“So, to what will I compare this generation? It is like children sitting in the market, who, while calling out to others. They said, ‘we played to you, and you did not dance, we lamented, and you did not mourn.’ For John came neither eating nor drinking and they said, ‘He has a demon!’ The Son of Man came eating and drinking, and they said, ‘Behold! a gluttonous man and a drunkard, a friend of tax-collectors and sinners.’ Thus, wisdom is justified by her works.”
It is important to note that the scene and context is unchanged since v. 2. Jesus is addressing the same crowds who (1) overheard John’s confusion and Jesus’ compassion (vv. 2-6) and who (2) sat under Jesus’ instruction regarding John’s person (vv. 5-10) and significance (vv. 11-15). John’s role as Messiah’s forerunner and his connection with Jesus drives the whole of chapter 11 and in particular these verses in front of us. The crowds’ rejection of John is an implicit rejection of Jesus. What one says about John, one believes about Jesus (and vise-versa). Jesus’ indictment against the crowds was implied when He corrected their understanding of who John was and what he was about. Now, that indictment is explicitly made as Jesus condemns the crowds for their childish behavior (vv. 16-17) and then explains the direct implications of their silliness (vv. 18-19). Thus, in two quick strokes Jesus (1) officially condemns Israel’s unbelief, (2) wraps up His instruction of John by tightly connecting John to Himself.
Condemnation: Israel’s Silly Childishness (vv. 16-17)
Jesus continues to speak to the crowds and yet a transition occurs between vv. 15&16. The command of v. 15 is a challenge for them to carefully consider what Jesus has said. Yet, v. 16 opens up with another rhetorical question. Unlike the questions of vv. 7-9, there is no obvious answer that Jesus expects. It is almost as if He is flustered by people’s lack of positive response with the sense of “what am I supposed to do with you people?”. Here is where Jesus’ indictment against them is explicitly stated and carefully defined.
The Indictment Stated (v. 16)
“So, to what will I compare this generation? It is like children sitting in the market, who, while calling out to others.”
The transition (δὲ) connects this pericope with the previous verses and yet presents a different point. What would make a good comparison (ὁμοιόω) with this generation? Jesus’ choice of words is quite remarkable, for “generation” (τὴν γενεὰν ταύτην) not only implicates the broad swipe of His contemporaries but does so in the language of Old Testament condemnation. There is the hint of an allusion to the first generation of Israel (Ps. 78; 95; 106; Acts 7:35-53; 1 Cor. 10:1-12; Heb. 3:7-4:13)[1] who witnessed the redemptive acts leading up to the Mosaic Covenant just as this generation has witnessed the redemptive acts leading up to the New Covenant. While such a connection is fascinating for the bible student, it does not spell out good news for Jesus’ audience. Any connection to the first generation of the Exodus cannot be a good thing.
The point of comparison that Jesus settles on is that of children. Jesus compares (ὅμοιος) this generation to children playing in the market. Several things must be put in order. First, the image must be correctly understood. Children of the first century played much like children of all ages do, by mimicking real life wrapped in a world of make believe. Just as children have long played house, store, or even cops and robbers, the children of Jesus’ day played things like wedding and funeral. The market (ἀγορά) describes a public venue such as a street or city square where people gathered for the buying and selling of commodities or, in some societies, met for discussions of philosophy or politics. The children here would gather with other playmates and pass the time in their own way. The image is that of children’s play acting what they see adults carry out. It seems impossible not to see two groups of children in this image. The first are those sitting in the marketplace while they call[2] to a second group of children, here simply referred to as “the others”.[3]
Second, the points of comparison must be accurately identified. For whatever reason, there is debate regarding the larger picture and what Jesus is drawing a comparison to. For example, many commentators hold that the children who speak in v. 17 correspond to what Jesus says about John and Himself in vv. 18-19.[4] This view states that the unresponsive “others” of v. 16 who do not dance or mourn in v. 17 indicate the unresponsive and unrepentant people while the children who cannot seem to please them correspond to the ministries of John and Jesus.[5] Yet, a simple reading of the text would indicate the exact opposite understanding. Jesus states that this generation (the people of His day which certainly included the crowds being addressed) are compared to the children sitting in the market.[6] These same children sitting in the market are those who call out to the “others”, whose statement is recorded in v. 17. Thus, it is impossible to understand Jesus’ words in any other way but that “this generation” is compared to the children who are sitting in the market in v. 16 and who speak to other [children] in v. 17.[7]
Finally, the point Jesus is making must be clearly communicated. Jesus is accusing this generation of childish immaturity who lacks ears to hear (v. 15). The image portrays a group of children who grab the leadership role of their play and veer from one extreme form of make-believe to another as their fancy suits them. When “others” object, they loudly complain that they cannot have their own way. The people failed to recognize who John was, his role in God’s salvific plan, and the impact that role has on Jesus. Thus, Jesus compares them to bratty children. This indictment is further defined in v. 17 where Jesus places words in the mouths of these impish youths.
The Indictment Defined (v. 17)
“They said, ‘we played to you, and you did not dance, we lamented, and you did not mourn.’”
The verse break between v. 16 and v. 17 is unfortunate as it obscures the true subject of λέγουσιν (they said). Yet even so, it is apparent that v. 17 contains the content of what the children sitting in the market called out to the “others”. In short, their game did not go as planned. When playing wedding, the sitting children claim to have played the right kind of music for celebration and yet the “others” did not dance. They were disinclined to play along. True to their capricious nature, the children quickly changed from playing wedding to playing funeral. They lamented, perhaps playing a funeral dirge, yet the “others” did not play along with their part as mourners. This is the complaint of the marketplace children.
Explanation: Solidarity Between the Messenger and Messiah (vv. 18-19)
“For” (γὰρ) introduces Jesus’ explanation to the previous illustration. There is a reason why He compared this generation to fickle children and here He will reveal it. In addition to this explanation, Jesus cements forever the solidarity John enjoys with Himself. This solidarity is shown in their common rejection as well as their common vindication.
Solidarity in Rejection (vv. 18-19b)
Declaring solidarity between Himself and John is a necessary point for Jesus to make for several reasons. Not only are their ministries interwoven, but Jesus’ whole point regarding John is that he was the Messiah’s forerunner. The implications are quite strong that Jesus points to Himself as the fulfillment of that same Messiah. Also, John must not be seen by the people as a fluke or a random firebrand. His ministry was given to him by God, and he executed it faithfully. And finally, Jesus brands John and Himself with the same iron to drive home the point first introduced in 10:40-42: what the people do to John, they also do to Jesus. Thus, in rejecting John the messenger, they reject Jesus the Messiah.
Rejection of John (v. 18)
“For John came neither eating nor drinking and they said, ‘He has a demon!’”
Regarding “eating and drinking”, it goes too far in one direction to suggest that Jesus refers to the literal taking in of necessity of sustenance (eating anything, drinking anything) and in the other to suggest that this is eating and drinking to excess (riotous feasting and drunkenness). Rather, the idea expresses the normality of life which includes the enjoyment of daily meals (which regularly included wine[8]) as well as celebrating special occasions (which certainly included wine[9]).[10] We know that John did eat, but that food was only what he could forage from the wilderness (3:4). We also know that he taught his disciples to fast on some occasions (9:14) and thus withdraw from the normal pleasures of life. To say that John came neither[11] eating nor drinking is to highlight that John, Messiah’s messenger, came in a manner of sobriety and ascetism and was cursed for it.
Just as the children sitting in the market place said (λέγουσιν) to the “others” who did not dance to their merry making tune, the crowds said (λέγουσιν) about John that he had a demon. The game of the day was “wedding” and yet John came preaching repentance in the context of looming gloom and doom. He did not dance to their tune. By blaming his ascetic lifestyle on demon possession, the crowds were excused from listening to John or following his example.
What is interesting is that the gospels record the crowds, if not accepting John, at least thinking favorably toward him. It was the religious and political leaders who opposed him (14:1-12; 21:25, 32). Even then, there is no record of anyone claiming that John was demon possessed. That such a thing occurred we can safely assume simply because that is what Jesus claims. But regarding the manner in which this slanderous accusation was made, there seems to be two likely scenarios. (1) The crowds came to a general consensus that John was demon possessed, likely after his arrest. Rather than a public denunciation, this was the general attitude floating among the people. While this is certainly possible, it seems unlikely that the people would still regard John as a prophet much later to the point that the Pharisees would be nervous to publicly denounce him (21:26). (2) This accusation is an implication of John’s ministry because of what has already been stated about Jesus. In 9:34 the Pharisees had already attempted to slander Jesus with demon possession. The best one can say about the crowds is that they were undecided while their leaders adopted the position of accusation and hostility. Yet, Jesus drew a line in the sand from the very beginning (7:24-27) in which the crowds must make up their minds to follow Him or to continue to follow their leaders. In 10:40-42 Jesus makes clear the connection of blessing attached to those who welcome His representatives in that they really welcome Him. It is not a very large leap of logic to assume that the opposite is also true. In 11:2-15 Jesus makes clear that (a) He is the coming Messiah and (b) John is the anticipated messenger who came before Him. Thus, to denounce Jesus as being in league with demons is to cast equal shade upon His messenger. This slanderous accusation against John drives home the point of solidarity between him and Jesus.
Rejection of Jesus (v. 19ab)
“The Son of Man came eating and drinking, and they said, ‘Behold! a gluttonous man and a drunkard, a friend of tax-collectors and sinners.’”
Turning attention from John’s coming to His own, Jesus refers to Himself as the Son of Man. Clearly, Jesus intends to draw all the significance from Dan. 7:13 and the coming of the Son of Man. This not only reinforces the idea that (1) He is the anticipated Messiah and (2) John is his forerunning messenger but also (3) depicts the nature of His coming. Jesus had already explained that He came as a bridegroom whose presence is cause for celebration (9:15). The coming Son of Man from Daniel indicates the establishment of the kingdom, which would also be cause for celebration. Unlike John, who came in somber “funeral” mode when the game was “wedding”, Jesus came eating and drinking as a bridegroom come for His bride. He neither fasted (9:14) nor abstained from life’s normal pleasures. Yet, the capricious brats changed the game to “funeral” and now say (λέγουσιν) that Jesus is one who feasts and drinks to excess and associates with dregs of society. What they condemned in John they demanded in Jesus and what they demanded of John they condemned in Jesus.[12]
The two-part accusation made against Jesus holds more than at first meets the eye. The first part of the accusation (that Jesus was a glutton and a drunk) echoes Deut. 21:20 – “If any man has a stubborn and rebellious son who will not obey his father or his mother, and when they chastise him, he will not even listen to them, then his father and mother shall seize him, and bring him out to the elders of his city at the gateway of his hometown. They shall say to the elders of his city, ‘This son of ours is stubborn and rebellious, he will not obey us, he is a glutton and a drunkard.’ Then all the men of his city shall stone him to death; so you shall remove the evil from your midst, and all Israel will hear of it and fear” (emphasis mine - Deut. 21:18-21 NASB). Rather than merely an attempt to discredit Jesus, this accusation (if true) would make Jesus worthy of death.
The second part of the accusation clearly refers to Jesus’ encounter with the Pharisees in 9:11. There, the Pharisees slandered Jesus for hobnobbing with immoral persons when in fact this was Matthew’s own celebration dinner where he bid farewell to his old life and brought his friends to literally meet Jesus. These men were the sick who needed a physician. Just as John’s sobriety was purposefully misinterpreted against him, so Jesus’ compassion for sinners is thrown in His face as supposed evidence of His guilt.
The point is simple: “This generation” is nothing more than a thuggish group of children who will change the rules of the game at the drop of a hat in order to stay in control of the players. They stand with a united front in opposition to both John and Jesus simply because they challenge the status quo. Yet, in their accusations, they prove the solidarity between John and Jesus. What they say about one, they must say about the other. This is true of their rejection, but also if their vindication.
Solidarity in Vindication (v. 19c)
“Thus[13], wisdom is justified by her works.”
Rather than part of the crowd’s accusation against Jesus, these words are Jesus’ own conclusion. The mention of “deeds” or “works” (ἔργον) echoes v. 2 and the “works of the Christ” performed by Jesus and reported to John. In fact, it might be said that Jesus’ response to John (vv. 2-6) perfectly illustrates this justification or vindication (ἐδικαιώθη).[14] John’s confusion was laid to rest by Jesus’ demonstration of His works compared with Isaiah’s expectations of Messiah. Thus, Jesus was justified as Messiah (the coming One) by what He did. The logic regains intact here. Even though John and Jesus came in very different ways (the ascetic prophet vs. the celebrated bridegroom) both are justified by their deeds in that they performed their ministries exactly as the prophets predicted and God decreed. This is courtroom language in that if “wisdom” were put on trial, her works would provide overwhelming evidence to acquit her.[15] What then is the cause of this generation’s unbelief? They have no ears to hear (v. 15).
That Jesus and John are equally rejected speaks to their solidarity. Yet, even more convincing, is that they both are vindicated by their ministry. They both proclaimed the nearness of the coming kingdom of heaven and thus demanded Israel’s repentance. They stand in solidarity in both their rejection and vindication. But what might that imply for those who reject them?
[1] David Garland, Reading Matthew: A Literary and Theological Commentary on the First Gospel (New York, NY: The Crossroad Publishing Company, 1993), p. 128-9.
[2] Charles Quarles (p. 116) correctly notes that the plural relative pronoun ἅ (who/whom) functions as the subject of the verb λέγουσιν (they said) in v. 7 rather than the subject of the verbal idea contained within the participle προσφωνοῦντα (calling out/summoning). Thus, the participle phrase προσφωνοῦντα τοῖς ἑτέροις modifies the verb λέγουσιν in a temporal way. A suggested translation of this construction looks something like this: who, while they called to others, said…
[3] Τοῖς ἑτέροις refers to other children/playmates of a different kind. There is a second and distinct group from the first who sit and call.
[4] This is the opinion of John Broadus (p. 243), David Garland (p. 128-9), William Hendriksen (p. 492), John MacArthur (p. 260-2), John Nolland (p. 462-3), Grand Osborne (p. 426), and David Turner (p. 296).
[5] To support this view, some appeal to a supposed chiasm which begins with wedding celebration (v. 17a), then moves to a funeral procession (v. 17b). The funeral procession corresponds with John’s ministry (v. 18) while the mention of Jesus’ ministry (v. 19) brings the discussion full circle in the sense of a wedding celebration.
[6] “This generation” (τὴν γενεὰν ταύτην) is the only possible subject for the verb ἐστὶν. Thus, it is “this generation” who “is like” children sitting in the market.
[7] R. C. H. Lenski, The Interpretation of St. Matthew’s Gospel (Minneapolis, MN: Augsburg Publishing House, 1961), p. 441.
[8] The facts contradict MacArthur’s claim that the Jews of the 1st century did not drink wine as such, but a greatly diluted and non-alcoholic grape juice (Matthew 8-15, p. 261-2). The Greek term οἶνος describes wine as we know it while the pulp or non-fermented juice is known as τρύξ (BDAG, p. 701). Schultz states not only that wine was among the leading exports of Roman controlled Palestine, but that it was nearly impossible and unheard of to produce and store non-alcoholic wines in ancient times (“Wine and Strong Drink”, Zondervan Pictorial Encyclopedia of the Bible, p. 938). If drinking wine was not a common practice among the Jews, then (1) John’s abstention would not be noteworthy and (2) Jesus’ indulgence would be singular (far outside the realm of the norm) and perhaps worthy of scandal.
[9] Because John was dedicated as a Nazarite from the womb, he never drank wine or any strong drink (Lk. 1:15).
[10] John Nolland, The Gospel of Matthew, The New International Greek Testament Commentary (Grand Rapids, MI: Eerdmans Publishing Company, 2005), p. 463-4.
[11] The construction μήτε…μήτε indicates a “neither…nor” connection.
[12] Lenski, p 443.
[13] Καὶ is used in an ascensive manner to express a final point or identify a particular focus (Wallace, p. 670).
[14] Nolland, p. 464.
[15] Garland, p. 129.