Matthew 12
BolesMatthew 12:1-21
1, 2 At that season Jesus went on the sabbath day.—Matthew, like the other writers of the gospel, does not bring the events in the life of Jesus in chronological order , it is impossible for us to determine the exact order in which events in the earthly life of Jesus came; no writer of the gospels claims to record them in the exact order in which they occurred; the order of mention is not the order of occurrence. Sometimes an event may be placed in order of occurrence. It is not necessary for us to know the exact order of occurrence. It is thought that Matthew records this event out of its chronological place. The facts recorded here are grouped together in order to show the deepening hostility which Jesus encountered from the Jewish leaders. The first two occurred soon after the first assault on Jesus at the Passover, and were the proper prelude to the later instance to blasphemy. There is a marked increase in the intensity of the Pharisaic hostility. “At that season,” just after the second Passover of Jesus’ ministry; Luke says that “it came to pass on a sabbath.” (Luke 6:1.) Jesus on this Sabbath went “through the grainfields.” Presumably he did not travel that day further than “a sabbath day’s journey,” which was about two thousand paces, or about six furlongs from the wall of the city, which, in English count, would be little more than one-half of a mile.
And his disciples were hungry and began to pluck ears and to eat.—It is probable that the grain here was barley or wheat, as the fields of barley were usually ripe at the Passover. Such grains they could get out of the husks easily by rubbing the ears in their hands as they walked through the field. Indian corn was not known till the discovery of America and is properly called “maize.” “Began to pluck ears and to eat.” This action itself was lawful. (Deuteronomy 23:25.) The Pharisees did not accuse them of taking what was another’s, but only for doing manual labor on the Sabbath; they argued that the small labor of plucking and rubbing out the grain with their hands was considered as harvesting and grinding, and hence violated the Sabbath. The Pharisees accused Jesus’ disciples of doing “that which it is not lawful to do upon the sabbath.” They were overstrict and scrupulous about the Sabbath; they had weighted it down with many traditions and laws which were made by their leaders. The Pharisees watched Jesus to do him harm with the people; they were more anxious to condemn Jesus than they were to carry out their laws regarding the Sabbath. The laws of the Jewish Sabbath or seventh day of the week were clear enough. (Exodus 20:10; Exodus 35:2-3; Numbers 15:32-36.) The disciples had plucked the grain and had eaten it as they were hungry;paths or roads extended through fields, and the grain grew near enough for them to walk along the path and pluck the grains this was all that they had done and it is a striking instance in which the Jews had come to bring some accusation against Jesus.
3-5 Have ye not read what David did?—Jesus is not contending for a violation of the law, but for a true construction or interpretation of it. The analogy here between David’s fleeing from Saul and Jesus’ withdrawing for a while from the enemies who sought his life is very striking. David and his company were hard pressed by King Saul in great extremity he came to Abimelech, the high priest, to ask for food to save his company from starvation, and found only the showbread in the tabernacle; he asked for it, received it, and he and his companions ate it. (1 Samuel 21:1-7.) This incident was well known to the Pharisees, and they believed David was a righteous man and a prophet, and in this case justified him. Therefore, in a case of like necessity, to avoid hunger and weariness, the disciples of Jesus were only doing as David had done—keeping the spirit of the law. Necessary labor may always be done on the Sabbath. Since they justified David in what he did, to be consistent, they ought to justify the disciples of Jesus.
The showbread was prepared by the priests on the Sabbath in twelve loaves and placed on the table of showbread; the old bread was removed on the Sabbath and could be eaten by the priests only. (Leviticus 24:9.) The tabernacle is spoken of here as “the house of God”; the temple was not built until after David’s death. David entered only the court of the tabernacle or the room occupied by the priests. (23:19.)
“Have ye not read in the law?” “The law” here means the law of Moses. (Leviticus 24:5-9; Numbers 28:9-10; 1 Samuel 21:6.) This is a stronger case than the historical precedent of David. The law positively orders work to be done by the priests on the Sabbath; the preparation of the showbread, the offering of sacrifices, including the killing, dressing and burning the sacrifice, all were to be done by the priest on the Sabbath so the law of itself made provision for these things to be done on the Sabbath. There is something striking in the remark that Jesus, who was to be king and priest of the new dispensation, draws his justifying example from a king and the priest of the old dispensation. In reality the priest did not “profane the sabbath,” but by fair interpretation of the traditions and man-made laws of the Pharisees, the priests did “profane the sabbath, and are guiltless.” Since they could do this and be guiltless, why could not his disciples pluck the grain on the Sabbath and eat it to satisfy their hunger without being guilty? They were unable to answer this.
[The Sabbath law is not reenacted in the new covenant, or New Testament. When the disciples plucked the ears of corn and ate them on the Sabbath, the Pharisees remonstrated with the Master for his desecration of the day by his disciples. Jesus answered them that “the Son of man is lord of the sabbath.” This shows that Jesus was “lord” or ruler “of the sabbath” and that he had the right to annul its requirements as God did in the two examples noted. Jesus fulfilled the law in his own body, rested in the grave on the Sabbath, took it out of the way, and rose from the dead on the first day of the week and “brought life and immortality to light.” He introduced the new and everlasting covenant. This covenant rested on the truth that Jesus is the Christ, the Son of God. He was “declared to be the Son of God with power, . . . by the resurrection from the dead.” (Romans 1:4.) He was raised from the dead on the first day of the week, and in the new dispensation this was consecrated as the day of all days, the day of perpetual worship.
Jesus met with the disciples on the first day of the week, and on the second first day he again met with them, not having met with them during the intervening time. The Holy Spirit descended from heaven to earth to begin his personal ministry on the first day, Pentecost, and on this day took up his abode with the church of God to guide it into the fullness of all truth. (Acts 20:7; 1 Corinthians 16:1-2.) The first day of the week was thus sanctified by Christ and the Holy Spirit as the Lord’s day, the day for the Lord’s worship. From this time forward it is called “the Lord’s day.” (Revelation 1:10.) ]
6-8 But I say unto you, that one greater than the temple is here.—To be greater than the temple, which was honored by the Jews as the most holy place on earth, as the dwelling place of Jehovah himself, was to claim equality with God. Haggai (2:7-9) in encouraging the Jews under Zerubbabel to finish rebuilding the temple said that the smaller temple which was then being built would exceed the former in glory when “the precious things of all nations shall come.” This prophecy was fulfilled when Jesus came and filled “this house with glory,” and “the latter glory of this house shall be greater than the former.” The glory of Christ who visited the temple was greater than the glory of the former temple. Since this is true, whatever he permitted his disciples to do was in fact a divine permission as much as the labors of the priests in the temple on Mount Zion. Jesus was greater than the temple, as “he that built the house bath more honor than the house” (Hebrews 3:3), so he who is worshiped in the temple is greater than the temple. They should have understood that Jesus was the Messiah and that his claim to the Messiahship was true. If they had known the true meaning, they would have known that God desired mercy, “and not sacrifice,” and they would not have condemned Jesus and his disciples.
They were cruel in their rigidness, and while they thought they were keeping the Sabbath law, they were destroying themselves by crimes against mercy and truth. God has ever required mercy of men; the sacrifices and ceremonies, when understood, called for mercy and justice.
For the Son of man is lord of the sabbath.—Jesus had just said that he was greater than the temple, and now he affirms himself greater than the statute law of Moses. As the lawgiver is greater than the law, so Christ is greater than the Sabbath. Mark adds here that “the Son of man is lord even of the sabbath.” (Mark 2:28.) Jesus claims to be the divine legislator of the world; he is truly God manifest in the flesh. His declaration of his high dignity should have silenced the murmuring of the Jews. It seems here that he, by being Lord of the Sabbath, indicates that some change would be made in its observance under the new dispensation. Jesus is here asserting his authority to revoke and annul the law pertaining to the Sabbath; he at this time gives a true interpretation of the law and thus condemns the false notions and traditions of the Pharisees.
The Sabbath was given for man; that is, the good of man, and was intended to help and not hinder any real good or welfare of man. As the supreme lawgiver he can dispense with the law when the time comes for something better to be given.
9-14 He departed thence, and went into their synagogue.— Mark and Luke record this same incident. (Mark 3:1-5; Luke 6:6-10.) Matthew’s record seems to make this miracle follow on the same Sabbath, but Luke records that it was “on another sabbath.” This fact is another proof that Matthew did not follow the order of time, but has grouped some events together under the same subject. There was a man present who had “a withered hand”; his hand was dried up and the muscles shrunk; it was paralyzed; it was his right hand, says Luke; “they asked him, saying, Is it lawful to heal on the sabbath day?” They asked him this, not for information, but “that they might accuse him”; they were looking for an occasion to accuse Jesus. The scribes and Pharisees, from this time forward, plot the destruction of Jesus; they watch him in order to find an occasion for bringing accusations against him; they seek to take advantage of the public assembly in the synagogue by asking the question. They cared but little at this time for any knowledge or instruction; they cared but little for this afflicted man; they cared more for an occasion to accuse Jesus than for anything else. Mark records that “when he had looked round about on them with anger, being grieved at the hardening of their heart.” This is the only record of an instance where Jesus is said to have been moved “with anger” or rightous indignation. The attitude of the minds of his accusers was peculiar and strange; they did not doubt that he would work a miracle; they expected it; but they are intending to make out that his miracles are contrary to the law of God, and are therefore contrary to the will of God.
If they can make out this case, they would then have some ground for saying that he worked miracles by a diabolical power; which charge they did soon begin to make. Jesus pressed upon them an invincible argument, that if they would labor on the Sabbath to save the life of an animal, could not he save life and do good to men? In making the argument Jesus asked, “What man shall there be of you, that shall have one sheep, and if this fall into a pit on the sabbath day, will he not lay hold on it, and lift it out?” Questions of this sort are put in the form of an argument; it constituted an unanswerable “argumentum ad hominem,” for they allowed animals to be watered, lifted out of pits and other things on the Sabbath. Jesus then points his argument with this statement, “How much then is a man of more value than a sheep!” By this simple and natural exclamation, which all present, who were perhaps mostly villagers of Galilee, and owned sheep, had often had occasion to consider this doubt in accidents happening among their rocky hills, Jesus settles the question more effectually than volumes of abstract proofs could do. He showed every one of them that it was a law impressed on their very consciences, and practically allowed by them, that it was pleasing to God, to do good at all times, and to place charity above ceremonial observances.
Having now answered his enemies, he does the simple and merciful act of healing the man. He commanded him to “stretch forth thy hand.” At this command, “he stretched it forth,” and it was healed. When a miracle follows a doctrine as it does in this case, it becomes a proof of what was before said. Jesus did not labor on the Sabbath; it was easy for him to speak the word and restore the withered hand. The Pharisees could not claim that a word is unlawful labor; Jesus showed himself to have divine power to sustain his claim to the Lord of the Sabbath. The man to be healed believed that Jesus had power, as he obeyed at once.
He did not hesitate and argue, “How can I stretch out my hand? It is withered.” He simply obeyed, and that which he could not do, the divine energy acting with his will supplied what was lacking in the place.
It would seem from human reason that Jesus had commanded an impossible act, yet the effort to stretch forth his hand was not impossible, and when the will was exerted, power to accomplish was granted. Instead of rejoicing with the man who was healed, “the Pharisees went out, and took counsel against him, how they might destroy him.” They were determined not to admit the defense which they could not refute, and were bent upon using the act to charge Jesus’ miracles to the power of Satan. They “took counsel against him”; Mark says that the Pharisees called in the aid of the Herodians, those who were the partisans of Herod, who maintained the rightfulness of the Roman dominion over Judea, and the propriety of introducing Greek and Roman customs among the Jews. We see here these Pharisees, sticklers for the law of Moses, unite with its bold political subverters in order to accomplish their evil designs against Jesus. Malice as well as misery makes “strange bedfellows.” (Matthew 22:16.) These Herodians had greater interest at court and possibly had more influence in court than the Pharisees, so they are brought into the council. Jesus had performed no outward act in healing the man, and they had no legal hold on him for violating the Sabbath, hence they needed somebody to help them make out a case.
The absurd doctrine of the Jewish doctors permitted medical treatment of acute diseases on the Sabbath, but forbade it to cases that were chronic. The test cases which Jesus relieved on the Sabbath were chronic; the withered hand had been in this condition for some time.
15-21 And Jesus perceiving it withdrew from thence.—Jesus saw what the Pharisees were about to do; he read their hearts and knew that they were determined to destroy him. His hour had not come, and he “withdrew from thence.” Jesus was no coward; he was not fleeing from danger. They could do nothing with him until his hour arrived. Jesus went to the Sea of Galilee and prepared to cross it (Mark 3:7; Mark 4:34); as his hour was not yet come, he did not wish to have his work interfered with or reduce himself to the necessity of working miracles to prevent it. Wherever he went he found those who were afflicted; in fact, “many followed him; and he healed them all.” He was no respecter of persons; he “healed them all”; there was no exception; he had to make no excuse for any exception as do “modern divine healers.” He charged them seriously that they should “not make him known.”
Jesus did not want to arouse his enemies to greater activities; his deeds of mercy must be kept in secret; at the proper time they would be told or published. Jesus performed his miracles in public and wanted them to be witnesses of his claim, but he did not want the reputation of a mere wonder worker; his miracles were subordinate to his teachings. Many of those who were healed were not prepared to proclaim publicly Jesus as the Son of God; therefore it is best for them to be quiet and let Jesus publish his own miracles and commission others who were better qualified to do it.
That it might be fulfilled which was spoken through Isaiah the prophet.—In following this course Jesus fulfilled the prophecy of Isaiah which foretold the characteristics that the Messiah should possess. This quotation is from Isaiah 42:1-4, and varies from the original in some points. Jesus as the Messiah fulfilled all the prophecies pertaining to his first advent and executed the will of his Father; this was necessary to accomplish the work of redemption. (Psalms 40:7; John 9 4; 17:4; Philippians 2:6-8; Hebrews 10:7.) Jesus in quietness fulfilled this prophecy, and Matthew guided by the Holy Spirit quotes the prophecy and applies it to Jesus. These points are predicted of the Messiah, and the description of his character reveals them in him: (1) the Messiah should come from God as his minister and servant; (2) his own personal character should be mild and gentle; (3) he should be tender in his dealings with man , (4) he should give victory to truth and righteousness in the world; (5) not only Jews, but Gentiles should trust in his name. “My beloved,” Jesus was the only begotten and beloved Son of God. (Matthew 3:17; John 3:16.) It was further predicted that he should “declare judgment to the Gentiles,” and this was done in his preaching the gospel through his apostles to the Gentiles. “He shall not strive”; he withdrew from his enemies and excited no warfare or strife among the people. Jesus neither shouted for war nor raised an army to wage a war. His work was done in quietness; these three phases of the prophecy were fulfilled in him he did not strive, nor cry aloud, nor raise his “voice in the streets.” He was the prince of peace, gentle, meek, and condescending to heal the wounded.
It is this characteristic in Jesus which has separated Christians from carnal warfare. “A bruised reed shall he not break.” A reed growing on the watercourses, and bruised or ready to fall and die, Jesus did not finish its destruction. “Smoking flax” he did not quench. The expiring wick of a lamp, for which purpose flax was used by the Jews, Jesus did not extinguish.
He would continue his mild and unostentatious career until he had finished his mission and “judgment unto victory” “in his name” shall have come to the Gentiles. The Gentiles have no hope without Christ. (Ephesians 2:12; 1 Thessalonians 4:13.) No one has any hope of salvation out of Christ. This quotation from Isaiah is peculiar to Matthew, who taks a special interest in noticing fulfillments of prophecy by Jesus. The plot against the life of Jesus and the great publicity of his numerous and notable miracles induced him to withdraw suddenly from that locality. The case exemplified his quiet, unobtrusive ways, his wonderful gentleness of bearing, and the strong and striking contrast in all these respects between “the Prince of Peace” and the world’s proud conquerors and monarchs; yet Jesus was to become the mightiest of earth’s conquerors and kings, for under him justice and judgment should become victorious in all the earth, and in his name the nations should put their trust. In this way the prophecy of Isaiah is beautifully and perfectly fulfilled in Jesus.
Matthew 12:22-45
- WITH THE
22, 23 Then was brought unto him one possessed with a demon.—A record of this miracle is given by Mark 3:22-27 and Luke 11:14-28. It follows immediately the prophecy from Isaiah as a sequel of it. This man was doubly cursed by the demon as he was “blind and dumb”; Luke says that the demon “was dumb”; the man’s affliction was caused by the demon; diseases and the possession of demons are usually found together. The cure of this poor demoniac man seems to have been a signal instance of power; the man could neither hear nor see. Besides this, scribes had come “down from Jerusalem” (Mark 3:22), and the miracle was done boldly in their presence and that of a great multitude. The common people asked the question, after seeing and hearing the man who had been healed, “Can this be the son of David?” They meant by this the Messiah.
They saw him fulfilling prophecy and were convinced by his teaching and miracle that he fulfilled the words of the prophet. (Isaiah 36:5.) They reasoned that the Messiah could do no greater things than these. (John 7:31.) Jesus was at this time again in Capernaum. The multitude asked this question in amazement, and could understand him in no other way , he must be “the son of David,” and if so, the Messiah; if not the son of David, he must be some other prophet of God; in either case they should hear and heed his teachings.
24 But when the Pharisees heard it.—The Pharisees reacted in the very opposite; the multitude could reach no other conclusion than that he was from God, or the son of David; but the Pharisees said, “This man doth not cast out demons” by the power of God, “but by Beelzebub the prince of the demons.” “Beelzebub” was the name taken from an idol of the Philistines of Ekron. (2 Kings 1:2.) It meant the god of the fly which was worshiped to obtain deliverance from the injuries of that insect; some think that it signified the god of filth; it was a name of bitter contempt in the mouth of the Pharisees. Here is an admission by the Pharisees that Jesus worked miracles; that is, he performed deeds beyond the reach of any unaided human power, but they attribute this power to Beelzebub instead of to God. They did not mean to cast a reflection on God, but on Jesus; they did not understand the close relation between God and Jesus. This miracle was performed in the spiritual realm of Satan, yet they declared that it was done by “the prince of the demons.” They should have known better, may have known better; the devil cannot do works of pure goodness. These Pharisees knew that if the teachings of Jesus should prevail their influence was at an end; so the miracle they do not deny, but ascribe it to an infernal power, “Beelzebub the prince of the demons.”
25-27 And knowing their thoughts he said unto them.—Jesus knew the thoughts of men; he could see into the secret chambers of the heart and read the thoughts of men; “he needed not that any one should bear witness concerning man; for he himself knew what was in man.” (John 2:25.) So Jesus read the hearts of these Pharisees and answered their thoughts before they expressed them. This act of his would be another proof of his divinity as it showed another well-known attribute of God in which it is not known that Satan has any power, or that he could read the hearts of men without the help of their words. (Psalms 44:21; Psalms 139:2.) He said, “Every kingdom divided against itself is brought to desolation.” If he had cast out the demon by the prince of demons, Satan’s kingdom was divided against itself, and would soon come to “desolation.” Thus Jesus refuted their false reasoning by a simple and universal fact. A family, state, or kingdom at war with itself will soon be destroyed. If Satan destroys his own work, he destroys at one time what he builds at another; he is not so guilty of folly as to do this, but would be worthy of ridicule by men. So “if Satan casteth out Satan, he is divided against himself”; the Jews were not ready to concede this; again if this be the case with Satan, Jesus puts this question to these Pharisees, “How then shall his kingdom stand?” If their reasoning be correct, they should be able to answer this question. If Jesus used the power of Satan in casting out this demon, Satan’s kingdom is divided against itself and will soon fall; if he cast out the demon by the power of God, then the kingdom of God and the kingdom of Satan are in direct conflict with each other, and to cast out Satan is the strongest proof that can be visibly given of hostility to Satan.
And if I by Beelzebub cast out demons, by whom do your sons cast them out?—“Your sons” here means your disciples or followers; Jesus shows them that their cavil against him could be retorted upon them with more truth than they had imagined. His reasoning is that your followers or disciples, against whose actions they had made no objection and had actually taught and encouraged them so to do, pretended to cast out demons in some cases, and they had found no fault with them. These Pharisees claimed that their followers could exercise such power only with the power of God; therefore it is foolish and wicked in you now to urge such a cavil against me for doing the very same thing. Some among the Jews claimed this power of exorcism. (Mark 9:38; Acts 19:13-14.) After making this argument, Jesus then added “therefore shall they be your judges.” They will arise in judgment against you to prove that you are actuated by ill will and malice. Jesus literally crushed them with this argument, but they were too obstinate to yield to it.
28, 29 But if I by the Spirit of God cast out demons.—Luke says by “the finger of God”; that is, the power of God. The magicians reported to Pharaoh that the miracles wrought by Moses were done by “the finger of God.” (Exodus 8:19.) This was the only conclusion that could be reached, it was done by “the finger of God,” or the power of God and since this was true, “then is the kingdom of God come upon you.” The phrase “kingdom of God” is equivalent to saying that the Messiah has come and is in their midst; it is near enough to you to require you to believe and seek it. The kingdom of God is near, and therefore a kingdom of Satan is invaded and weakened. They ought to have rejoiced in the signs of this conquest of good over evil; they should have prepared their hearts to receive a kingdom which had power to perform such works of mercy. But truly they loved darkness rather than light, because their deeds were evil. (John 3:19.) Again Jesus enforces his argument with an illustration: “How can one enter into the house of the strong man, and spoil his goods, except he first bind the strong man?” If the kingdom of the Messiah has not come near them in the person of Jesus, how can this power be granted unto Jesus? Jesus now pushed them to extremity.
They knew that no prophet had ever claimed such power; they knew that the prophets had foretold that this power would belong to the Messiah. (Isaiah 49:25; Isaiah 53:12.) Therefore if Jesus is not the Messiah, this power to cast out demons, as he had done, would be impossible according to their own prophets; but if it was possible and the Messiah should have such power, it was manifested in him and they should accept him as the Messiah. He had entered the strong man’s house and had cast out a demon, thus manifesting his power to bind the strong man. The argument was unanswerable;but their perverse hearts were invincible.
30 He that is not with me is against me.—In the great conflict between life and darkness, good and evil, the kingdom of God and of Satan, there is no middle ground; there is no neutral position; there is no third power to which these miracles can be attributed. These Pharisees were obliged either to join with Christ or be against him; they had to become allies with God or coworkers with Satan; there was no other alternative. “No man can serve two masters” at the same time. (Matthew 6:24.) The teachings of Jesus with his unanswerable arguments forced the conclusion upon these Pharisees, and they must now take sides with Jesus or join issue with him; the choice is theirs; sufficient instruction, evidence, and light have been given them for the choice; hence the responsibility of the choice rests upon them. To make the matter clear and easy for them to see, Jesus presents only two alternatives—if they are not with him, they are against him. Jesus further enforces this point by saying “he that gathereth not with me scattereth.” This figure may be taken from the image of war, with two opposing sides, or a harvest field, where the reapers either gather the harvest, or foolishly waste it. Mark 9:40 reverses these words and says “for he that is not against us is for us”; but his meaning is entirely different. Jesus here speaks of the war on Satan’s kingdom, but in Mark he speaks of the charity which his disciples were to show to such as use his name while they were too timid to follow him. The maxim taught by Jesus here is true in every age; people must be for Christ or against him; they are scattering, opposing him, or they are gathering with him.
31, 32 Therefore I say unto you, Every sin and blasphemy. —This is Jesus’ conclusion and application of his teaching. “Blasphemy” is injurious and malicious speaking against God or his attributes , to blaspheme in the scripture sense denotes improper and unworthy speeches against God, his attributes, works, or temple; it means to ascribe to God the weaknesses of men, or to attribute to men the perfections and works of God. Here Jesus fixes a limit of divine mercy. What is “the blasphemy against the Spirit”? Mark 3:30 tells us that the Pharisees had been guilty of blasphemy “because they said, He bath an unclean spirit.” This sin was maliciously ascribing a miracle of divine power to the power of Beelzebub. It is not said here “a sin against,” but “blasphemy against,” which is explained by “speak against the Holy Spirit.” The “blasphemy against the Spirit shall not be forgiven,” but “every sin and blasphemy shall be forgiven unto men” but the one “against the Holy Spirit.” Man may speak “a word against the Son of man” and “it shall be forgiven him,” but “whosoever shall speak against the Holy Spirit, it shall not be forgiven him, neither in this world, nor in that which is to come.” There has been much speculation about “the unpardonable sin” and “the blasphemy against the Holy Spirit.” Jesus came in the flesh, dwelt among men, and revealed the will of God to man. God the Father revealed his will to the Jews through Moses, and Jesus revealed the will of God to us.
The Holy Spirit was to come in person and complete the work of Jesus. He said, “It is expedient for you that I go away; for if I go not away, the Comforter will not come unto you; but if I go, I will send him unto you. And he, when he is come, will convict the world in respect of sin, and of righteousness, and of judgment.” (John 16:7-8.) Many misunderstood Jesus, his teachings, and his kingdom while he was on earth, and even denied him as being the Messiah, who afterwards repented and were pardoned, and became Christians. (Acts 2:37-38; Acts 9:1; Acts 9:17.) Many could and did reject Jesus while he was on earth, but when the Holy Spirit came and testified of him, they accepted Christ. But when the Holy Spirit came and gave the complete will of God, if men rejected this, there was no other evidence to be furnished, no other divine agency to be given, and if they finally rejected the Holy Spirit, there was no forgiveness for them. There was no forgiveness “neither in this world, nor in that which is to come.” Mark says “hath never forgiveness, but is guilty of an eternal sin.” (Mark 3:29.) No sin unforgiven here or in this world will be pardoned or forgiven hereafter.
[God bore testimony to men through the Old Testament scriptures; Jesus Christ bore testimony in person, given in the New Testament; and he stated that his testimony was incomplete, and he would send the Holy Spirit to complete or perfect that testimony. (John 16:7-8; John 16:13-14.) (Read also John 14:14; John 14:20-27; John 15:26; John 16:8.) They all teach that neither the revelations of the Father nor the Son were complete to guide into life eternal, save as people received the teachings of the Holy Spirit. The Spirit would come, perfect the testimony, and guide into all truth. Without this guidance being followed, they could not know the full faith of God. It is in perfect harmony with all these scriptures and with all the facts recorded in the Bible for Jesus, when they charged him with acting by the power of the devil, to warn them that they might do this now to him and find forgiveness; but if they so rejected and treated the Holy Spirit when he came, there would be no forgiveness, for there would be no more testimony and no more opportunity to repent. It refers, of course, to the final rejection of the will of God. To reject the will of God was to sin against God, to reject the words of Jesus was to sin against him, and to reject the teachings of the Holy Spirit was to sin against the Holy Spirit.]
[To blaspheme is to oppose and speak against. Many construe this to mean that Jesus defined the attributing the works of Jesus to the evil power as the sin against the Holy Spirit; but the Bible does not say so, nor anything that implies this. Read Mark 3:28-30; Luke 12:10. All classes and kinds of men, those that maligned, persecuted, and abused Jesus in every form and manner were warned and exhorted by the Holy Spirit to turn to Jesus and live. Paul was a persecutor and blasphemer of the Lord Jesus and sought the destruction of the whole church of God. Jesus did not mean to say that those who blasphemed and rejected Christ Jesus and regarded him as a servant of Satan might not turn to God when the Holy Spirit brought its message of love and power. He only meant to tell them: “You may reject my teachings, malign and abuse me as you are now doing; but when the Holy Spirit is come and bears his testimony, if you reject that, there will be no further offices of love and mercy, either in this world or the world to come.” To disobey and reject God was to blaspheme him; to reject and disobey Jesus was to blaspheme him , to reject and disobey the teachings of the Holy Spirit was to blaspheme him; and when the Holy Spirit performed his work to teach and save men, God’s provisions of mercy were exhausted.]
33-35 Either make the tree good, and its fruit good.—The general principle that a tree is known by its fruits is often applied by Jesus to the proof that a man’s actions reveal the character of his life. (Matthew 7:15-20.) Some think that this explains the preceding verses concerning blasphemy against the Holy Spirit, because it follows immediately those verses. Such malicious language is justly condemned because it proceeds from a corrupted heart. Perhaps it applies and explains a general argument of Jesus that he had worked a miracle by divine power; they could judge Jesus and his character by his teachings and conduct; that is, he said, “Judge of me as you do of trees, by their fruit. Regard me either as good or bad according to my actions. I do works of mercy, and speak reverently of God; these results can come only from a pious heart.” (John 9:25; John 9:30; John 9:33.)
Ye offspring of vipers, how can ye, being evil, speak good things?—A viper is a serpent which was familiar in the east; the poison of its bite caused death with great agonies. John the Baptist had used this expression when many of the Pharisees and Sadducees came to him for baptism; he addressed them, “ye offspring of vipers.” At another time Jesus addressed them, “ye serpents, ye offspring of vipers.” (Matthew 23:33.) This was a forceful way of addressing them as they were guileful and hypocritical. As teachable believers and pious persons are likened to doves and lambs, which are innocent and harmless animals, so the malicious and unbelieving are compared to goats, dogs, and vipers, according as they are sensual, foul, or malicious. These Pharisees had shown the hatred and venom of serpents and deserved this epithet. Good works and clear reasoning could not be expected from them; they were corrupted; and hence “out of the abundance of the heart the mouth speaketh.” Their hearts were not right and the principles of their lives were wrong, therefore the exhibitions of character were only such as could have been expected. This reveals a very depraved condition and shows the dire need of the Savior whom they were rejecting.
The other side is illustrated by the “good man out of his good treasure bringeth forth good things.” The heart of a good man is a treasure of good things. Divine truths, blessed expressions, holy emotions dwell there richly and abound. Like a wealthy banker, he has only to draw the precious treasure forth as occasions demand. On the other hand, “the evil man out of his evil treasure bringeth forth evil things.” From the evil heart comes hostile feelings against truth and goodness, skeptical arguments, malign emotions purposed to prefer self-interest to the right, hatred of God and his truth. All these heaped together make a storehouse of evil works from which the evil man may draw abundantly.
36, 37 Every idle word that men shall speak.—“Idle word” does not mean here what is usually termed now as “idle words”; it does not mean careless, innocent talk on subjects secular and social, and opposed to serious conversation. Rather it signifies wicked, malicious, injurious, slandering, impious words. To “give account thereof in the day of judgment” means that we will be held responsible for such wicked and vicious words uttered against God, Christ, and the Holy Spirit. Our social, insignificant words among friends will not be sufficient to condemn us; only such words as manifest the real principle of our actions, whether we love God truly, or love the world and self, will serve to justify or condemn us. It is dangerous for Christians to be always engaged in foolish, unmeaning conversation, and more dangerous still, a profane and unseemly jesting, because such conduct manifests a state of heart which justifies condemnation. This does not mean that a Christian cannot engage in innocent jesting and levity. “A cheerful heart is a good medicine; but a broken spirit drieth up the bones.” (Prow. 17:22.) A genial and pleasant gracefulness of conversation in social relations helps to adorn a Christian.
A mother’s prattling to her babe may be as innocent and as clearly prove a loving heart as her tears over its grave. So the term “idle word” may mean not merely unimportant or insignificant, but implies that there is some positive evil in the word.
[Idle words and jesting mean those which are vulgar and coarse and corrupt the hearer. Idle words are evil words that excite the lusts and corrupt man. Idle words are compared with speaking against the Son of man and the Holy Spirit. In Ephesians 5:4 jesting is classed with fornication, uncleanness, or covetousness, and in contrast with giving of thanks. The corrupt communication is that which excites the lusts, corrupts and depraves the heart, and in contrast with that which ministers grace to the hearer.]
For by thy words thou shalt be justified.—This explains the preceding verse; by our words, however unimportant, we shall be justified or condemned, according as they are good or evil. If our words are good, we shall “be justified” by them; but if our words be evil, we shall “be condemned.” By good words, good thoughts, and good deeds, we will be judged righteous in the final judgment; but by evil words, evil thoughts, and evil deeds we will be condemned. This is the meaning of “justified” here as in James 2:21-25, not as in Romans 5:1, pardoned, which is by faith.
38-40 Then certain of the scribes and Pharisees answered him.—The term “answered” does not mean that Jesus had asked a question; in this instance they made a request of him. They requested to “see a sign” from Jesus; he claimed to be the Son of God; they asked for a sign proving his claim. Luke says that they “sought of him a sign from heaven.” (Luke 11:16.) To ask for this sign was to ignore and count as useless all that he had done; it was to deny that he had worked any miracles by the power of God; hence they now call on him to show them “a sign from heaven.” Paul said the Jews sought after signs and Greeks after wisdom (1 Corinthians 1:22);that is, some particular exhibition of divine power and glory. Satan tempted Jesus to show signs of his authority as a Son of God. (Matthew 4:6 John 2:18 6:30.) The carnal minds of the Jews prevented them from perceiving the real truth.
Jesus said in reply, “An evil and adulterous generation seeketh after a sign.” A wife who leaves her husband and commits sin against the marriage covenant is called an adulterous person; the Jews were bound to the law by a holy covenant, having all the sacredness of the marriage vow (Ezekiel 16:38; Hosea 3:1) even as Christians now are wedded in the most solemn vows to Christ (Ephesians 5:24; Ephesians 5:32). When Israel committed idolatries, or sought help from heathen nations, it received this epithet, “adulterous generation.” They merited it because of their unfaithfulness to Jehovah. Jesus called the generation of his day an “adulterous generation” because they had refused him, even after he had given them sufficient evidence of his claim. He told them that no signs should be given “but the sign of Jonah the prophet.”
The “sign of Jonah the prophet” was “as Jonah was three days and three nights in the belly of the whale; so shall the Son of man he three days and three nights in the heart of the earth.” Ezekiel was a sign to the people (Ezekiel 24:4);Isaiah walked barefoot for a sign (Isaiah 20:3); Jonah was a sign to the Ninevites to foretell their destruction; hence, the Son of man, after his resurrection, would he a sign to prove to the Jews the terrible fate of their unbelief. We have an account of Jonah’s experience in Jonah 1:17 and chapter 2. The word “whale” does not determine the kind of animal which became the typical grave of Jonah. The book of Jonah says, “Jehovah prepared a great fish to swallow up Jonah; and Jonah was in the belly of the fish three days and three nights.” (Jonah 1:17.) “Three days and three nights”; here we have an expression which has given some trouble to students of the Bible. Jesus was in the grave but two nights and parts of three days, and it is likely that Jonah was in the fish the same length of time. (Luke 24:6-8.) If we had no knowledge beyond the modern division of time, we would be at a loss to explain the difference between the words of Christ and the actual event. The Jews had no word corresponding to our natural day of twenty-four hours, or from midnight to midnight; their meaning was expressed by a word meaning “a night-day,” and to this they added the custom of saying “night and day” for what we mean by a natural day or a revolution of the earth; hence, to express the time of a part of three consecutive days, they were obliged to say three night-days, or three days and three nights. (See Esther 4:16 compared with 5:1 and 1 Samuel 30:12 compared with verse 13.) Esther said she would not eat for “three days, night or day,” yet on the third day she went to the king to ask him to her banquet.
The Egyptian whom David found is said to have eaten nothing “three days and three nights,” yet again he says it was the “third day” since he fell sick. (See also 2 Chronicles 10:5; 2 Chronicles 10:12.) The Jews in reckoning time counted a part of a day as a day, and began their days in the evening. Jesus was crucified on Friday, was in the grave part of Friday, all day Saturday, and rose early on Sunday morning, or the first day of the week, and was, in their language, three days and nights in the earth. “In the heart of the earth”; this means simply the grave, or the interior or “lower parts of the earth.” (Psalms 63:9; Ephesians 4:9.) It is the same as the abyss of which Peter spoke (Acts 2:27) where Christ “went and preached unto the spirits in prison” (1 Peter 3:19). The separate state and place of spirits according to the Jew’s conception was “in the region under the earth,” hence “the heart of the earth.” Some have claimed since Jesus was not buried in the ground, but enclosed in a tomb of rock, that it cannot be truthfully said that he was in “the heart of the earth”; but the rock is a part of the earth as much so as the soil, and there is nothing in the cavil.
41, 42 The men of Nineveh shall stand up in the judgment.—Nineveh was the capital of Assyria; it was a large city on the river Tigris, northeast of Babylon, and was built in early times by Asshur. (Genesis 10:11.) It was about fifty miles in circumference, and surrounded by a wall one hundred feet high with fifteen hundred towers, each two hundred and fifty feet in height. It is estimated that its population was six hundred thousand in the time of Jonah. They were idolaters and very wicked but being warned by Jonah to repent they humbled themselves and repented; God spared them and their city for two hundred years longer. Nahum and Zephaniah also prophesied their destruction. (Nahum 2:6; Zephaniah 2:13; Zephaniah 2:15.) Nineveh “shall condemn” “this generation” “in the judgment.” The reason assigned for this is that Nineveh “repented at the preaching of Jonah”;but this generation did not repent at the preaching of Jesus who was “a greater than Jonah.” Nineveh compared with that generation had acted prudently and piously; she would show by contrast the awful obstinacy and wickedness of the generation which crucified Jesus. The far superior example of the Ninevites shall reflect condemnation on the inhabitants of that generation. Nineveh repented on much less evidence than had been given to Jerusalem and that generation; however, they had rejected the miracles of Jesus, denied his claim, persisted in their sins, and died in impenitence.
The queen of the south shall rise up in the judgment.— “The queen of the south” was the queen of Sheba. (1 Kings 10:1-13.) She was from the southern part of Arabia which was from its great distance from Jerusalem called “the ends of the earth.” If she came from Arabia, she may have been a descendant of Abraham by Keturah, one of whose sons begat Shebah. She may have had a traditional knowledge of the true God, and came to hear Solomon “concerning the name of Jehovah.” She was deeply affected by the visit to Solomon and gave praise to God; her conduct in going so far to seek for better knowledge of God, her generosity and open confession, will all manifest in a more hateful light the hardness of heart which was shown by those to whom Jesus was speaking. Josephus calls her “queen of Egypt and Ethiopia”; however, the Arabians claim her. “A greater than Solomon is here.” The queen of Sheba went a great distance to be instructed by Solomon, yet “a greater than Solomon” was in the very midst of these Jews, and they would not hear him; hence, the example of the queen of Sheba condemned the Jews then and will condemn them “in the judgment.” The example of Solomon and the queen of Sheba reinforces the argument that Jesus based on Jonah and the Ninevites.
[In the days of Solomon the highest good man could attain for himself or bestow on others was to be attained by fearing God and keeping his commandments. This was the whole duty of man. When Jesus came he exclaimed, “Behold, a greater than Solomon is here.” He showed his superiority by bringing to the world greater and more heavenly laws embodying more of the divine spirit. Still the greatest good possible for man to enjoy or bestow is found in doing the commandments of God. The highest claim of excellence put forth by Jesus Christ was that he did the will of his Father who sent him. Any claim to a higher spirituality than can be attained through the faithful observance of God’s laws which were revealed through Christ is blasphemy.]
43-45 But the unclean spirit, when he is gone out of the man.—Jesus warns the Jews that the evil spirits which he had cast out would return, and if they found the man impenitent, they would take possession of his heart with greater malignity than ever and would hasten him on to ruin. The unclean spirit is represented as going “through waterless places, seeking rest, and findeth it not.” The Jews, Arabs, Egyptians, and others believed that deserts were the haunts of evil spirits. The words “wild beasts” and “owls” are referred to as inhabiting deserts. (Isaiah 34:14; Jeremiah 50:39.) Hence, the evil spirit finds habitation in the desert; it is represented as a man in a fever, who in vain turns to every side for ease, but finds none, or one whose nervous system is disorganized, and cannot remain still, but is driven about by restless madness; so a wicked soul is its own incessant curse; goodness is the soul’s health. The demon, driven by divine power from the hearts of men, is pictured by Jesus as going about searching for a fit abode and restless because no human heart is found for residence.
Then he saith, I will return into my house whence I came out.—That is, return to the living human frame, from whence it had been driven out. When it returns it finds the heart better suited for its abode; the impenitent heart is the fit dwelling place of Satan. When he returns “he findeth it empty, swept, and garnished.” What a garnishing is that which tempts the wicked one to return! Judas, as an individual, is an example of the truth of this parable; the Jewish nation, after the crucifixion of Jesus, illustrated this in terrific outlines. It is a dark picture of sin to find a heart where the best faculties become only as baits and allurements for the foul spirits to take up their abode. Many attractions and qualities which are valued by men are but parts of this evil adorning. Impenitent wills, mere physical beauty, learned talents are often the vanities which have changed the destiny of the soul and given it up to the powers of evil.
Then goeth he, and taketh with himself seven other spirits more evil than himself.—“Seven” was a favorite number with the Jews, and very often used to denote any finished or complete number, also to signify several persons or things, answering to our word “many.” (1 Samuel 2:5.) The evil spirit will not reenter weak and alone; he will take with him a strong reinforcement so as not again to be ejected. “The last state of that man becometh worse than the first.” This seems to indicate that there are different degrees of depravity among demons as well as among men; they are worse after having returned, and the man into whom they reenter is sevenfold worse. “Even so shall it be also unto this evil generation.” These words show Jesus’ application of the parable; we can now say so it was with that generation. The account given by Josephus of the last years of Jerusalem present a picture of infatuation, demoniac madness and crime such as the world has never elsewhere beheld. The parable refers not merely to verses thirty-eight to forty-two, but to the whole narrative (verses 22-42) which was occasioned by the miracle in verse twenty-two.
[There were evil spirits in those days who took possession of men’s hearts. When cast out, they were supposed to inhabit dry desert places. One was cast out and he walked through dry places, seeking rest, finding none. He said, “I will return into my house,” the heart whence he was cast out. He did so, found it empty, swept, fitted for the abode of a spirit, but none inhabited it. When the evil spirit had been cast out, he did not take it in a good spirit as he should have done.
The evil spirit, finding it unoccupied with a good spirit, entered in and took with him seven other spirits more wicked than himself, and the last state of that man is worse than the first. All, too, because he did not fill his heart with good when the evil was cast out. Jesus said it should be so with that evil generation. He had come and by his teaching checked the evil tendency; but as they failed to take him as their guiding spirit it would end in evil. They would be the worse for having known and rejected Jesus. This principle applies to men now.
If we know the truth, and fail to practice and obey it, the heart is hardened. We are the worse for having known it. The gospel is a savor of life unto life, or of death unto death.]
Matthew 12:46-50
46, 47 While he was yet speaking.—Other records of this may be found in Mark 3:31-35; Luke 8:19-21. This occurred in Galilee, but in what house we do not know. Jesus was in the house and was surrounded by a dense multitude; it may have been in a synagogue. Luke places this after the explanation of the parable of the sower, but he does not say “while” as does Matthew, but simply marks a transition without necessarily indicating any chronological connection. While he was crowded in the house “his mother and his brethren stood without, seeking to speak to him.” There is no reference to Joseph, Mary’s husband; in fact, he does not appear in gospel history after the period of Jesus’ childhood (Luke 2); it is likely that Joseph was dead; this is strengthened by the fact that “the carpenter’s son” (Matthew 13:55) is called in the parallel (Mark 6:3) “the carpenter,” as, according to the Jewish custom, he had, in all likelihood, assumed the position of his reputed father on the death of the latter. They desired “to speak to him.” We do not know what they desired to discuss with him; it may be that they intended more than a mere conversation, as he had been accused of being “beside himself.” (Mark 3:20-21.) “His burden”; this means his half brothers; probably the children of Mary or the children of Joseph by a former marriage.
We have no way of telling. Some have claimed that these were only cousins of Jesus.
Their names are given as James, Joses, Simon, and Judas. He had cousins whose names were the same, but these do not seem to be his cousins. “Brethren of the Lord” is used ten times in the New Testament and they are never called cousins. It is incredible, therefore, that they should have been other than literal brothers, “half brothers.” This supposition is strengthened by the fact that these brothers are mentioned in connection and in company with “his sisters” and his “mother,” all of whom collectively are called his “house” or family. If the mother was a literal mother, the sisters must have been literal sisters, and the brethren literal brothers. Mary the mother of Jesus seems to have had a sister by the same name, Mary; she had sons named James, Joses and Jude; it appears also that the brothers of Jesus were also named James, Joses, Jude, and Simon. Some argue that these brothers are the same and are only cousins to Jesus, but it is quite credible that two sisters, themselves of the same name, should purposely give corresponding names to three of their children.
One objection to this is that Jesus committed the keeping of his mother not to these brethren, but to the apostle John;they argue that if he had half brothers he would have committed her to them. This inference is not sound he did not choose his disciples from his own house, but from others.
He dealt in sharp words with his brothers. (John 7:7.) His brothers were not found among his believers until after the resurrection, hence Jesus chose to commit his mother unto the beloved disciple rather than to her other sons. This idea refutes the claim that Mary was at once a wife and a nun, and that she should be worshiped. However, many scholars claim that Mary had no children after the miraculous conception.
When it was reported to Jesus that his “mother and his brethren” were without desiring to speak to him, it furnished Jesus the occasion to teach a lesson on spiritual relationships.
48-50 But he answered and said unto him that told him, Who is my mother?—This does not cast any reflection on his mother, neither does it deny his fleshly relation; Jesus simply shows that spiritual ties are far more important, binding and sacred, than fleshly ties. Jesus respected his mother. (Luke 2:51; John 19:25-27.) He did not deify her, but left her to remain as other good women. The superstitious worship of Mary and the false conception that she is the fit mediatrix between us and her Son according to the flesh is shown to be false and foolish. Her relationship to Jesus gives her no greater influence with God than other good women. Jesus is the only mediator between God and man, and no priest, pope, or “deified saint” comes between man and God. While this does not imply disrespect toward his mother, neither should we infer from it that she did not believe in him, but it does imply a gentle rebuke of her interference with the movements of her Son, which, of course, he could not allow. He never let anything interfere with his work as the Savior of man.
And he stretched forth his hand towards his disciples, and said, Behold, my mother and my brethren!—It seems that Jesus refused, or at least delayed, to see his relatives long enough to teach an important lesson. There is nothing that is more closely related to Jesus than his disciples; the ties of human relationship are physical and temporal; the ties of Christ are spiritual and eternal. The connection of any saint with Jesus is greater than ties of blood relation. Jesus speaks of mother, brother, and sister but never of any human father. Jesus includes in the family of God all believers in him; he binds them together with strong ties of love and sympathy. “For whosoever shall do the will of my Father who is in heaven, he is my brother, and sister, and mother.” His relation to God was beautifully expressed in a spiritual sense when he throws all earthly relationships into the background and brings to the foreground his spiritual relationships. Obedience to God’s will is the spiritual test of our discipleship.
He calls those who obey the Father’s will by the endearing names of brother and sister and mother. Why?
Because he that obeys does all that the will of God requires. He believes, which is the first step and beginning of future obedience he repents of and confesses his sin; he is baptized into Christ, and grows in grace and in the knowledge of the truth, thus being partakers of the divine nature. Those who obey are members of his body, and members one of another.
[When men deliberately refuse to do the will of God, they are no longer brethren of the Lord. When they cease to be brethren of the Lord, they cease to constitute his church; and it certainly is not right to leave questions involving duty to God to those who deliberately refuse to obey God, that add to and take from his commandments.]