence does not warrant such a radical excision.
2. “Each of the two ways leads up to and passes through a gate.” According to this view the way is first. So R. V. G. Tasker.349 So also J. Jeremias, who appeals to Luke 13:23 f., which he regards as a parallel, and which, as he sees it, “makes it plain that the image of the gates has an eschatological character.” He, accordingly, views the sequence a. gate and b. way as “a popular hysteron-proteron” (later-earlier), that is, a figure of speech in which the real order is reversed, like “thunder and lightning.”350
Objection. The context, and to a certain extent even the wording, of Luke 13:23 f., is so different from what is found in Matt. 7:13, 14 that it is questionable whether the problem can be solved by this appeal. Moreover, calling the figure used by Jesus in the Matthew passage a hysteron-proteron is begging the question.
3. Gate and way mean substantially the same thing, namely, the obedience demanded by Christ. Viewed as a unit this obedience can be called a gate; considered in its multiplicity, a way. Therefore one should not even ask, “Which is first, the gate or the way?”351
Comment. Inasfar as this solution stresses the very close relation between “gate” and “way” I agree with it, for the text is clear on this. Nevertheless, the text says “gate and way,” not “gate or way,” and this not once but twice. Unless this is hendiadys (gateway?), it would seem best to distinguish, however slightly, between the two.
4. “The gate is first. It is followed by the way.… In these verses Jesus is not thinking of death but of the choice that must be made right now, and exhorts us to choose, since only by making a conscious choice does one arrive on the right way.”352
Comment. If a selection should have to be made between theories 1, 2, and 3, I would, without hesitancy, select 3. Nevertheless, I personally prefer the very closely related 4 as being the most natural. The gate is mentioned first, then the way. Also, is it not true that in nearly every case a “gate” admits to a “way,” be it a highway or a byway, a street, avenue, boulevard, or path? A gate admitting to nothing is rare indeed. On the other hand, a “way” or “road” does not necessarily lead to a gate. The order “gate” followed by “way” is therefore very natural and makes good sense, especially in view of what is probably the intended meaning: right initial choice (conversion) followed by sanctification; or else, wrong initial choice followed by gradual hardening.
The one gate is called “narrow.” It has, not unjustly I believe, been compared to a turnstile that admits one person at a time.353 In the New Testament the word narrow, with reference to a gate, occurs only in Matt. 7:13, 14. In Luke 13:24 the same adjective is used with reference to an eschatological “door.” Cf. Matt. 25:10.
In order to enter by the narrow gate one must strip himself of many things, such as a consuming desire for earthly goods, the unforgiving spirit, selfishness, and especially self-righteousness. The narrow gate is therefore the gate of self-denial and obedience. On the other hand, “the wide gate” can be entered with bag and baggage. The old sinful nature—all it contains and all its accessories—can easily march right through. It is the gate of self-indulgence. So wide is that gate that an enormous, clamorous multitude can enter all at once, and there will be plenty room to spare. The “gate,” then, indicates the choice a person makes here in this life, whether good or bad.
The “way” to which the narrow gate admits is “constricted,” or, as we might say today, “It is so confining.”354 The path on which the believer is traveling resembles a difficult pass between two cliffs. It is hemmed in from both sides. So also even in the case of the person who has already spiritually entered through the narrow gate, whatever still remains of the old nature rebels against laying aside evil propensities and habits. This old nature is not completely conquered until the moment of death. So, a bitter struggle develops. Read about it in Rom. 7:14–25. But total victory is assured, for the narrow gate has been found and entered, and the way of sinners has been exchanged for the way of the righteous (see Ps. 1); that is, a conscious choice has been made, a good decision. Basic conversion, in turn, has become daily conversion or, if one prefers, sanctification. On the other hand, the “way” to which the wide gate admits is broad and roomy. One might call it Broadway. The signs along this wide avenue read, “Welcome to each of you and to all your friends, the more the merrier. Travel as you wish and as ‘fast’ as you wish. There are no restrictions.” However, “The way of the wicked shall perish.”
The contrast is clearly between “the way of life” and “the way of death.” The first way was constructed according to the specifications of the Supreme Architect (Heb. 11:10). The building directions are found in his holy law. The other “way” was built by the devil. His followers travel on it.
Secondly, the two kinds of travelers. Those who have chosen the wide gate and the spacious way are called “many”; those who have entered the narrow gate and are traveling on the constricted way are called “few.” This corresponds with Matt. 22:14, “Many are called, few chosen,” and with such “remnant” passages as Rom. 9:27; 11:5; etc.355 Nevertheless, the entire company of the chosen ones are spoken of as an innumerable host (Rev. 7:9).
From what has been said on the preceding pages the erroneous conclusion must not be drawn that the tremendous crowds streaming through the wide gate and now traveling on Broadway are free and happy; while, on the other hand, those individuals who have found the narrow gate and are now proceeding on the constricted way are to be pitied. Actually this “freedom” and “happiness” of the majority is of a very superficial nature. “Everyone who is living in sin is a slave of sin” (John 8:34). He is as truly chained as is the prisoner with the iron band around his leg, the band that is fastened to a chain which is cemented into the wall of a dungeon. Every sin he commits draws tighter that chain, until at last it crushes him completely. Since the wicked have no inner peace (Isa. 48:22), how can they be truly happy?
On the other hand, “Great peace have they that love thy law” (Ps. 119:165; cf. Isa. 26:3; 43:2). Though, as has been pointed out, entering by the narrow gate and walking on the constricted way implies self-denial, difficulty and struggle, pain and hardship, this is especially true because the sinful nature has not yet been completely conquered. For “the new man” (the regenerated nature) there is joy unspeakable and full of glory (I Peter 1:8; cf. Rom. 7:22; Phil. 2:17; 3:1; 4:4; etc.). The “few” who have entered through the narrow gate are “afflicted but not crushed, perplexed but not despairing” (II Cor. 4:8 f.), “sorrowful yet always rejoicing, poor yet making many rich, having nothing yet possessing all things” (II Cor. 6:10). And in addition to the treasures which they possess even now, they know that riches greater by far await them, for “Our light and momentary affliction is producing for us an everlasting weight of glory, far beyond all measure and proportion” (II Cor. 4:17; cf. Rom. 8:18).
Thirdly, the two destinations. Those who have entered through the wide gate and are now walking upon Broadway are headed for destruction, that is, not for annihilation but for everlasting perdition (Dan. 12:2; Matt. 3:12; 18:8; 25:41, 46; Mark 9:43; Luke 3:17; II Thess. 1:9; Jude 6, 7; Rev. 14:9–11; 19:3; 20:10). On the contrary, “The way of the cross leads home.” It is the way of self-denial that “leads to life” in its full, eschatological sense: a. fellowship with God in Christ, first in heaven, subsequently in the new heaven and earth; plus b. all the blessings resulting from such fellowship. For a fuller description examine such passages as Ps. 16:11; 17:15; 23:6; 73:23–36; John 14:2, 3; 17:3, 24; II Cor. 3:17, 18; 4:6; Phil. 4:7, 9; I Peter 1:4, 8, 9; Rev. 7:15–17; 15:2–4; 20:4, 6; 21:1–7; etc.356
A twofold reason357 is given for the exhortation “Enter by the narrow gate.” A “twofold” reason rather than two separate reasons, for basic to the entire argument of verses 13 and 14 is this unifying thought: men should choose the gate and the way that lead to life, that is, the narrow gate and constricted way, not the gate and the way that end in destruction, that is, not the wide gate and broad way. Constantly bearing this in mind note the two subordinate arguments: a. It is natural to prefer what is wide and broad, easy of access, to what is narrow and constricted; and b. It is also natural to follow the crowd rather than the few. Beware!
The exhortation is an earnest plea, a very tender invitation issuing from the most loving heart of all. It is substantially the same as that found in 4:17, “Be converted, for the kingdom of heaven is at hand.” It will be repeated in the words of 11:28–30, of John 7:37; and of II Cor. 5:20, to mention but a few passages. It was anticipated or foreshadowed in Isa. 1:18; 55:1, 6, 7; Ezek. 33:11; Hos. 11:8; etc., and is climaxed in Rev. 22:17b. And the wooing heart from which it proceeds was laid bare in Matt. 23:37, on the cross, really throughout Christ’s earthly sojourn, and even before (II Cor. 8:9; cf. John 1:14). That heart is beating still!
Warning with Respect to the Believers’ Progress on the Way
This warning is found in verses 15–20. The principle, as usual, is stated first: 15. Beware of false prophets, who come to you in sheep’s clothing, but inwardly are ravenous wolves. Does entrance through the narrow gate and proceeding upon the path to which it admits mean that any further caution can now be thrown to the winds? Not at all. To be sure, God preserves his children, but he does this by means of their own God-given perseverance. The enemies are many and shrewd. They are called “false prophets.”
A true prophet is God’s mouthpiece. He was commissioned by God and conveys God’s message to men. For the present we may conceive of the false prophet as being self-appointed and as being a person who, though pretending to proclaim God’s truth, actually proclaims his own lie. Such a tentative description, though incomplete, as verses 16–20 and especially verses 21–23 will show, fits the requirements of verses 15–20.
The word used in the original for “false prophets” is pseudo-prophets (cf. Matt. 24:11, 24; Mark 13:22; Luke 6:26; Acts 13:6; II Peter 2:1; I John 4:1; Rev. 16:13; 19:20; 20:10). In formation it is similar to pseudo-brothers (II Cor. 11:26; Gal. 2:4), pseudo-apostles (II Cor. 11:13), pseudo-teachers (II Peter 2:1), pseudo-speakers (liars, I Tim. 4:2), psuedo-witnesses (Matt. 26:60; I Cor. 15:15), and pseudo-Christs (Matt. 24:24; Mark 13:22). In each case pseudo means false or sham.
Jesus warns his hearers, “Beware of—literally, Hold (your minds) away from—false prophets.” Reason: although they “come in sheep’s clothing,” dressed up in wool as if they were sheep, yet on the inside they are savage, rapacious wolves (cf. 10:16; Luke 10:3; John 10:12; Acts 20:29). They are evidently pretenders, hypocrites. That the scribes and Pharisees were included among those of whom Jesus was thinking is well-nigh certain (cf. Matt. 6:2, 5, 16; 15:7; ch. 23). However, in view of 7:21 ff.; John 10:8, 12, it is clear that the description fits many others besides. It applies, in fact, to all those whose influence tends to lead God’s children astray, especially to those who selfishly and maliciously lead astray. The Gospels, book of Acts, epistles, the book of Revelation are full of examples of false prophets (Matt. 27:20; 28:12–15; John 7:41, 42; 9:29; Acts 2:13; 8:18, 19; 15:1; Rom. 6:1; 16:17, 18; I Cor. 15:12; II Cor. 10:10; Gal. 1:6, 9; 3:1; 4:17; 5:2–4; Eph. 5:3–14; Phil. 3:2, 17–19; Col. 2:4, 8, 16–23; II Thess. 2:1, 2; 3:6, 14; I Tim. 1:3–7, 18–20; 4:1–5, 7; 6:20, 21; II Tim. 2:14–18; 3:1–9; 4:3, 4; Titus 1:10–16; 3:9, 10; Heb. 6:4–8; 10:26–28; James 2:17; II Peter 2:1 ff.; 3:3, 4; I John 2:18; 4:1; II John 10; III John 9, 10; Jude 4 ff.; Rev. 2:9, 14, 15, 20–24; 3:9). In fact, one of the dragon’s (Satan’s) allies is “the beast out of the earth” (Rev. 13:11), who is also called “the false prophet” (16:13; 19:20; 20:10). It is worthy of note that Christ’s description of the false prophet, the one who comes in sheep’s clothing but inwardly is a ravenous wolf, and the picture presented in Rev. 13:11, “the beast with two horns like a lamb but speech like a dragon,” closely resemble each other. In both cases inner essence is in conflict with outward manifestation. False prophets are the representatives of the power of darkness (Col. 1:13; cf. Luke 22:53; Acts 26:18; Eph. 6:12) masquerading as an angel of light (II Cor. 11:14).
The characterization of the false prophet as the man who lacks divine authorization and brings his own message, generally telling people what they like to hear, is rooted in the Old Testament (Isa. 30:10; Jer. 6:13; 8:10; 23:21). This is the kind of prophet who, when defeat is actually imminent, will say, “Go up and triumph” (II Chron. 18:11). He will shout, “Peace, peace!” when there is no peace (Jer. 6:14; 8:11; Ezek. 13:10). His words are “softer than oil” (Ps. 55:21; cf. John 10:1, 8).
The warning of Jesus against false prophets is “relevant” now as well as when it was first spoken. Today the following are among the slogans used by the modern representatives of this cult of deceit:
“Heaven and hell are myths.”
“The God of love will not permit anyone to be punished everlastingly.”
“Satan is a myth.”
“Sin is sickness. It has nothing to do with guilt. Get rid of your guilt-complex.”
“An individual is not responsible for his own so-called sins. The blame, if there is any, rests on the parents or on society.”
“In many situations what used to be considered sin is not really that at all.” Is this what is meant by “situation ethics”? Is it a handy device for condoning extramarital sexuality and other evils?
The destructive intention of the operations of these workers of evil is indicated by the term Jesus uses to describe them: “ravenous wolves.” Wolves, with their strong jaws, sharp fangs, and fiendish cunning, mercilessly attack, seize, and kill their prey. The adjective ravenous stresses their greed and cruelty. It is related to the verb to snatch or seize (cf. John 10:12: “And the wolf snatches them”). This word “ravenous” or “greedy,” now used as a noun to describe grasping individuals (“extortioners”), also occurs in Luke 18:11; I Cor. 5:10, 11; and 6:10. The church of Jesus Christ, in every age, should be on its guard against those who distort the Word of God for their own selfish purpose. Though their speech may be ever so smooth and oily, they constitute a real peril against which believers must arm themselves (Eph. 6:10 ff.).
In order to do so it is necessary to know who they are. Accordingly, Jesus continues: 16–20. By their fruits you will recognize them. Grapes are not picked from thorns, or figs from thistles, are they? So every healthy tree bears good fruit, but the sickly tree bears worthless fruit. A healthy tree cannot bear worthless fruit, neither can a sickly tree bear good fruit. Every tree that does not yield good fruit is cut down and thrown into the fire. Therefore by their fruits you will recognize them. As true as it is that grapes (noble fruit) are not picked from thorns (weeds) nor figs (very precious) from thistles (a nuisance), so true it is also that what is God-glorifying does not issue from a false prophet. Good fruit proves that the tree from which it came is healthy. Worthless fruit shows that the tree from which it fell is sickly. This cannot be otherwise. What a man is in his inner being comes to expression outwardly, especially in words and deeds. Says Luke (6:45) in a similar context (see 6:44), “The good person out of the good treasure of his heart produces good, and the evil person out of his evil (treasure) produces evil; for out of the abundance of the heart his mouth speaks.” Character reveals itself. To be sure, the false prophet may be able for a little while to deceive people, and to hide his real face behind a mask of seemingly pious words and deeds. This cannot last. “Nothing is more difficult than to counterfeit virtue” (Calvin). The fruit will show the true character of the tree.
The question is asked, however, “Just what is meant by this fruit? Does it refer to what a person teaches or to how he conducts himself?” That the former is included is clear from the passage just quoted (“… his mouth speaks”), as well as from such other passages as Matt. 15:9 (see on that passage); Isa. 8:20; Titus 1:9–12; Heb. 13:9; I John 4:1–3; II John 9–11. Calvin may well be right when he says that among the fruits “the manner of teaching holds the first place.” By diligently comparing with Scripture the teachings of the man who presents himself as a prophet it will generally not be difficult to detect whether he is a servant of God or of the devil. Cf. Deut. 13:1–5. Nevertheless, the term “fruit” generally includes more than teachings. As used by John the Baptist, by Jesus himself, by Paul, etc., it also indicates a person’s life or behavior, as a careful examination of the following passages will show (Luke 3:8–14; John 15:8–10; Gal. 5:22–24; Eph. 5:9–12; Phil. 1:11; Col. 1:10; and James 3:17, 18).358
From ever so many passages we learn that “every tree that does not yield good fruit is cut down and thrown into the fire,” a text that occurs also in the teaching of John the Baptist. For explanation see on Matt. 3:10. Cf. Ps. 1; 37:20; 73:18–20; Prov. 29:1; Isa. 66:24; John 15:6.
For the sake of emphasis Jesus repeats the important statement, “By their fruits you will recognize them,” (verses 16 and 20), as if to say, “On your way to glory take careful note of these fruits, whatever they be, that you may not be deceived, and your progress may be assured.”
The End of the Way: Sayers versus Doers
That the sermon is tending toward the conclusion is clear from the fact that Jesus begins to speak about “that day” (verse 22), a term which in the present connection (note verses 25, 27) is an obvious reference to the great day of the final judgment. Cf. Isa. 2:11, 17; Zeph. 1:15–18; Zech. 14:6; Mal. 3:17; Matt. 24:36; Mark 13:32; Luke 10:12; 21:34; I Thess. 5:4; II Thess. 2:3; II Tim. 1:12, 18; 4:8.
The section, verses 21–27, consists of two brief paragraphs. The first of these (verses 21–23) draws a contrast between a. mere talkers or sayers, and b. doers. The talkers (implied in verse 21a) are those who say, “Lord, Lord,” without putting the Father’s will into practice. The doers (verse 21b) are those who both say and do what is pleasing to God. The emphasis is clearly on the merely nominal confessors (described again in verses 22–23). The second paragraph (verses 24–27) fixes the attention on the same two groups, this time treating them in reversed order, and describing them as doers versus hearers. The reward that awaits the doers and the ruin in store for the mere hearers are pictured under the vivid symbolism of the house built on rock versus the one built on sand.
The first paragraph begins as follows: 21–23. Not everyone who says to me, Lord, Lord, will enter the kingdom of heaven, but the one who puts into practice the will of my Father who (is) in heaven. Many will say to me in that day, Lord, Lord, in thy name did we not prophesy, and in thy name did we not cast out demons, and in thy name did we not perform many mighty works? That there is a connection between these words and the immediately preceding warning against false prophets (verses 15–20) is clear. Jesus had told his audience to be on guard against false prophets, those who, while telling lies, pretended to be speaking the truth. Did this mean that if a man proclaims the truth he thereby proves himself to be a true prophet? “Not necessarily,” says Jesus as it were. A man who speaks the truth but acts the lie is also in a sense a false prophet. Let every person therefore examine not only his neighbor but also himself. As has already been shown, the “fruit” that indicates whether a man is reliable or untrustworthy relates not only to doctrine but also to life. Thus with tremendous force the message is driven home to every heart.
The people whom Jesus condemns are branded as false because in their case life and lip had not been in harmony. Their exclamation “Lord, Lord” had been deceitful. By means of it they also now, on this day of the Great Assize, present themselves as Christ’s loyal servants; yet in their previous life they by their actions had constantly been claiming lordship for themselves (Mal. 1:6 ff.; Luke 6:46). But on this day of the last judgment they discover that, whatever may have been their previous success in deceiving others, and perhaps while on earth even themselves, they cannot fool the Judge. From the kingdom in its final phase they are excluded.—The lesson is clear: let everyone examine himself! What makes introspection important is that there will be many “sayers” who have not been “doers.” Jesus says they have not practiced the will of “my Father.…” See p. 215.
As in Matt. 25:34–46 so also here (7:22, 23) what happens on the judgment day is represented under the figure of a dialogue between those who have refused to carry out the will of the Father, on the one hand, and Jesus the Judge, on the other. Even before the verdict is pronounced those about to be doomed realize, as is clear from their words, that it is not going to be in their favor. In this connection it must be remembered that with respect to their souls the great majority of these people have already spent some time in hell. Cf. Ps. 73:12–19; Luke 16:23, 26; Acts 1:25.359 So now that with soul and body they are arraigned before the Judge what else but further doom can they expect? Besides, the very manner in which their ranks, in sharp contrast with those of the righteous, have been arranged before the Great Tribunal confirms their fears (25:32, 33). Nevertheless they argue with the Judge.
They address him as “Lord, Lord.” Trembling with fear they pronounce this title with awe and reverence, pouring into it far more meaning than they had ever done before the arrival of this crisis of deepest despair. Cf. Ps. 66:3; Mic. 7:17; Phil. 2:11.
Three times, and in each case at the very beginning of the clause, as is clear from the original and from my translation, they appeal to the name of Jesus (“in thy name”), as if genuinely intimate union with Christ had been the conscious source both of their preaching and of their miracle-working power. Actually they had degraded that very name, having used it merely as a kind of magic formula. But now they appeal to their former use of it, desperately hoping that it may still prove the God-glorifying character of their former words and deeds and may even now secure for them a place in the kingdom of heaven. Cf. 25:11, 12.
In their appeal these false prophets state that in the name of Jesus they had prophesied, driven out demons, and performed many mighty works. Jesus does not deny the claim that they had indeed represented themselves as his ambassadors and that in connection with the invocation of his name they had indeed performed astounding deeds. The question that divides commentators is, “Were these deeds genuine products of supernatural power or were they fraudulent?” II Thess. 2:9, 10 teaches that in connection with the coming of “the lawless one” there will be a mighty display of power, signs, and wonders, all of them false. Acts 19:13, 14 shows that when the seven sons of Sceva, a Jew, tried to imitate Paul’s exercise of miraculous power their attempt at exorcism failed miserably. There was also the similar failure of Egypt’s magicians to reproduce the third plague, which failure, as many see it, sheds doubt on the genuine character of their earlier “successes” (Exod. 7:22, 8:7, 18, 19). Does not all this point to the possibility that also the demon expulsions and other mighty works of which the false prophets of Matt. 7:22 boast had been nothing but sham? Have not investigations proved again and again that among false prophets illusions, trickery, sleight of hand, etc., abound, and that what is presented as genuine is very often nothing but deception? Populus vult decipi (“The people wish to be deceived”).
All this, however, must not blind us to the fact that by God’s permission Satan at times exerts influence upon the physical (as well as upon the moral-spiritual) realm, as is clear from the book of Job (1:12; 2:6, 7). Is it not possible that, by God’s power and/or permission, Egypt’s magicians had been enabled to change rods into serpents (Exod. 7:11, 12a)? Note, however, that in each case—the one recorded in the book of Job and the one described in Exodus—the end result was a victory for the Lord and for his people (Exod. 7:12b; Job 19:23–27; 42:5, 6). It is unnecessary to exclude the possibility that among the feats of which the false prophets are now boasting there had been some that were accomplished by the aid of supernatural power, whether divine or Satanic. Similarly, it is entirely possible—probable even—that the men whom Jesus condemns had actually spoken many a true word when they prophesied in the name of Jesus. Is it not true that the Lord at times makes use of the wicked to proclaim marvelous truths (Num. 23:8–10, 18–24; 24:5–9, 17; Rev. 2:14; Acts 16:16, 17)? Demas may have preached many a fine sermon (Col. 4:14; II Tim. 4:10). And was not even Judas Iscariot among those who were commissioned to heal the sick and to cast out demons (Matt. 10:1)? The reason why the men described here in Matt. 7:22 are condemned is not that their preaching had been wrong and/or their miracles spurious but that they had not practiced what they preached!
It is for that reason that the Lord continues: And then will I say to them openly, “Never have I known you; go away from me, you law despisers!” “Never,” that is, not a single moment. Just what does Jesus mean when he says, “Never have I known you”? There is a knowledge of the mind. That according to his divine nature Jesus possessed this knowledge in unlimited degree is clear from John 1:47, 49; 2:24, 25; 21:17. It was exactly because he knew the false prophets so thoroughly that he was so completely justified in condemning them. There is, however, also a knowledge of the heart, that is, of electing love, acknowledgment, friendship, and fellowship (Amos 3:2; Nah. 1:7; John 10:14; I Cor. 8:3; Gal. 4:9; and II Tim. 2:19). The connection makes plain that it is this knowledge that is referred to in our passage. The false prophets speak as if Jesus had been their friend. Jesus replies, as it were, “Not for a single moment have I acknowledged you as my own, or known you to be my friends.” When he now forever expels the law-despisers (literally “workers of lawlessness”), he is dooming them to eternal destruction, in body and soul, away from his loving presence (Matt. 25:46; Luke 13:27, 28; II Thess. 1:9).
Before leaving this little paragraph (verses 21–23) attention should be called to the honors to which Jesus here lays claim. He is Lord of the universe and all it contains, the sovereign ruler of all men and of all things (cf. 11:27; 28:18; Phil. 2:11; Rev. 17:14). Though, to be sure, it would be wrong to attach to the title “Lord, Lord,” uttered by the false prophets during the days of Christ’s sojourn on earth (verse 21), the same exalted significance which they attach to it on the day of the final judgment (verse 22), nevertheless even in the former case it must have implied paying lip service to the fact that Jesus was their superior, the One to whom they owed honor and obedience. Again, though during Christ’s sojourn on earth the term kurios (Lord) with reference to him can hardly have attained to the fulness of meaning which it reached when applied by loyal disciples to the One exalted at the Father’s right hand in glory (I Cor. 12:3), yet even when this appellative was used by the men described in 7:21 it must have meant more than simply “Sir” (the meaning which the vocative of this title has in John 12:21, with reference to Philip). When used by true disciples it meant no less than that Jesus was regarded, in an ever ascending measure, as the object of their faith, love, and devotion.360
Jesus also claims to be the One who is coming to judge all men. Note: “Many will say to me in that day.… Then will I say to them.” Cf. 25:31, 32; 26:64; 28:18; John 5:22, 27; Phil 2:9, 10. God through the Lamb, Jesus Christ, will be the Judge (Rev. 20:11–15). Already here in 5:21, 22—hence, rather early in Christ’s ministry—we have a clear testimony to the effect that Jesus laid claim to nothing less than being the One to whom the entire world, believing and unbelieving, would be answerable. In a far more detailed manner this tremendous fact will be set forth in 25:31 ff.
Finally, Jesus claims to be in a unique sense “God’s Son.” He says “my Father” (verse 21). Just what does he mean when he says this? In which sense does he call himself, by inference, the Son of God? In the sense in which believers can all say, “Our Father”? Answer: The very fact that he never includes himself when he uses the term “our Father,” and, of course, never includes any others when he says “my Father” or “my own Father,” shows that he viewed himself as Son of God in a very special sense. He enjoys community of essence with the Father. See John 10:30; also Matt. 11:25–28; 14:33 (Jesus accepted the testimony of the disciples); John 1:18 (“the only begotten God,” according to the best reading); 3:16; 5:18 (Jesus called God “his own Father”); etc. Now if, as has been proved, Jesus was conscious of his natural, essential, divine, trinitarian sonship, then is it not reasonable to believe that whenever he used the term “my Father,” a reference, direct or indirect, to this divine sonship is never wholly excluded? See the following passages: Matt. 7:21; 10:32; 12:50; 15:13; 16:17; 18:10, 19; 20:23; 25:34; 26:39, 42, 53; Luke 10:22; 22:29; 24:49; John 5:17, 43; 6:32; 8:19, 49, 54; 10:18, 29, 37; 14:7, 12, 20, 21, 28; 15:1, 8, 10, 15, 23, 24; 16:10; 18:11; and 20:17. To be sure, Jesus was God’s Son in a fourfold sense: a. ethical sonship, being “a child of God”; b. official sonship, being the Messiah; c. nativistic sonship, being virgin-born, so that God is the Father of his human nature; and d. trinitarian sonship, being eternally begotten by the Father, and partaking of the divine essence equally with the Father and the Holy Spirit. But these four are not separate. Do not the first three relationships rest upon the fourth? On “Father in heaven” see pp. 287, 326.
The End of the Way: Doers versus Hearers The Parable of the Two Builders
In close connection with the preceding little paragraph, as has already been shown, Jesus concludes his sermon with the parable361 of The Two Builders. He said: 24–27. Everyone then who hears these words of mine and puts them into practice will be like a sensible man, who built his house on rock. Down poured the rain, and there came the floods, while the winds blew and fell upon that house, but it did not fall, for it was founded on rock. And everyone who hears these words of mine and does not put them into practice will be like a foolish man, who built his house on sand. Down poured the rain and there came the floods, while the winds blew and beat against that house, and it fell, and the crash it produced was tremendous.
Both of the men mentioned in this parable are builders, for to live means to build. Every ambition a man cherishes, every thought he conceives, every word he speaks, and every deed he performs is, as it were, a building block. Gradually the structure of his life rises. Not all builders are the same, however. Some are sensible, some foolish.
Jesus speaks first about the manner in which the sensible man built his house, namely, on rock; secondly, about the test to which this house was subjected; and thirdly, about the result of this test and the reason for this result. He follows the same sequence with respect to the foolish man and the house he built. It is worthy of note that there are only two kinds of builders, not three, four, or five; and that these two form a striking contrast. The Lord is constantly dividing men into two classes. So also in 6:22, 23; 7:13, 14; 7:17, 18; 10:39; 13:11, 12, 14–16, 19–23 (good soil versus soil that is not good, though for various reasons), 24–30, 36–42; 47–50; 22:1–14; 25:2, to mention some of the more striking examples.
Nevertheless, though the two builders differ strikingly, on the surface they have much in common. Each builds a house. The “houses” of which Jesus speaks were not constructed as sturdily as many a present day strict building code would require. Thieves were able to dig through the walls (6:19). The roof, of earth and grass, could easily be “opened up” (Mark 2:4; cf. Ps. 129:6). Everything therefore depended on the foundation! Now the two builders also have this in common that both erect their house in a valley containing the bed of a water-course. During the dry season this bed is dry or nearly so, with the result that there is no harm to either house. So far so good.—Is it not true that also among people, including those who were listening to Christ’s discourse or those who today read it, there is much surface resemblance?
Essentially, however, how radical is the contrast between the two builders! The first builder is sensible. He has foresight. He figures with the fact that the dry season will not last. Soon the sky will become dark and the black winged legions of the storm will arrive. His house will be deluged by the rains, battered by the winds, and, unless precautionary measures are taken, will be washed away by the rising, swirling tide. So he provides for this imminent peril. Before constructing his house he removes the loose gravel, digging down to rock bottom (cf. Luke 6:48). Then he lays a foundation on rock.362 —The foolish man does nothing of the kind. He erects his house on the loose gravel, as if bright and sunny days will never cease.
In his explanation of the parable Jesus points out that the figurative meaning of the foundation is “these words of mine,” that is, this entire Sermon on the Mount, and, by an extension of the figure, all the words that proceed out of my mouth and are directed to men. Since by means of what he says and commands he reveals his own heart, his very being, it is certainly also correct to say that, as far as the interpretation or spiritual meaning of the parable is concerned, Christ himself is the Rock (Isa. 28:16, cf. I Peter 2:6; Rom. 9:33; I Cor. 3:11; 10:4). What is said about God as the believers’ Rock (Deut. 32:15, 18; Ps. 18:2; 89:26; and Isa. 17:10) is also applicable to Christ. See N.T.C. on Ephesians, p. 190. According to the teaching of Jesus here in verse 24 (cf. verse 26) building one’s house on rock means not only listening to the Lord but, out of gratititude for salvation received (certainly implied in 5:1–16), putting his commands into practice. By the grace of God the sensible man does this; the foolish man, trusting in self and refusing to think about the future, does not. He is a hearer but not a doer. He follows the promptings of his own sinful will.
The day of testing arrives. It comes for both houses. Down pours the rain, on and against the house, certainly on top of the roof. It is one of those terrific storms which in this region the sudden winds bring up from the Mediterranean. There is cloudburst upon cloudburst. As a result the bed of the water-course is dry no longer. It begins to fill with water, first a brook, shallow and sluggish; then a torrent, deep, swift, and furious, threatening the very supports of the walls, whatever it is on which the house stands. And all the while the western gale pommels and pounds against the top and the walls, particularly the latter.
So also for every hearer of the gospel, whether he be sensible or foolish, the test or crisis is surely coming. It comes in various forms: trial (Gen. 22:1; book of Job), temptation (Gen. 39:7–18; Matt. 26:69–75), bereavement (Gen. 42:36; Job 1:18–22; Luke 7:11–17; John 11:1 ff.), death (Acts 7:59, 60; 9:37), and in the present context (note verse 22: “in that day”) especially the judgment day. Its coming cannot be prevented. Often it arrives with dramatic suddenness (Matt. 24:43; 25:6; I Thess. 5:2).
What is the outcome of this test? The sensible man’s house did not fall. Note the play on words: “the winds … fell upon that house, but it fell not.” The swirling waters that threatened it were not even able to shake it (Luke 6:48). It braved the tumultous cloudbursts. It withstood the enormous force of the onrushing flood. It defied every furious blast. When the force of the storm was completely spent, there stood that house, none the worse for the elements of nature that had raged against it. Reason: it had been built on rock!
On the other hand, it took hardly any effort for the angry floods to undermine the walls of the other house and to carry away the very sand or gravel on which it had been erected. Moreover, the rain and the wind easily finished whatever was left undone by the tide. All the wind had to do was give the tottering structure a little push.363 Then, with a tremendous crash, it fell into the water and was washed away, pieces of wreckage strewn about everywhere. Its ruin was complete.
The sensible man, who shows by his very deeds that he has taken to heart the words of Christ, and is therefore building upon the Rock, will never be put to shame. See p. 345. Even the day of judgment will be for him a day of triumph (I Thess. 2:19, 20; 3:13; 4:16, 17; II Thess. 1:10; II Tim. 4:8; Titus 2:13, 14):
The soul that on Jesus has leaned for repose,
I will not, I will not desert to his foes;
That soul, though all hell should endeavor to shake,
I’ll never, no never, no never forsake.
Stanza from “How Firm a Foundatin,” by “K” in John Rippon’s Selection of Hymns, 1787.
The theory that Jesus here teaches the doctrine of works as the means whereby salvation is achieved is certainly wrong, for the very point of the parable is that the foundation of man’s everlasting weal is not to be sought in man but in Christ and his utterances, as has been shown. It is upon that foundation that man must build his life, including his hope for eternity.
The ruin in store for those who are building on sand is described at the very close of the sermon, probably in order all the more to impress upon the listeners and on those who afterward would be brought into contact with this earnest message that their reaction to these words of the Lord has significance for all eternity. In reality, therefore, the announcement of the unbelievers’ tragic end is a manifestation of Christ’s mercy, an implied serious invitation to repent (cf. 4:17), extended to all who are still living in the day of grace.
Matthew appends the following words in order to show the sermon’s effect upon the audience: 28, 29. Now when Jesus had finished these sayings the crowds were astounded at his teaching, for he was teaching them as having authority, and not as their scribes. When Jesus stopped speaking, the large crowd that had been listening spell-bound was left in a state of amazement. In English it is very difficult, perhaps impossible, to reproduce the exact flavor of the picturesque verb used in the original to describe the people’s state of heart and mind. In addition to “were astounded” the following have been offered: “were awed,” “amazed,” “filled with amazement,” “dumbfounded,” “astonished.” The Amplified New Testament has “were astonished and overwhelmed with bewildered wonder.” These renderings are all very helpful. The literal meaning of the original is “were struck out of themselves.” “Struck out of their senses” has been suggested. Compare also the German “ausser sich gebracht sein” (Lenski, op. cit., p. 305) and the Dutch idiom “uit het veld geslagen.” The tense of the verb364 shows that this state of astonishment was not just a momentary experience but lasted for a while.
The question may well be asked, What were some of the reasons for this feeling of wonder and astonishment? Matt. 13:54, 55 may supply part of the answer. Nevertheless, on the basis of the sermon itself and of 7:28 (“not as their scribes”) the following items are worthy of consideration:
a. He spoke the truth (John 14:6; 18:37). Corrupt and evasive reasoning marked the sermons of many of the scribes (Matt. 5:21 ff.).
b. He presented matters of great significance, matters of life, death, and eternity (see the entire sermon). They often wasted their time on trivialities (Matt. 23:23; Luke 11:42).
c. There was system in his preaching. As their Talmud proves, they often rambled on and on.
d. He excited curiosity by making generous use of illustrations (5:13–16; 6:26–30; 7:24–27; etc.) and concrete examples (5:21–6:24; etc.), as the sermon shows from beginning to end. Their speeches were often dry as dust.
e. He spoke as the Lover of men, as One concerned with the everlasting welfare of his listeners, and pointed to the Father and his love (5:44–48). Their lack of love is clear from such passages as 23:4, 13–15; Mark 12:40; etc.
f. Finally, and this is the most important, for it is specifically stated here (verse 28),
he
spoke “with authority” (Matt. 5:18, 26; etc.), for his message came straight from the very heart and mind of the Father (John 8:26), hence also from his own inner being, and from Scripture (5:17; 7:12; cf. 4:4, 7, 10).
They
were constantly borrowing from fallible sources, one scribe quoting another scribe.
They
were trying to draw water from broken cisterns.
He
drew from himself, being “the Fountain of living waters” (Jer. 2:13).
A.V. Authorized Version (King James)
343
This passage (verses 3–5) contains four different words that belong to the general area of observation or contemplation. They are as follows:
a. βλέπεις sec. per. sing. pres. indic. active of βλέπω, here probably with continuative force: gaze at or keep looking at. It is a very common verb (cf. 5:28; 6:4, 6, 18; etc.).
b. διαβλέπεις sec. per. sing. fut. indic. of διαβλέπω, an intensification of βλέπω; hence, see clearly, look through, penetrate. Cf. Luke 6:42. In Mark 8:25 probably: open one’s eyes wide.
c. ἰδού, discussed on p. 131, footnote 133.
d. κατανοεῖς, sec. per. sing. pres. indic. of κατανοέω; here (and in the parallel Luke 6:41), take careful notice of, observe. Cf. Acts 27:39.
344 For a more detailed explanation of the concept “holy” see N.T.C. on Philippians, p. 46.
347 Instead of “way” some prefer the rendering “road.” Much can be said in favor of either. Neither is wrong. My slight preference for “way” is based on the fact that it makes the intended thought transition from the physical to the moral-spiritual realm a little easier, since we, too, speak of a “way of life,” “way of self-denial and sacrifice,” “… of obedience, … of sanctification,” etc.
348 A. B. Bruce, The Synoptic Gospels (The Expositor’s Greek Testament, Vol. I), Grand Rapids, no date, p. 132.
354 Greek τεθλιμμένη, nom. sing. fem. perf. pass. participle of θλίβω, to press upon, crowd. Hence, the participle here used means constricted. Rom. 2:9 has the combination θλῖψις καὶ στενοχωρία, that is, “tribulation and anguish.”
355 I have discussed this “remnant” doctrine in greater detail in the paperback Israel and the Bible, pp. 49, 50.
357 That is, if, with A.V., A.R.V. (in the text), R.S.V., Berkeley, N.A.S.. and many others we read not only ὅτι πλατεια η πύλη (verse 13) but also ὅτι στενὴ ἡ πύλη (verse 14). Although Grk.N.T. (A-B-M-W) gives the preference to τί (instead of ὅτι) in verse 14, which suggests the exclamatory rendering, “How narrow (is) the gate and constricted the way…!”, and the possibility that this was the original text must be granted, the textual evidence has not convinced me that there is a definite and solid basis for this preference. Besides, reading ὅτι in both cases produces a pleasing balance of clauses.
358 While I agree with Lenski’s emphasis on teaching, I find his virtual exclusion of conduct a bit extreme (op. cit., p. 293), Calvin’s view, it would seem to me, is more well-balanced, as the lists of passages to which I refer would seem to indicate.
361 Though the word parable is not used in the text of verses 24–27, we should not hesitate to call it that. When a parable is defined as “an extended simile,” or as “an illustrative story in which a comparison is drawn and the word or phrase indicating this comparison (in this case will be like) is included,” or simply as “an earthly story with a heavenly meaning,” it becomes clear that we have every right to call this a parable. So also H. N. Ridderbos, op. cit., p. 158.
362 Matt. 7:24 reads τὴν πέτραν. The word πέτρα refers in this context to rocky ground, a rocky foundation. Because of the presence of the article many prefer the translation “the rock” (A.R.V., N.A.S., R.S.V., etc.). This, however, can easily lead to misunderstanding, as if even in the illustration a particular rock is meant. Therefore, the translation “on rock” (N.E.B.) or “on rocky foundation” (Williams) is probably better. The contrast is between “rock” and “sand.” In Greek we probably have a generic use of the article; hence, it may be omitted in translation: “upon rock,” “upon sand.”
N.T.C. W. Hendriksen, New Testament Commentary
363 This is clear from the entire picture. It is also possible that the difference in the verbs used in the original to describe the action of the wind against the house built on rock as compared with its action against the one built on sand confirms this fact. In the former case the verb is προσέπεσαν (fell upon, struck against, beat upon with great force); in the latter it is προσέκοψαν (beat against; in John 11:9, 10 stumble). The very fact that the description of the various elements of the storm in their raging against these houses is exactly the same in each case except for these two different verbs to indicate the action of the wind would seem to strengthen the possibility that a difference in meaning (“beat upon with great force” over against “stumbled against”) is indicated. See also Lenski, op. cit., p. 304.