MATTHEW 11:20-30: THE JESUS OF MODERNISM VS. THE JESUS OF MATTHEW
Who was Jesus? What did he do, and what was his message? Many scholars and religious leaders in the church today, while not explicitly denying Christian beliefs about Jesus, offer a different view of Jesus and of his message that undermines the essence of the gospel of Jesus. We will here contrast this liberal or " modernist" view of Jesus with the view of Matthew--which, we will argue, was also the view of Jesus himself.
Modernism - Jesus did not preach hell, or if he did, it was only a symbolic condemnation of the rich and powerful oppressors of the common folk.
Matthew - Jesus preached an eternal judgment on all who failed to repent, regardless of their class or position (vv. 20-24).
¡¤ The judgment was compared to those which came on whole cities in the OT (vv. 20-24), not just their religious or political leaders.
¡¤ Jesus spoke harshly of that generation as a whole (v. 16; cf. 12:39-45).
¡¤ Since Tyre, Sidon, and Sodom had already received a temporal judgment, Jesus must have been speaking of an actual future judgment that comes after death.
¡¤ Jesus healed the servant boy of a Roman centurion, whose faith he said exceeded that of his own Jewish people (8:5-13); that is, Jesus granted healing to an authority figure of the great oppressor, Rome!
¡¤ Jesus also healed the daughter of a synagogue ruler (9:18-19, 23-26).
¡¤ The suggestion that these words did not reflect Jesus' considered opinion is shown to be false by the fact that Jesus had said almost exactly the same thing earlier (10:15) and spoke repeatedly of a coming judgment (e.g., 5:22; 7:22-23; 12:36; 13:41-42).
Modernism - Jesus was not sure about his divine calling or purpose and expressed doubts and worries about failing.
Matthew - Jesus knew exactly what he was doing and was confident that his Father's purpose was being realized through him (vv. 25-26).
¡¤ Jesus warned people not to stumble over the fact that he did not fit their preconceptions of the Messiah (vv. 6, 19). This does not sound like a person who is himself unsure of his role.
¡¤ The ease and intimacy with which Jesus addressed God as " Father" (v. 25) shows that he was quietly confident about his relationship with God.
¡¤ Popular images of Jesus as an uncertain prophet (from Jesus Christ Superstar to The Last Temptation of Christ) have no basis anywhere in the Gospels.
Modernism - Jesus did not claim to be the Messiah, let alone the divine Son of God; these honors were bestowed on Jesus by the church long after his death. Of the Gospels, only John presents Jesus as considering himself to be God.
Matthew - Jesus avoided the term " Messiah" because of its political implications, but he clearly claimed to fulfill OT Messianic expectations and to be the unique, divine Son of God (v. 27).
¡¤ Jesus accepted the designation " the Coming One," pointing to the Messianic works prophesied by Isaiah as proof (vv. 3-6, cf. Is. 35:5-6; 61:1).
¡¤ Since the NT writers freely used the title " Christ" (Greek for Messiah) for Jesus, almost as another name for him, the reluctance of Jesus throughout the Gospels to use this title for himself is almost certainly authentic, and shows that the Gospels were not simply putting exalted titles into Jesus' mouth.
¡¤ Jesus claimed to be " the Son of Man" (v. 19), a Messianic figure spoken of in Daniel 7:13-14. That this title was not put on Jesus' lips by the church after his death is proved by the fact that Jesus is virtually the only person in the NT who used the title (elsewhere only in Acts 7:56; Rev. 1:13).
¡¤ Jesus does not call himself " the Son" only in John: he does it here in Matthew also (v. 27) and in the parallel passage in Luke (10:22). Nor is this the only such passage in the Synoptic Gospels (see also Matt. 24:36
