for those who will be preaching the one year series this coming Sunday is the meaning behind the question of St. John the Baptist in the holy Gospel, Matthew 11:2-10(11).To a man, almost all modern exegetes opine that John was in a crisis of faith, experiencing a moment of doubt. To a man, almost all the Church Fathers including our Fathers in the Reformation insist that John had absolutely no such crisis of faith, but was seeking to bring his disciples to faith in the Lord Jesus.
I confess that I have preached the text both ways - and I was inordinately fond of the approach of the modern exegetes. I've come to believe I was quite wrong about it. Here are some beautiful words that Fr. John Fenton posted from my favorite Western father, St. Peter Chrysologus that may be of help as you ponder this text:
That blessed John was the messenger to the messengers of Christ, the witness to his witnesses, and the foremost of his promoters, we have frequently mentioned in our preaching. Then why is it that the messenger asks a question, the witness is in doubt, and the promoter is lacking in knowledge? Are you the One who is to come, or do we wait for another? (Mt 11.3) John, you perfect man, are you asking whether he is the Christ who is to come, when while you were still within your mother’s womb you announced that he had already come?
John, there are your words: “Behold, the Lamb of God; behold him who takes away the sins of the world.” And when he submitted to be baptized by your hands, you said: “I ought to be baptized by you, and yet you are coming to me?” Are you not the one who heard amidst the waters of the Jordan the voice of the Father resounding from heaven: “This is my beloved Son, in whom I am well-pleased”? You certainly were the only human being who saw the Holy Spirit come down in bodily form from heaven upon him. You are the one who grasped the Father with your ears, the Son with your hands, and the Holy Spirit with your eyes at one and the same moment in an unparalleled manifestation of power.
And after this you ask whether he is the Christ or whether there is another who is to come?
…
We are disturbed, John, we who sing your praises are disturbed… So give an answer, John, assist yourself and assist us; say why you who used to have knowledge sent them to ask a question. Let us pay attention, brothers, let us pay attention more in-depth attention, and let us listen to the answer John gives here not only with our ears, but also with our hearts. John says: “If while I was still in the womb I instantly announced that Christ was going to be born, now after hearing of his works, works which attest to his divinity, have I plunged into the waves of doubt? Far from it! “This is the reason form my question: my disciples, who had seen my good reputation, who had admired my life, who had heard me impose penance, forgive sins, and promise that the kingdom of heaven was arriving in him who was to come, were so prepared to be bound with chains, to live in prison with me, to share my punishments, and to become my partners with me in death, that they failed to see my Lord, for whom I had prepared them. They were following the teacher of penitence so closely that they were neglecting the Giver of grace; on account of ignorance they considered themselves mine to such an extent that they were unaware that the servant’s property belongs to his Master.
“So I sent them out, in order to put heavenly goods before them, to lead them to divine ones, to hand them over to God, to return them to the Creator. I sent them, so that by his works they would affirm that he was the Christ about whom they had heard my words, and so that my [disciples] would not be lost to my Lord with my passing away. I sent them to him who knew very well why I sent them. I sent them to the One who probes the heart; I sent them to the One who judges thoughts. I sent them to him who was in me and with me. I sent them so that by recognizing his divinity by means of his works, they would not find his humanity to be a stumbling block. I sent them, so that gazing upon his humanity would not disturb them who could not but be strengthened by the signs of his divine powers.
“And so the Lord, who knew why I sent them, responded with his works before he did with words.”
And from the Lutheran Fathers:
Luther's words from the House Postil (I:60):
"This sending of his disciples amounts to John saying, Go and learn who is the true doctor and preacher. I know it well that he is the true Christ, but the people do not believe this. Therefore, you go to him and hear for yourselves from him personally, so that you will divorce yourselves from me and the entire Jewish school of thought, in order to cling to this man on whom you and the entire world's salvation depends. This, then, is the final meaning of John's message to Christ, namely, that his disciples should personally hear and see Christ, come into fellowship with him, believe on him, and eternally be saved."
Gerhard's words from Postilla (p. 25)
"John did not address such a question to the Lord Christ on behalf of himself, as if he had the slightest doubts about this. For he had actually testified to the Messiah already in his mother's womb, Luke 1:41. He saw the Holy Spirit come down from heaven upon Him, John 1:32. He heard the voice from heaven: This is My beloved Son, in whom I am well-pleased, Matt 3:17. Indeed, he had pointed at Christ with his own finger, and had confessed Him as the Lamb of God who bears the sin of the world, John 1:29. His faith and confession of the Messiah was in no way beginning to waver or doubt because of his imprisonment, because Christ shortly thereafter highly praised him for his steadfastness. Rather, this sending and questioning had to do with his disciples, that they would be led to Christ and that any doubts that still remained would be removed from their hearts."
20 comments:
Pr. Weedon:
This is the same Gospel reading for the LSB 3-Year Series A this Sunday, so hopefully, all the Synod will be wrestling with the text. The Chrysologus citation was illuminating, summarizing what many have thought in a way that we don't write or speak today.
What I find interesting is the use of Isaiah in the two accounts of John the Baptizer that the 3-Year Series has used. In the Matthew 3 reading for last Sunday, the identity of John is wrapped up in Isaiah's prophecy: "The voice of one crying in the wilderness, etc." The answer to the question that John poses in this Sunday's reading is found in Isaiah's prophecy: "The blind receive sight, the deaf hear, etc."
We are directed with these accounts--along with John, his disciples, and his audience along the Jordan--to the word of the Lord God spoken through the prophets. Hear what the Lord God speaks to you, the voice that carries His Spirit. More importantly, see what the Lord God's word achieves, the word that Isaiah says "does not return void." Behold the Lord-God-in-the-flesh fulfilling His word on your behalf, for your salvation. Hear and see these things as the Son continues to speak to us in these last days.
Such direction we also get from the Church Fathers. It's summarized in that Luther quote you included: "This, then, is the final meaning of John's message to Christ, namely, that His disciples should personally hear and see Christ, come into fellowship with Him, believe on Him, and eternally be saved."
Great post.
LTZ
So, in other words, they were in the wrong place. John was releasing them from discipleship to him, and sending them to Christ. His time was done. Right?
Why couldn't it be both? A great example of how God can work with crises of faith to deepen the faith (of the blessed Forerunner and his disciples). I had only read the Fathers and Refomers and then I happened across some modern exegetes. It really opened up a new depth. John was in desperate need to the Christ as well. He is one of those to whom the Gospel is being proclaimed. Even his greatness does not exclude him from the need for the Christ. And of course, God works with our moments of weakness and sin to bring about His will in all things.
Pastor Beisel,
Yes, or at least preparing them for where to go after then buried his body.
Pastor Roemke,
I don't think it's a both here. Fr. Fenton's approach in his sermon was quite interesting. I commend it. He probed a bit of why we moderns like the notion of the Baptist struggling with doubts and fears - and that this may not be a wholesome thing at all, this desire to poke a hole in the image of the Great.
Pastor LTZ,
Thanks for the additional good thoughts and application to the three year series. I didn't realize we had an overlap this week!
Great post. We love to tear down the Fathers of our Faith, don't we? This kind of assumptive reasoning is one of my pet peevs. This is the same problem as the assumption that the blessed virgin Mary was a silly little girl who knew nothing about what was happening to her... or that St Paul's personal bigotry colored his epistle when talking about gender roles. People like to define the Scripture in human weakness and failure instead of searching for the divine truth. Finding fault with people from the Bible is what creates wiggle room inside of ammounts to crypto-Sola Scriptura
Unfortunately, this philosophy is not new and Lutheranism is not immune to it:
"The Fathers--who are the 'Fathers'? They are the children; they lived in the infancy of the Church, in the early dawn of the Gospel day. John the Baptist was the greatest among the prophets and yet he that was least in the Kingdom of God, in the Christian Church was greater than he. He probably knew less, and that little less distinctly than a Sunday-school child, ten years of age, in the present day.....who then are the 'Fathers'? They have become the Children; they were the Fathers when compared with those who lived in the infancy of the Jewish dispensation; but, compared with the present and advanced age, they are the Children, and the learned and pious of the nineteenth century are the Fathers. We are three hundred years older than Luther and his noble coadjutors, and eighteen hundred years older than the primitives; theirs was the age of infancy and adolescence, and ours that of full-grown manhood. They are the children; we are the fathers; the tables are turned." [Benjamin Kurtz, "The Fathers", Lutheran Observer November 29, 1849 (original emphasis)]
If you tear someone down, you might just feel better about yourself.
Is it by any means tearing down the great Forerunner to say that he was sinful? Christ Himself commended him as the greatest of those born to women. I don't think it necessarily implies that Scripture is somehow diminished or that my supposed tearing down of one who is sinful (after all, he was born of woman)is done to make me or my hearers feel better about their own sinfulness. I think it is good that we commend John for who he was, a truly great prophet and the greatest of men. A man who was priviledged to go before the face of the Lord, but a man in need of forgiveness. I'm still not sure how I'm going to preach this text, but I am not satisfied with Luther's or the Father's simply saying it is impossible that John could have even had the slightest shred of doubt. Perhaps John had the slightest shred of doubt. Is that so hard to imagine? Would not Satan have been working on him day and night in that dank prison cell? Does that make John any less of a faithful servant, or is he not one who Christ died for? Is John a super saint, never allowed to sin, never allowed to hear the sweetness of the Gospel for his own sins? I think it is good and right to emulate and give thanks for the faithful example of John, but to say that it is on the verge of being sinful to suggest that he was tempted and tried to the verge of breaking just doesn't make sense. Help me to see where it would be wrong in any context, to say that John was somehow without sin or above our mortal fallings when Christ Himself commended him as a mortal.
And, by the way, it makes me cringe to hear such unabashed attacks on such great men of the faith as the Fathers of the Church ridiculed and put down in such a way. To say we all have sinned and fall short of the glory of God is not the same as comparing the blessed Fathers of the faith to 10 year old Sunday School students. Shame on Bnejamin Kurtz, but his eyes have hopefully been opened by the brilliance of the unshaded light of Christ.
Mike,
What is striking is to compare the arrogance (and truthfully, silliness of 19th century progressive theory) that runs through Kurtz' words with the humility that characterized Martin Chemnitz' approach to the fathers and what he constantly called "the purer antiquity."
Pastor Roemke,
I'd just counsel Lutheran pastors to spend some time meditating upon how the Church has historically preached this Gospel - before listening to what the modern experts offer. I'd counsel that at any time, but especially in this instance. A bit of prayer and some careful reflection on WHY we find a sinful and wavering St. John the Baptist to be more palatable would be worthwhile.
I agree fully, dear Pastor Weedon, and I value your guidance and direction greatly. I have been praying about this quite a bit, as I would never want to lead God's people astray. I think it also wise though to consider why we would consider a blameless and perfect John more palatable. Again, while I hold the Fathers of the Church in high regard, they are capable of error and have erred. Does that make them somehow unworthy of Christ's atonement? Similarly, would it make St. John somehow less worthy of all the accolades of Christ that he should doubt? Could he not have simply been doing what all Christians should do when faced with the damnable temptation to doubt that Satan throws at us? That is, to turn to the Word (in this case, the very Word made flesh) for guidance and assurance. I am saying that I can see how both the Fathers/Luther and modern scholars make good points and they are valid and useful for consideration. It is certain, regardless of which side we may fall to, that John was blameless in finding all his comfort in the work of Christ. And, what an excellent preacher to turn his disciples over to the Word made flesh for thier comfort and eternal hope.
All of this just goes to show that the fathers cannot and should not be ignored because they are ancient. The "insights" of modern exegetes cannot hold a candle to the fire of wisdom which emanated from their enlightenment by the Holy Spirit. I can only hope that more Lutherans look to the example, specifically of Martin Chemnitz, who looked to the church fathers above any other source in the defense of true doctrine. The fathers have become ignored, their commemoration days on the Lutheran church calendar largely thrown out. How glorious is God in His saints!
To me, the key here is to take a deliberate and useful approach. There are radical extremes of the pendulum on both sides of this issue. Emotionalism and mythology are the rulers at both ends. While Kurtz's words are terrible, there is such a thing as going too far in the opposite direction. We can let our love for the Fathers blind our ability to read them with discernment and that can cause us to wander off into those places where they error.
In both zealous extremes, I think that we create Fathers that didn't exist in order to suit our views and please us. It doesn't matter if our assumptions make them total fools or superheros; if we rely too heavily on speculation and assumptions, we cannot be sure that what we are looking at is the truth.
Thanks, Bill, for raising the point and an important step after our own exegetical mining expedition. Helpful words from everyone. I particularly appreciate what Jim Roemke wrote. And certainly the balance suggested by Mike Baker is much needed.
As part of that encouragement to maintain the balance I think it critical that we, in fact, do our own exegesis. Sadly, even that is neglected by some pastors, who take a cursory glance at the original language text, but then read commentaries (even ancient) as if that gives us all the insight we need. Creeds, confessions, commentaries, treatises, no matter how well written and invaluable in rounding out our study, cannot be substitutes for our own study of the text.
Something that was pointed out on this text that I find even more interesting than trying to guess the motivation of John the Baptizer (in which Scripture is silent), is Jesus's response. He is asked if He is the Christ, and responds by pointing to the work of YHWH (see Is. 29:18, 35:5-6, 42:18).
While I certainly am not saying that the Christ is not God, I don't think it is accurate to say that Christ is pointing to the work of the Messiah, he isn't.
The significance of this (per my notes from Synoptics with Voelz) is that the function of YHWH in the OT is taken over by Jesus in the NT. Thus showing that if you want to know God, look to Christ (in line with the distinction of deus absconditus/revalatus).
No question that the fathers are not infallible; and neither am I and neither are any of you. But they were also very wise and learned in the Sacred Scriptures - far more so than I could hope to be - and they sought to understand them in the best way of all: in holiness of life. That's why I think it best to defer to them on a question like this. The thing is: John isn't like us. We don't know all the ways he was different, but who of us was actually foretold in the Prophets? Who of us was filled with the Holy Spirit from his mother's womb? Who of us confessed the Christ before being born? Who of us baptized the Word Made Flesh? You get the idea. I'm not saying he couldn't have doubted, but I am saying the united witness of the Church prior to the 20th century on the question is enough to make me reject the modern interpretation. If these holy and blessed teachers of God's people across so many places and ages taught what they did (based upon the Scripture interpreting Scripture, of course), then I'll gladly dump my own notions. Anywho, it will be interesting to see how we all end up preaching that Gospel reading this week! Blessings on your preparations.
Actually Pastor, to go a step further, we don't speak authoritatively where Scripture is silent. We know his action was to point his disciples to Christ, and so John sent them to Jesus, that is all we are given. To say more, especially from the pulpit, is focusing on something other than the text and other than the Gospel. For the most part (there have been rare occasions), I don't have much use for the musings of a pastor in a sermon, unless it were to show just how irrelevant such musings are.
Modern interpretors are more interested in finding the motivation, as if that even matters, of an event and of a text. Level 3 stuff exists, but unless the text is explicit, stick to the Level 2 and Level 1 stuff (I really am showing my influence here, now).
Well, I may have said enough (or too much) already so I'll quit before I fall too far behind.
Matt,
I'll be honest: you're speaking foreign language to me. I don't know what level 1 or 2 means. And you don't need to tell me - I'd rather remain in ignorance on the point, I think. :)
But I do know that it is NOT opining from the pulpit to point out the rest of what Scripture teaches about John, which is what the Fathers do. Nor do I think it is opining when Luther or Gerhard or any of the Fathers *on the basis of those Scriptures* rule out the possibility that the Forerunner was in doubt.
I think we'd all be well served with more time actually wrestling with the texts in prayer and also in reading the wisdom of those who wrestled before us.
Fenton does probe in his homily into WHY we moderns are so drawn to embrace John the Doubter against the united witness of our fathers. His homily (they had it last week) is worth reading through with some careful thought as well.
Pastor,
If you are curious, the Level 1,2, and 3 thing is in Voelz's What[the ____] Does This Mean.
I certainly advocate struggling, wrestling with the text, and listening to what our forefathers have said on the matter.
Luther cuts through pretty clear on this and focuses on the action (Level 2) of John's pointing his disciples to Christ. There really isn't much spent on motivation, just John sends them and this is what this action of sending them to Christ means.
Post a Comment