The baptism of John, was it of heaven or of men?
The temple leaders had just demanded to know who gave Jesus the right to act as He did. He answered with one question of His own, about the baptism carried out by John the Baptist: was it heaven's doing, or a human idea?
Jesus had every proof available to Him and used none of them. Commentators point out where He aimed instead.
Our Lord answers by asking them what they thought of John's baptism. He appeals neither to miracles nor prophecy, but to conscience. The ancient prophecies had been fulfilled so plainly in His person, in His life and in His ministry! The signs and wonders He worked gave such full testimony! Yet their question proved how empty it had all been. And His question proved either their dishonesty or their blindness. In either case, who were they to judge? … How we judge, or refuse to judge, what concerns Christ is an unfailing gauge of our own condition.
These men had already sent an official delegation to look into John. They had done the research themselves.
They had sent a special mission to the Baptist to investigate his claim, and everyone knew that the Baptist had recognised the Lord. They "sent to John, and he has borne witness to the truth." So what about the baptism of John — was it from heaven or from man? Either they had already settled the question of John's authority, or else they were not competent to give a verdict about the Lord. Their verdict on the one would have to include both. Either way, they had the means of answering their own question.
Saying yes to that question carried a heavy price for these men.
They could not deny the moral power of John, yet they refused to profit by it. John bore witness to Jesus as the Messiah, and to Israel's need of repentance. So to acknowledge John's baptism as from heaven was a most serious matter for these men. It was something new, with not the least appearance of traditional holiness, no claim to age, and no connection with the priesthood or the temple. These were men who drew all their standing from the regular course of the law and its ordinances. Besides, it settled the question of the Messiah at once.
Both doors were shut, so they chose a third: a claim of ignorance they knew to be false.
On that point there was no doubt in anybody's mind. But answering it truthfully would have convicted them of disobedience. Saying that it was from man would expose them to the fury of the crowd. They talked over what to answer, for they saw the trap they were in, and they deliberately agreed on what they knew was a lie. … Their questions assumed they were competent to sit in judgment on His claims. … So He would not treat them as honest men.
Their answer cost them the ground they had stood on.
Who were they, then, to question the authority of Jesus? If all they could say was "We do not know," they had confessed their own incompetence. Those who could not solve the question of the servant were surely not qualified to judge the Master.
Commentators aim the same question at the book in the reader's hand.
A similar question is before people's minds today. It is not now about John, but about the Bible. A book is in our hands, with the highest claim to a divine mission. So the challenge comes to us: is it from heaven, or from man? If it is from heaven, the next question follows: "Why then do you not believe it?" But if the Bible is from man, let us put it in the museum as a curious relic of an ignorant past.
There is no neutral shelf between those two answers, and the pattern runs wider still.
"From heaven or from man?" This was the question about John. It is also the question about the Lord Himself. In our day we may go further and say it is the question about the Bible. John was only a man, yet his ministry was from heaven. The Lord Jesus was truly born of the virgin, yet He was from heaven, and so was His matchless ministry.
- Conscience, not credentials. Jesus had miracles and prophecy at hand. He used neither, and aimed one question at the conscience.
- Answer already known. They had investigated John themselves. The verdict on the servant would have settled the verdict on the Master.
- Cost of honesty. Owning John's baptism as from heaven meant giving up the traditions they stood on. It also settled who Jesus was.
- Ignorance as a lie. "We do not know" was a choice, not the truth. It showed they were unfit to judge anyone, and the Lord gave no answer to men who were not honest with Him.
- Your turn. The same question now stands over the Bible and over Christ Himself. From heaven — then believe it. From man — then it belongs in a museum.
And they reasoned among themselves, saying, If we should say, Of heaven, he will say, Why have ye not believed him?
The rulers had demanded to know by what authority Jesus acted in the temple. He answered with one question about John's baptism. Verse 5 lets us listen in on their private huddle — and what they weigh is not what is true, but what is safe.
Their discussion was not about finding out where John's baptism came from. One writer notes that nobody there was in any doubt about the true answer. That is why they worked so hard to avoid giving it:
On that point there was no doubt in anybody's mind. But a truthful answer would have convicted them of disobedience. On the other hand, to say that it was of men would expose them to the vengeance of the crowd. They talked over what to answer, for they saw the trap they were in. Then they chose to agree on what they knew was a lie.
The first half of their dilemma was not only about admitting past unbelief. John's ministry had none of the credentials these men lived by. Calling it heavenly would have cut the ground from under their own standing.
They could not deny John's moral power, yet they refused to profit by it. John bore witness to Jesus as the Messiah, and to Israel's need of repentance. So to own John's baptism as being from Heaven was of the most serious consequence for them. It was a new thing. It had not the least appearance of traditional holiness, no claim to age, no link with the priesthood or the temple. And these were men who drew all their importance from the regular course of the law and its ordinances.
Their supposed uncertainty was not honest. These men had already investigated John themselves. And John's verdict about Jesus was public knowledge.
They had sent an official delegation to John the Baptist to look into his claim. And everyone knew that John himself had recognised the Lord. They "sent to John, and he bore witness to the truth." So what about "the baptism of John? Was it from heaven or from men?" Either they had already decided about John's authority, or they were not competent to judge the Lord. Their verdict on the one would have to cover both. In any case, they had the means of answering their own question.
Jesus did not defend Himself. He asked about John, and turned their inquiry into a test of the inquirers. One writer traces where that test left them:
It was an appeal to conscience. But they had no conscience, except a bad one. It shrank into silence at once — afraid to commit itself, yet not afraid to make light of God and man... Who were they, then, to question the authority of Jesus? If they could only say "We do not know," they confessed their own incompetence. Those who could not settle the question of the servant were surely not qualified to judge the Master.
Another writer shows what their evasion cost them. Jesus had offered them a test of competence:
The Lord's answer came to this. Let them prove their competence by settling the far smaller question of John's authority, and He would then submit His authority to their examination. This at once plunged them into difficulty. If they endorsed John's baptism as coming from heaven, they condemned themselves, because they had not believed him... They would not say John's baptism was valid. They dared not say it was invalid. So they took the ground of ignorance and said, "We cannot tell." In this way they destroyed their own competence to judge. They also lost any ground for protest when Jesus refused to reveal His authority.
These men built the trap they fell into. The question exposed something in the human heart that is not limited to them:
Right at the start, He puts this great truth before everyone: man's conscience is bad, because it does not submit to the righteousness of God. And that is always the case. Man cannot deny that things come from heaven, but he will not believe. If pressed to the limit — look at the extreme case of unbelief — men love darkness rather than light.
- Heaven asked. Jesus turned their whole challenge into one question: where did John's baptism come from? It was the simplest test possible, and the one they could not face.
- Heaven admitted. Saying "from heaven" meant owning that John's work was God's, though it had no priestly or traditional backing. It also meant owning their own unbelief.
- Heaven investigated. They had already sent to John and heard his witness, so their later plea of ignorance was not honesty but cover.
- Heaven refused. They could not settle the smaller question about the servant. So they disqualified themselves from judging the Master, and got no answer about His authority.
- Heaven resisted. The pattern outlives them. People cannot deny that things come from heaven. They just will not believe, and they love darkness more than light.