Mark 11:30–31

As always, the most bitter opponents of Christ are the religious leaders of a corrupted system... These religious leaders thought only of themselves and their religious reputation. They cared nothing for the needs of people, and nothing for the holiness of God's house. They wanted to keep their own authority, so they were jealous of anything done in religion that they had not directed. They were indifferent to the corruption in God's house, and unable to deal with it themselves. So they oppose the One who can, and does, deal with the evil — by raising the question of authority.

So the Lord, with admirable wisdom, asks them a question in return. He promises that if they answer Him, He will answer them. "Was the baptism of John from heaven or from man?" Where did John get his authority? Heaven's authority had never entered their earth-bound minds. So they are now in serious difficulty. If they admitted the truth, that John's authority came from heaven, they would condemn their own unbelief. On the other hand, if they lied, saying that it was from men, the common people, who knew better, would oppose them.

He appeals neither to miracles nor prophecy, but to conscience. How clearly God had fulfilled the ancient prophecies in Him — in His person, His life and His ministry! How full was the testimony of the signs and wonders He did! Yet their question proved how useless all of it had been. His question proved either their dishonesty or their blindness. In either case, who were they to judge? They never realised what they were doing. As they tried to examine the Lord of glory, they were only showing their own distance and alienation from God. So it always is. How we judge what concerns Christ — or refuse to judge it — is an unfailing measure of our own condition.

He did this, not mainly to put them in danger with the crowd, as their evil hearts suspected. He did it to lead them, in God's own appointed way, to the answer of their own question. They should have had no hesitation in deciding that John's baptism was "from heaven." That answer would have shown at once by what authority He was acting. For John's ministry was God's testimony to Him, the Christ.

They had sent a special delegation to the Baptist to look into his claim, and everyone knew how the Baptist had recognised the Lord... In any case they had the means of answering their own question.

So they chose to hide behind an ignorance that looked careful. Who were they, then, to question the authority of Jesus? If all they could say was "We do not know," they confessed their own incompetence. Those who could not settle the question about the servant were surely not fit to judge the Master. And their inability was the smaller fault. Their hypocritical wickedness was the greater: the fault lay in their will even more than in their understanding.

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. The challenge therefore comes to us: is it from heaven, or from man? If it is from heaven, the next question follows: "Why then did you not believe it?" But if the Bible is from man, let us put it in a museum. It is only a curious relic of an ignorant past.

Of course, being blind as they were, they were thinking only of man's authority. The Lord therefore asks them a question in return, with admirable wisdom. He promises that if they will answer, He will answer their question. "The baptism of John, was it from heaven or from men?" Where did John get his authority? Heaven's authority had never entered their earth-bound minds. So they find themselves in a serious dilemma.

He appeals neither to miracles nor prophecy, but to conscience. How clearly the ancient prophecies had been fulfilled in His person, in His life and in His ministry! How full the testimony of signs and wonders He worked! Yet their question proved how useless it all had been. His question proved either their dishonesty or their blindness. In either case, who were they to judge? They thought they were examining the Lord of glory. In truth they were only showing their own distance from God, their own estrangement from Him. So it always is. How we judge what concerns Christ is a sure gauge of our own condition. So is our refusal to judge it.

They had no conscience, except a bad one. It shrank back into silence at once, afraid to commit itself, but not afraid to trifle with God and man. For this was their reasoning: if they allowed John's baptism to be from heaven, they must receive his testimony to Jesus.

The baptism of John was something new. It had no air of sacred tradition, no claim to age, no link with the priesthood or the temple. To admit that it came from heaven was a most serious matter for these men. They drew all their importance from the regular course of the law and its rituals. Besides, it settled at once the question of the Messiah, for John had declared in the strongest and most solemn way that Jesus was the Christ.

If they endorsed John's baptism as coming from heaven, they condemned themselves, for they had not believed him. If they rejected it as coming only from men, they would lose popularity with the people who held him to be a prophet. That popularity was very dear to them, for "they loved the praise of men" (John 12:43).

They cannot answer it. If they said John's mission was from men, they would be in direct opposition to the people. And theirs was no martyr-spirit, ready to suffer for their convictions. It was easier, for all the humiliation involved, to claim ignorance. But then they were no court to judge claims of this kind.

If all they could say was "We do not know," they confessed their own incompetence. Those who could not settle the question about the servant were surely not fit to judge the Master. In truth, their inability was, if anything, smaller than their hypocritical wickedness. The will was more at fault than the understanding.