So our Blessed Lord preached the Gospel of the Kingdom to unwilling hearts; and was compelled to “upbraid the cities wherein most of His mighty works were done, because they repented not” (S. Matt. xi. 20). Only the few received Him—the few who were “babes” in spirit—whilst “the wise and prudent” (S. Matt. xi. 25) rejected Him.
There were two kinds of evidence to which He continually appealed in His arguments with the Jewish rulers in proof of His claims upon their hearts. The first was the direct testimony of John the Baptist: “Ye sent unto John and he bare witness unto the truth” (S. John v. 33). For “when the Jews sent priests and Levites from Jerusalem to ask him, Who art thou? he confessed, I am not the Christ” (S. John i. 19, 20). “The next day John seeth Jesus coming unto him, and saith, Behold the Lamb of God” (S. John i. 29). And he declared that he knew Him in consequence of the visible descent of the Holy Ghost upon Him at His baptism; and (said he), “I saw and bare record that this is the Son of God” (S. John i. 34). The other evidence was “greater witness than that of John,” namely, the miracles which He wrought, for (said He) “the works which the Father hath given Me to finish bear witness of Me that the Father hath sent Me” (S. John v. 36); and “though ye believe not Me, believe the works” (S. John x. 38). Other kinds of evidence were also employed; such as the direct testimony of the Father in the voice from Heaven, and in the immediate answers to prayer in the working of His miracles—“The Father Himself which hath sent Me, hath borne witness of Me” (S. John v. 37)—and also, the statements of Holy Scripture, describing His person and His work so clearly that He could say to the Jews, “Search the Scriptures; for they are they which testify of Me” (S. John v. 39). But we know the result. All the evidences were in vain. The Jews in general refused to believe in Him as their King. The ruling classes not only rejected Him, but they also hindered others from acknowledging Him. So that He cried out against them, “Ye shut up the Kingdom of Heaven against men; for ye neither go in yourselves, neither suffer ye them that are entering to go in” (S. Matt. xxiii. 13).
And there were but very few exceptions. The Apostles and the small band of disciples professed their faith in Him. “Whom do men say that I am?” He asked them once; “and they said, Some say John the Baptist; some Elias; and others, Jeremias or one of the Prophets.” None accepted Him as Messiah, their King. “But whom say ye that I am?” He went on to ask; “and Simon Peter answered and said, Thou art the Christ, the Son of the living God” (S. Matt. xvi. 13-16). So also Nathanael, the “Israelite indeed,” boldly proclaimed his belief: “Rabbi, Thou art the Son of God; Thou art the King of Israel” (S. John i. 49). And there was one bright flash of enthusiasm which carried all along exultingly to welcome Him on His last visit to the Holy City; when the crowds spread branches of the palm-trees, and cried, “Hosanna to the Son of David: blessed is He that cometh in the name of the Lord” (S. Matt. xxi. 9). “Blessed be the King that cometh in the name of the Lord: peace in Heaven, and glory in the highest” (S. Luke xix. 38).
But it was within a few days after His triumphal entry into Jerusalem that the rulers of the Jews took the Lord Jesus, and having condemned Him in their own council for blasphemy, for professing Himself to be Messiah—“the Christ”—“the Son of God” (S. Luke xxii. 67-71), they charged Him before the Roman governor with treason, for saying “that He Himself is Christ a King” (S. Luke xxiii. 2). And this accusation, it may well be noticed, was not a different charge from the former. All that they did was to put cleverly before the earthly governor the earthly side of the spiritual crime, for which they had themselves condemned Him. If He was Messiah, He was their King. They condemned Him for professing to be Messiah; a charge on which no civil tribunal could give judgment. But professing to be Messiah, He professed to be King; and this they represented as an offence against the state, and to be punished accordingly. And the result was, that by the Providence of God He was not stoned to death, as was His first martyr Stephen, on the charge of blasphemy; but He was handed over to the civil power to be crucified for treason, as claiming to be King. And it came to pass, that after their persistent rejection of Him, the Jewish rulers were compelled to see Him acknowledged upon the cross as their King, in the words of the superscription containing the charge on which He was condemned. His cross became His throne, with His title above it, “Jesus of Nazareth, the King of the Jews” (S. John xix. 19). Fit throne for Him who was “obedient unto death, even the death of the cross. Wherefore God also hath highly exalted Him, and given Him a name above every name, that at the name of Jesus every knee should bow” (Phil. ii. 6-10). And all the efforts of the Jews to alter it were in vain. Pilate at length was firm: “What I have written, I have written” (S. John xix. 22).
Thus seemed to end the Kingdom which our Lord and His disciples had been inviting men to join. They could preach no more the Gospel of the Kingdom, for the King was put to a shameful death. “The chief priests and our rulers delivered Him to be condemned to death, and have crucified Him. But we trusted that it had been He which should have redeemed Israel” (S. Luke xxiv. 20, 21). So spake even the disciples in their despair. They had “trusted,” as they supposed, in vain.
Verily God’s ways are not as man’s ways.
FOOTNOTES:
[3] It may be noticed here, that the expression “preaching the Gospel” is used in these passages of Holy Scripture in a very wide sense. It is not limited to the preaching of the great doctrine of the Atonement, but it refers to the general purpose for which Christ came; which was, to gather all the world into His Kingdom of grace and salvation. See Bishop How’s Commentary on the Gospels, under S. Luke viii. 1. (Publ. by S. P. C. K.)
[4] See this very skilfully drawn out in a little devotional Commentary on “Five Psalms of the Kingdom,” by Rev. G. F. Saxby. Published by J. T. Hayes, London.