17 The Parable of the Brats: Style Versus Substance (Luke 7:31–35)
“To what then shall I compare the men of this generation, and what are they like? They are like children who sit in the market place and call to one another, and they say, ‘We played the flute for you, and you did not dance; we sang a dirge, and you did not weep.’ For John the Baptist has come eating no bread and drinking no wine, and you say, ‘He has a demon!’ The Son of Man has come eating and drinking, and you say, ‘Behold, a gluttonous man and a drunkard, a friend of tax collectors and sinners!’ Yet wisdom is vindicated by all her children.” (7:31–35)
The term “brat” is a coarse word, simple and yet loaded with vivid meaning. It is a pejorative term that calls to mind children who are unruly, disobedient, objectionable, obstreperous, refractory, recalcitrant, incorrigible, obstinate, and intractable. The Bible describes them as those who dishonor their parents (Deut. 27:16), fools who reject their father’s discipline (Prov. 15:5), shameful and disgraceful children who reject their parents (Prov. 19:26), and selfish children who bring shame to their parents (Prov. 29:15). Being disobedient to parents appears among the list of serious sins that mark those who reject God (Rom. 1:30; 2 Tim. 3:2) and Scripture warns of stern punishment for rebellious children (cf. Deut. 27:16; Prov. 30:17)—including being executed (Ex. 21:15; Deut. 21:18–21).
Jesus directed this parable of the brats to the people of His society in particular those present on that occasion. He likened their response to the gospel to that of bratty children—belligerent, ungrateful, and impossible to satisfy. Yet the principle is timeless. In every age there will be people who respond to the gospel message of repentance, faith, forgiveness, and salvation like the brats of that generation did.
It should be noted that in contrast to today’s politically correct emphasis on tolerance, neither John the Baptist nor Jesus hesitated to confront and rebuke people with strong and offensive language. When the Jewish leaders came to see him, John abruptly greeted them with the decidedly non-seeker friendly challenge, “You brood of vipers, who warned you to flee from the wrath to come?” (Matt. 3:7). According to Luke’s account, he asked the shallow, superficial repenters in the crowds, who shared the religious leaders’ prideful insincerity (Luke 3:7), the same question. Jesus labeled the scribes and Pharisees hypocrites (Matt. 6:2, 5, 16; 23:13, 15, 23, 25, 27, 29), blind guides (Matt. 15:14; 23:16, 24), sons of hell (Matt. 23:15), fools (Matt. 23:17), robbers (John 10:8), whitewashed tombs (Matt.23:27), and serpents (Matt. 23:33).
The gospel message had up to this point in history been preached by only two men, John the Baptist and Jesus. The Twelve had not yet been sent out to preach (Luke 9:1–2), nor had the seventy (Luke 10:1). But although their styles of ministry differed markedly, many of the people who heard John and Jesus had the same offended, defiant, hostile, obstinate response to both of them.
At the outset of his ministry, this last prophet and first preacher of the gospel had been immensely popular. Huge crowds had journeyed into the wilderness near the Jordan River to hear him preach and to be baptized by him (Matt. 3:5–6). They had acknowledged John to be a true prophet of God, the forerunner to Messiah predicted by Malachi (Mal. 3:1).
The religious elite, on the other hand, haughtily refused to confess their sin, repent, or be baptized by John (Luke 7:30). Smugly secure in their self-righteous legalism, they viewed the common people who were interested in John with contempt (cf. John 7:49). They had no use for the wilderness preacher; rejecting his call for repentance, they were annoyed by his warning of coming judgment, and infuriated by his bold denunciation of them as a “brood of vipers” (Matt. 3:7). Their religious pride caused them to reject the gospel’s call for humble repentance; their devotion to superficially, outwardly keeping the law caused them to reject the gospel’s provision of grace, mercy and forgiveness; their sense of spiritual superiority (cf. Mark 2:16; Luke 15:1–2; John 9:34) causedthem to reject as ludicrous the gospel’s promise of forgiveness for even the most wretched sinners.
Eventually the common people, under the influence of the apostate religionists, began to have doubts about Jesus. Though astonished by His unparalleled preaching (Matt. 7:28–29; cf. John 7:46) and the miracles He performed (John 2:23; 3:2; 6:2), they grew increasingly restive over the leaders’ rejection of Him and His refusal to assume the role of the conquering military and political ruler that they wrongly expected Messiah to be (cf. John 6:14–15). As noted in the previous chapter of this volume, becoming uncomfortable with Jesus caused many to rethink their view of John the Baptist. John had unequivocally declared that Jesus was the Messiah. If they continued to believe that he was Messiah’s forerunner, they faced the dilemma of how to reconcile that belief with their denial of Jesus’ claims. In the end, the majority rejected both John (Luke 7:33; John 5:35) and Jesus (John 6:66). Since John was by this time a prisoner, the brunt of their opposition and hostility was directed at Jesus.
This parable may be divided into four sections: the introduction, the illustration, the application, and the conclusion.
THE INTRODUCTION
“To what then shall I compare the men of this generation, and what are they like? (7:31)
After the parenthetical comment (most likely by Luke) in verses 29 and 30, Jesus continued speaking, as He had been since 7:22. This phrase is a Hebraism, commonly used in the Midrash to introduce an analogy explaining a spiritual reality The parable or analogy that follows will give the Lord’s assessment of the men of this generation. The term generation refers to the people of Jesus’ day in particular the Pharisees and scribes and those who followed them in rejecting John the Baptist and Jesus (vv. 29–30). Genea (generation) is used frequently in Luke’s gospel in a negative sense as a term of condemnation. In 9:41 Jesus spoke of this generation as an “unbelieving and perverted generation,” and in 11:29 described it as a “wicked generation” guilty of all the blood of the murdered prophets (vv. 50–51) and above all of rejecting the Lord Jesus Christ (17:25). By extension, the term can refer to any perverse and faithless generation (cf. Deut. 32:5; Judg. 2:10; Jer. 7:29; Acts 2:40; Phil. 2:15). The Lord’s timeless illustration that follows applies to anyone in any generation who rejects the gospel.
THE ILLUSTRATION
They are like children who sit in the market place and call to one another, and they say, ‘We played the flute for you, and you did not dance; we sang a dirge, and you did not weep.’ (7:32)
Though a scene such as the Lord described, children at play, is a familiar one throughout human history, this is the only reference in the Bible to children playing a game. Unlike modern cities, towns and villages in first-century Palestine had no designated parks or playgrounds. Most of them, however, had an agora, a large open area near the middle of the town used as a market place. It was also the place for public gatherings and became a convenient playground for children. Jesus pictures a time when the agora was not being used as a market place and children were playing in it.
When they play, children frequently imitate adult behaviors. Apparently children in Jesus’ day often played two games that reflected the most significant events in Jewish social life: weddings and funerals. Historically, weddings and funerals have marked life’s happiest and saddest occasions. Weddings in Israel were ornate, elaborate affairs, often lasting for a week and involving processions through the streets as well as feasting (cf.Matt. 25:1–12; John 2:1–10). Funerals featured elements of public mourning and a public procession to the burial, along with fasting (Luke 7:11–16), so children would have been familiar with both.
In Jesus’ story some children had been trying to organize a game. They sat in the market place and called to some of the other children who had refused to play, “We played the flute for you, and you did not dance.” This suggests that these children had attempted to involve the others in a game of make-believe wedding, since music and dancing were integral parts of a wedding celebration. But those invited would not join in the game; they were stubborn, indifferent, and surly. Refusing to be happy and participate in the dancing and singing, they preferred instead to pout and sulk.
The first group of children then tried to involve the others in a mock funeral. But they refused to play that game either, prompting the children who invited them to complain, “We sang a dirge, and you did not weep.” Their frustration is understandable, since no matter what game they designed, the others would not play The nature of the game was not the issue, since the peevish brats would not play either the happy or the sad game. They serve as an apt illustration of the people of that generation—ill-tempered malcontents.
THE APPLICATION
“For John the Baptist has come eating no bread and drinking no wine, and you say, ‘He has a demon!’ The Son of Man has come eating and drinking, and you say, ‘Behold, a gluttonous man and a drunkard, a friend of tax collectors and sinners!’“ (7:33–34)
Having given His hearers a simple illustration, Jesus applied it to Himself and John. First, He likened John’s ministry to the funeral game. Eating bread and drinking wine symbolized the normal pattern of social life. In the Olivet Discourse Jesus told His hearers that when He returns life will be continuing normally, just as in the “days before the flood [when] they were eating and drinking, marrying and giving in marriage, until the day that Noah entered the ark” (Matt. 24:38). John’s radically ascetic lifestyle was a total disconnect from and condemnation of Jewish society; Instead of eating bread, John’s “food was locusts and wild honey”; instead of stylish clothes, he wore” a garment of camel’s hair and a leather belt around his waist” (Matt. 3:4); instead of living in luxurious surroundings, he “lived in the deserts until the day of his public appearance to Israel” (Luke 1:80). Even after he began his ministry, John remained in the desolate wilderness near the Jordan (Matt. 3:1). His Nazirite vow, forbidding the drinking of wine (Luke 1:15), and his diet, a kind of fasting, further isolated John from the normal course of life. Cultural trends and the fads of society had no influence on him.
John’s ministry was a somber, serious dirge sounding a warning of coming judgment and proclaiming to sinners the need for repentance and mourning over sin. The tone of his preaching was fearful, frightening, and confrontational; John’s message was a severe one, with little emphasis on grace and mercy His focus was on God’s wrath and vengeance, and he challenged his hearers to repent or be consumed by the fiery judgment that was coming (Luke 3:8, 9, 17). He had no use for shallow, superficial hypocrites, denouncing them as a “brood of vipers” (v. 7), desperately trying to escape the flames of judgment.
The reaction of the spiritual brats to John the Baptist’s austere self-denial and message of judgment was shocking. At first they had hailed him as a true prophet of God, the forerunner of the Messiah prophesied by Isaiah and Malachi. But soon after they contemptuously dismissed him as having a demon. The present tense of the verb translated you say indicates that some of those hearing Jesus speak were among the very ones who had denounced John as being demon-possessed. The reason for that astounding conclusion was that bizarre behavior was frequently associated with demon possession. The Gerasene demoniac, for instance, lived in a cemetery, wore no clothes, was extremely violent, screamed constantly, and mutilated himself (Matt. 8:28; Mark 5:1–5; Luke 8:26–27). John’s behavior was so different, unique, and anti-social that some concluded that it could only be explained as the madness associated with demon possession. Many would come to the same blasphemous conclusion regarding Jesus (cf. Luke 11:19; John 7:20;8:48; 10:20).
The people’s motive for so labeling John was their hatred of his message. Their hearts were hard and impenetrable, causing them to reject the divine diagnosis of their condition that he proclaimed. Being proud and self-righteous, they hated John’s condemnation of them as sinners, desperately in need of repentance and forgiveness. They attacked John’s person in order to justify their rejection of his message. They refused to join with him.
But the spiritual brats’ rejection of the gospel did not stop with John. The term Son of Man, a messianic title taken from Daniel 7:13, was the Lord’s favorite designation of Himself, which he used more than eighty times. Unlike John the Baptist, Jesus came eating and drinking; that is, He participated in the normal enjoyments and occasions of social life, including weddings (John 2:1–11) as well as funerals (Luke 7:11–16; John 11:1–44). John’s ministry took place in the wilderness, but Jesus traveled extensively through the towns and villages of Israel (cf. Matt. 9:35; Mark 6:6, 56; 8:27; Luke 8:1; 13:22). If John’s ministry was reminiscent of a funeral, Jesus’ ministry more closely resembled a wedding. In fact, the Lord likened His ministry to a wedding, picturing Himself as the bridegroom and the disciples as the bridegroom’s attendants (Matt. 9:15; cf. John 3:29).
Because John was aloof and did not associate with people, they denounced him as demon possessed. But because Jesus interacted with people, even the outcasts of society, His enemies scornfully denounced Him as a gluttonous man and a drunkard, a friend of tax collectors and sinners. That Jesus frequently associated with those whom they viewed as the dregs of society never ceased to infuriate the Jewish religious leaders. When the Lord attended a banquet given by the former tax collector Matthew after his call to follow Him, the Pharisees confronted His disciples and demanded, “Why is your Teacher eating with the tax collectors and sinners?” (Matt. 9:11). Luke records later in his gospel that “all the tax collectors and the sinners were coming near Him to listen to Him” (Luke 15:1). Predictably shocked and outraged, “both the Pharisees and the scribes began to grumble, saying, ‘This man receives sinners and eats with them’” (v. 2). When Jesus did the unthinkable and invited Himself to the house of the hated tax collector Zaccheus, “they all began to grumble, saying, ‘He has gone to be the guest of a man who is a sinner’” (Luke 19:7).
The Lord rebuked that evil generation for rejecting both divine messengers who proclaimed the truth, despite their different styles of ministry. John was sober, severe, stark, a preacher of judgment, calling for repentance, weeping in light of God’s wrath, and keeping himself separate from sinners. Jesus, in contrast, was tender, merciful, gracious, compassionate, a preacher of blessing who mingled with sinners, whom He came to seek and save.
In the end, it is not the style of ministry that matters but its substance. The people ultimately rejected the ministries of both John and Jesus. Though their emphases may have differed, both John and Jesus called for repentance, promised forgiveness, warned of judgment, and proclaimed the coming of the kingdom. The outward form of ministry is never the issue, but rather the truth of the message. In every generation there will be spiritual brats who reject the truth, like those who refused to mourn with John or laugh with Jesus.
THE CONCLUSION
Yet wisdom is vindicated by all her children. (7:35)
Not all who hear the gospel message will reject it; wisdom, Jesus said, is vindicated (justified or proven true) by all her children, or as Matthew’s parallel account phrases it, “deeds” (Matt. 11:19). Both terms refer to the product of true spiritual wisdom, which is salvation (2 Tim. 3:15). Despite the scoffing spiritual brats, the gospel will always produce results; there will always be some who accept it. Their lives will demonstrate the power of salvation wisdom.
The Lord’s masterful illustration reveals that there are two kinds of spiritual children in every generation: folly’s brats and wisdom’s children. The brats are fools devoid of true wisdom and marked by a hatred of the truth and rejection of those who proclaim it. On the other hand, wisdom’s children, the redeemed, are known by the righteous deeds their transformed lives produce (Eph. 2:10; cf. 2 Cor. 5:17). The preacher’s style is not the determining factor; “the gospel, “not the cleverness of the messenger, “is the power of God for salvation to everyone who believes” (Rom. 1:16). The same “word of the cross” that “is foolishness to those who are perishing” is to those “who are being saved … the power of God”(1 Cor. 1:18).