Matthew 12

CHAPTER XII

IX

Christ’s Clash With the Pharisees, Chapter 12

The fact that Jesus opposed the scribes and the Pharisees Matthew has indicated in 5:20. He now presents a number of instances in which the Pharisees come out boldly against Jesus. Matthew’s connections of time are of such a nature as to warrant the conclusion that all these incidents occurred in the order in which he records them and all within a few days.

Matthew 12:1

1 At that season (cf. 11:25) Jesus went on the Sabbath through the grain. Now his disciples were hungry and began to pluck ears and to eat. Judging from the ripeness of the grain, it must have been April, near the time of the Passover, a year before Jesus’ death. The hunger of the disciples is mentioned only in order to explain their action. Yes, Jesus and the disciples were hungry at times. Note τοῖςσάββασι (a plural) for “on the Sabbath,” and ἐνσαββάτῳ in v. 2 (a singular); the plural is used with reference to one Sabbath as well as to several. Deut. 23:25 permitted plucking a few ears in a neighbor’s grainfield.

Matthew 12:2

2 But when the Pharisees saw it they said to him, Lo, thy disciples are doing what it is not lawful to do on a Sabbath. The antagonism of the Pharisees (see 3:7) has already been noted in 9:11, 34, that of the scribes in 9:3. They kept constant watch on Jesus and were now thus engaged. Matthew makes the remark that they saw what the disciples were doing, and Luke says that they assailed the disciples, the attack, however, was directed against Jesus. The exclamation “lo” brings out the thought that these Pharisees pretended to be horrified while they were in reality glad that they had a clear case against Jesus. The charge is “doing what it is not lawful to do on a Sabbath,” οὐκἔξεστι.

It was a flagrant breaking of the law, namely of Exod. 20:10, as illustrated by Exod. 16:22, etc., but as interpreted according to the Patres Traditionum: He who reaps on the Sabbath is chargeable; and to pluck ears is a species of reaping. And whoever breaks off anything from its stalk is chargeable under the specification of reaping. The deeds which make a man chargeable with stoning and death if he does them presumptuously, or with a sacrifice if he sins ignorantly, are either generic or derivative. Thirty-nine kinds of the generic are enumerated: to plow, to sow, to reap, to bind sheaves, to thresh, to winnow, to grind, to pound, to powder, etc., to shear sheep, to dye wool, etc.; and the derivatives are of the same class and likeness: furrowing == plowing; cutting up vegetables == grinding; plucking ears == reaping.

Jesus assumes full responsibility for what his disciples are here doing although he himself plucked no ears. In the case of the other charges regarding the Sabbath the same was true: with his own hands Jesus did nothing on which the Jews could pounce. This gave Jesus the tactical advantage of defending others, not himself, and of compelling the Pharisees to raise the question about the real principle at issue: “Is it, or is it not, lawful?” instead of passionately assailing his person. The law itself was the issue, and what men did were only illustrations for or against it. This was wisdom and mastery.

Matthew 12:3

3 But he said to them, Did you not read what David did when he was hungry and those with him? how he entered into the house of God and ate the showbread, which it was not lawful for him to eat nor for those with him but only for the priests? Jesus lays his finger on the real trouble: too much reading of rabbinical law and not enough of divine law. Of course, the Pharisees had read 1 Sam. 21, but not as interpreting Exod. 20:10. The ἄρτοιτῆςπροθέσεως, “the bread-loaves of the setting forth,” were twelve loaves, each made of about 6¼ pounds of flour, set forth in two rows on a gold-covered table in the Holy Place every Sabbath day, and, when removed, to be eaten only by the priests, Lev. 24:5–9. Jesus assumes that the Pharisees agree with him that David, whom they esteemed so highly, did the right thing in the instance to which reference is made.

Matthew 12:4

4 David did not enter the Holy Place and take the loaves there set forth. “House of God” includes the courts of the Tabernacle, as in Ps. 122. The bread which Ahimelech gave David was that which had been removed from the Holy Place yet was considered “most holy,” Lev. 24:9. The point is that David ate of this bread, and this act was οὐκἐξόν (present neuter participle), “unlawful”; it was made so, not by a rabbinical finding, but by the divine ceremonial law itself. Jesus overtops the charge of the Pharisees. He proves by David’s own example that even the ceremonial law was not absolute in its application. The rabbinical refinements are ignored as being unworthy of notice.

We must not misunderstand the hunger of David and his companions: they were not starving to death but were only badly in need of food. Already this sufficed to set the ceremonial law aside. God cares far more for the proper spiritual condition of the heart than for the outward observance of his own ceremonial regulations.

The argument is overwhelming. David’s hunger sets aside even a divine regulation; shall not the hunger of the disciples set aside mere rabbinical notions?

Matthew 12:5

5 Jesus does not stop with the first argument, which from the one case of David by inference limited all ceremonial laws, including the sabbatical law, in their application. To the generic he adds the specific. Or did you not read in the law that on the Sabbath the priests in the Temple profane the Sabbath and are guiltless? But I say to you that something greater than the Temple is here. Of course, the Pharisees had read the very matter to which Jesus here refers. He words it in a staggering manner: one reads in the law (the Old Testament) itself that on the very Sabbath the divinely appointed priests in the very most holy Temple profane the Sabbath, βεβηλοῦσιν, make it common or unholy.

The climaxes are piled high. The law breaks the law—in the very Temple—by its own priests—and yet these lawbreaking priests are ἀναίτιοι, no indictment under any law (this is the sense of the term) standing against them. If the other example was not directly concerned with the Sabbath, this one makes up for it. What the law itself (for instance, Num. 28:9, etc.) commanded the priests to do in the Temple was to break the Sabbath law right on the Sabbath by all this butchering of sacrificial animals and a large amount of other work. And the Pharisees had never perceived this in the law!

So the law itself shows that its ceremonial requirements are not absolute and he who makes them so contradicts that law itself. The ceremonial law is itself subservient to a higher law and principle. It, indeed, required certain outward restrictions on labor in the old covenant, but it also required certain laborious ministrations in the Jewish Temple. Both were required, yet not on their own account but only for the spiritual need of the people. By the satisfying of this need a good and gracious God was honored and not by a lot of outward regulations and forms. These latter were the shell and no more. In the new covenant all of them were abolished, even the Sabbath itself and all the Temple sacrifices and the priests of the Temple into the bargain.

Matthew 12:6

6 With the voice of authority, “But I say to you,” Jesus now makes the striking application to what his disciples were doing by plucking ears on the Sabbath to appease their hunger. We prefer the neuter μεῖζον, “something greater than the Temple is here,” to the masculine μείζων, “One greater.” In order to understand this neuter note that all three cases refer to the Temple: David went to “the house of God”—the priests serve in the Temple—and here in the case of the disciples is something greater than the Temple. The neuter μείζον is due to this parallel with οἶκος and with ἱερόν, with which a direct personal designation would not be so fitting. The gradation thus is: 1) the Tabernacle (David), 2) the Temple, 3) something greater, i.e., the presence of the God-man himself, of whom both Tabernacle and Temple were a symbol or a type. In the case of all three something occurs that is contrary to the Pharisaic conception but perfectly in harmony with the divine thought which gave to Israel Tabernacle, Temple, and the presence: David eats the showbread; the priests butcher sacrifices; the disciples pluck ears. And the last act is not even a breach of the ceremonial law but is only thought to be such by the Pharisees. The argument is: if God’s Word sanctions the acts of David and of the priests, it cannot condemn the act of the disciples.

In v. 3 the argument is from the major (the holy showbread) to the minor (ears of grain). In v. 5 the argument is from the minor (the Temple) to the major (something greater than the Temple). Both are equally unanswerable. In v. 6, moreover, the full divine authority of Jesus meets presumptuous Pharisees. He who is greater than Tabernacle and Temple is here, he who alone has authority to judge what constitutes a violation of the Sabbath which is served by Tabernacle and Temple. Against these arrogant Pharisees who never read the law aright and yet arrogate this judgment to themselves Jesus protects his disciples by asserting the full might of this authority.

Those were little ears of grain, but they were the occasion for pointing the Pharisees to the presence that is greater than the Temple. What must these fanatics have thought when Jesus thus pointed to himself? As he stood there amid the waving grain on that beautiful April day, his majestic presence and words must have overawed and at least for the time being silenced them.

Matthew 12:7

7 The argument now reaches its climax, revealing both the inwardness of the law under which the Jews then lived and of which they knew nothing, and the inwardness of the Son of man who, while he was at that time a servant of the law for our sakes, was at the same time “Lord of the law.” But if you had known what this means, Mercy I want and not sacrifice, you would not have condemned the guiltless. For Lord of the Sabbath is the Son of man. R. 904 makes the past perfect ἐγνώκειτε a virtual imperfect. Then the condition would be one of present unreality: “if you knew,” and the conclusion one of past unreality: “you would not have condemned.” But B.-D. 347, 3 points out that the past perfect is more or less aoristic, and this can well be applied in this case, allowing the condition, too, to be one of past unreality: “if you had known.” Perhaps the past perfect intends to add the idea of duration in the past. “If you had known” is a climax to the two questions, “Did you not read?” Jesus quotes Hos. 6:6 (as in 9:13). “Mercy,” ἔλεος, is pity and sympathy for anyone in distress (5:7; Luke 6:36); θυσία is a sacrifice sent up in smoke, also the act of bringing sacrifice. As between the two, God wants the former. While he himself has ordered sacrifice, sacrifice alone could never satisfy him. God wanted the sacrifice of a true heart, one full of mercy, for instance, toward hungry fellow men, and corresponding acts for God’s sake.

Jesus is not speaking of mere humanitarian pity, nor of merciful actions inspired by the law. The mercy that Hosea refers to comes from the gospel, which fills also the Old Testament. It is born of the new life kindled by this gospel. And so this mercy is known by the inner experience of having it and of putting it to delightful practice. When the Pharisees condemned the disciples, who were utterly guiltless, having transgressed not even a ceremonial law, they revealed that Hos. 6:6 (and every other gospel word similar to that) was foreign territory to them. Men’s actions reveal what affinity they have for God’s Word and how they meet or fail to meet what God really wants.

Matthew 12:8

8 The γάρ is usually regarded as substantiating τοὺςἀναιτίους: “I, as Lord of the Sabbath, find them guiltless.” But this γάρ includes much more. The entire exposition regarding the Sabbath is given by Jesus as the Lord who has instituted the Sabbath, who thus knows what the Sabbath law involves. The emphasis is on κύριος, but this does not imply that as Lord of the Sabbath Jesus can disregard the Sabbath, set it aside, do what he may please with it. As Lord of the Sabbath, who instituted it, he upholds it, he will tolerate no Pharisaical interference with its true purpose. It is thus that Jesus protects his disciples against the charge (αἰτία) that they are violating the Sabbath. As Lord of the Sabbath he would be the first to condemn every violation. As Lord of the Sabbath he is now condemning the Pharisees’ perversion of the Sabbath. “Lord of the Sabbath” has the same meaning as “something greater than the Temple.” Sabbath and Temple go together, Jesus maintains both and rids both of Jewish perversion.

As “the Son of man” (see 8:20) Jesus is Lord of the Sabbath, and his presence is something greater than the Temple. The entire ceremonial law, all Jewish worship, in particular Sabbath and Temple, were arranged, not by God as Elohim, but as Yahweh, as part of the plan of salvation, and were thus under the Messiah as being κύριος of it all. Hence not as the essential Son but as the God-man Jesus was Lord of the Sabbath, and, we may add, of the Temple, “my Father’s house.” He who thus was above all these institutions was now here to fulfill all that they implied (5:17). He who had instituted the Sabbath law was fulfilling the Sabbath law, and he would be the last to let his own disciples become guilty of any violation. But in the Son of man and in his fulfillment the whole ceremonial law would accomplish its purpose and would thus become ineffective as no longer being needed. This would come about through the death and the resurrection of the Son of man.

The new covenant without ceremonies would supersede the old with its ceremonies. Thus the Temple and the Sabbath and all the sacrifices would disappear.

It is a mistake to think that Jesus was already abolishing the Sabbath, Temple, etc. The Christian Sunday still lay in the future. Jesus was still under the law, redeeming them that were under the law, Gal. 4:4, 5. After Pentecost, led by the Spirit, the apostles and the church would in perfect Christian liberty choose a day for divine public worship; but this would not be another law and Sabbath but only a free expression of their desire to use the Word in public and unitedly and in proper order to worship the Lord. Col. 2:16, 17; Concordia Triglotta, 91, §§ 57–60.

Matthew 12:9

9 The second clash is also one regarding the Sabbath; but this one was incited by the action of Jesus himself. Matthew reports far more regarding this case than Mark 3:1–6, and Luke 6:6–11. And after departing thence he went into their synagogue, i.e., that of the Pharisees just mentioned. But Luke shows that this was done on another Sabbath.

Matthew 12:10

10 And, Io, a man having a withered hand! And they inquired of him, saying, If it is lawful to heal on the Sabbath (let us know)? in order that they might accuse him. Dramatically attention is drawn to the man and to his infirmity. A hand that is withered and shriveled is beyond human help. Mark and Luke state only that the Pharisees watched Jesus to see whether he would heal him, so that they might accuse him; Luke adds that Jesus knew their thoughts. From Matthew we learn that these thoughts did not remain unspoken.

Jesus, knowing them, compelled the Pharisees to speak. They, of course, hide their evil intention in order to secure a legal charge against him. They say that all they want to know is whether it is lawful to heal on the Sabbath (the dative is plural and is used interchangeably with the singular to designate a Sabbath, v. 1, 2). On the use of εἰ before direct questions see R. 916; B.-D. 440, 3; it is probably elliptical as far as the Greek is concerned: “Tell us, or we would know, if,” etc. We see how little impression Christ’s word regarding mercy has made on them, v. 7. They still ask only ἔξεστι, “is it lawful,” and not, “is it merciful?”

Matthew 12:11

11 But he said to them, What man shall there be of you who shall have one sheep, and if this shall fall into a pit on the Sabbath, will he not lay hold of it and lift it out? By how much, then, does a man excel a sheep? Wherefore it is lawful to do good on the Sabbath. From Mark and from Luke we learn that Jesus made the man with the withered hand stand forth before the whole assembly in the synagogue. The scene was dramatic. Matthew alone records the example of the sheep.

The argument is ex concesso: no man present would let even the one sheep lie in the pit; whatever exertion and work its rescue entailed he would perform on the Sabbath and would not think that he had broken the law. “One” sheep is sometimes understood to mean: therefore it was the more valuable. But the reverse seems to be correct: for a whole flock one might do a great deal, but one lone sheep amounts to nothing. The argument is from the minor to the major, and thus the idea is to make the value of the sheep as low as possible.

Matthew 12:12

12 This is brought out in so many words. A man, a human being, certainly excels a lone sheep, διαφέρει differs vastly from it in value. The two questions regarding the sheep answer themselves. No man present would dare to risk giving contrary answers. And now Jesus draws the conclusion. In Mark and in Luke this is done by means of a question which presents the alternatives involved.

These evangelists also remark regarding the silence of the Pharisees. Because of this silence Matthew makes only the brief assertion the conclusion of his account. “Wherefore it is (indeed) lawful to do good on the Sabbath.” Here we have one of those cases when the question had to be corrected before an answer could be given. The Pharisees had posited the alternative: “to do or not to do?” And they answered, “No doing at all on the Sabbath.” The moment the question is rightly put: “to do good or to do harm; to save a life or to kill” (Mark 3:4; Luke 6:9); or, as Matthew has it: καλῶςποιεῖν, to perform actions that have moral qualities, the question answers itself. Deeds that are morally excellent would grace only the old Jewish legal Sabbath. Such a deed was the restoration of the shriveled hand. A blessing such as this certainly harmonized well with the Sabbath which was intended as a blessing to man.

To leave the man unhealed would be κακῶςποιεῖν, to act with moral baseness, the greatest desecration of the old Sabbath.

The second alternative which Jesus states: “to save life or to kill, i.e., destroy life,” carries the question to its ultimate extreme. It would be the highest moral excellence actually to save life, and it would be the basest deed to destroy life, by either killing outright, or by killing indirectly, by refusing to rescue from mortal danger. The ultimate always includes the less that is of the same nature. Thus in Matt. 5:21, etc., murder includes the lesser sins that Jesus names; and in v. 27, etc., adultery does the same. Here in the synagogue Jesus answers the whole question at issue, of which the healing of a withered hand on the Sabbath is only a part. But could not Jesus wait and do his healing on a weekday? To have waited would have left the impression on all concerned that it was, indeed, unlawful to heal on the Sabbath, the very error Jesus was determined to eradicate.

Matthew 12:13

13 Then he says to the man, who was standing before the assembly, Stretch forth thy hand! And he stretched it forth, and it was restored sound like the other. Instantaneously and before the very eyes of all the withered hand (Luke, the right one) became as sound and as well as the other. Thus omnipotence works. Let modern healing cults equal it. Matthew states only the facts. They are so tremendous that embroidering them with words would only detract from their significance. But Jesus makes the case hard for the Pharisees. He does not so much as touch the hand, he does not even command that it be healed; he only asks the man to raise his hand, that is all. Was this “work” in the Pharisaic sense of the word? Even their perverted minds would have a hard task trying to prove this.

Matthew 12:14

14 But after they had gone out the Pharisees took counsel against him that they destroy him.The enormity of this reaction speaks for itself. Luke remarks about their rage, and Mark that they joined efforts with the Herodians. The ὅπες clause is like the infinitive (cf., B.-P. on the word) and states what was actually resolved (ἔλαβον, aorist), namely to destroy Jesus. R. 994 makes it an indirect deliberative question. To heal on the Sabbath—a mortal crime; but to plot murder—a perfectly lawful act!

Matthew 12:15

15 Now when Jesus realized it he withdrew thence; and many followed him, and he healed them all and charged them that they should not make him public. Until the time for his death came, Jesus used all prudence and withdrew from violence, the last resort of vanquished opponents. “Them all” is used ad sensum with reference to the sick—not one was left without help. In addition to retiring from the plotting Pharisees Jesus strongly urged that (ἵνα in an object clause) his miracles be not used to make him φανερός, thus exciting still more opposition.

Matthew 12:17

17 All this activity of Jesus, plus the manner of it, is fulfillment of prophecy: in order that it might be fulfilled what was spoken through Isaiah, the prophet, saying, etc. On this formula of quotation see the exposition of 1:22. Yahweh is the agent of ῥηθέν, and διά marks the human instrument. This is Verbal Inspiration. In the written Isaiah we have what God spoke, and Isaiah 40–60 is composed by Isaiah and not by someone else. Isa. 42:1–4 reads:

Lo, my Servant, whom I did select,

My Beloved, in whom my soul is well-pleased.

I will place my Spirit upon him,

And he shall announce right to the Gentiles.

He will not wrangle, nor will he shout;

Nor shall anyone hear his voice in the streets.

A reed that has been bruised he will not break in pieces,

And a flax smoking he will not quench

Until he puts forth to victory the right.

And in his name Gentiles shall hope.

Matthew follows the Hebrew and not the LXX, save in the last line, v. 21, where for lethoratho, “for his law,” he has, like the LXX, “in his name.” Matthew omits the first line of Isa. 42:4: “He shall not fail,” etc. These and a few minor points are no warrant for the conclusion that Matthew followed some Targum instead of the Hebrew, or had peculiar readings in his Hebrew original. The purpose of the quotation is not literal reproduction of the original but application of the ancient prophecy to the great beginnings of its fulfillment. The best commentary on the Hebrew text is Aug. Pieper’s Jesaias II., 116, etc.

Matthew contradicts the Jewish-rabbinical and the naturalistic-modernistic exegesis which states that this Servant (παῖς) and this Beloved of Yahweh is the people of Israel and not the Messiah, Christ. This exegesis finds support in the LXX, which has “Jacob, my servant,” and “Israel, my chosen.” This support vanishes when, with Pieper, we note that the great concept “Servant of Jehovah” like “Seed of Abraham” resembles a pyramid: its broad base is the whole nation; on this rests the believing part of the nation; and on this rests the apex, Christ. Or, in the broad circle of humanity the center is Christ, the second Adam; in the narrower circle of the Jewish nation the center is Christ, the other David; in the silll narrower circle of believers the center is Christ, the Seed (one, Gal. 3:16). The interpretative translation of the LXX thus does not lend support to naturalistic conceptions.

Dramatically this great person is introduced: “Lo,” here he is! “My Servant,” “my Beloved” = Jehovah’s own. Both titles should be considered in connection with the added relative clauses which express his great mission. Jehovah took him with great firmness (’ethmak-bo), ᾑρέτισα, “chose him,” to perform the great Messianic task; and he is the one in whom Jehovah’s soul delights, thus ὁἀγαπητός (3:17); there is nothing in him that could displease Jehovah:

After this description of Christ’s relation to his Sender we learn about his equipment and his task. “My Spirit” is his equipment, 3:16; this is sent down on him to enable his human nature to do its great part. Here the entire Trinity appears in working out our redemption. “My Spirit” and not outward, mere earthly power and glory. For it is his mission “to announce right to the Gentiles,” Hebrew, “to bring it out to them.” The idea is that from the chosen people, among whom this “right” has its home, Jehovah’s Servant shall carry it out to all the world, which, of course, will be done by means of the Word. Mishpat, κρίσις is not “religion” but “right” as established forensically at the judgment bar of Jehovah. Christ brings it with gentleness (v. 19) not with force; it neither bruises nor breaks (v. 20); in it the Gentiles hope (v. 21). This “right” is not the Sinaitic law but the gospel verdict which conveys “righteousness,” δικαιοσύνη, the acquittal of pardon through God’s grace. Back of it lies redemption.

This description of Christ’s mission takes in its ultimate object, the bringing of the gospel of grace, redemption, and justification from Israel, where it was prepared, to the whole Gentile world. This is what Matthew saw occurring at this time. How Christ’s present work was already reaching out to the Gentiles we see in Mark 3:8: Idumea, Tyre, and Sidon.

Matthew 12:19

19 “He will not wrangle,” etc., describes the manner in which he will make his announcement of the divine verdict; we see the fulfillment in v. 15. His method is the opposite of violence; he will not even cry down his opponents. He is no turbulent agitator. He wins by meekness.

Matthew 12:20

20 Beautiful are the figures which picture what Jehovah’s Servant will actually do for men. The soul about to perish is “a reed that has been bruised” and is now in that condition, “a flax (wick) smoking,” the flame being almost out, as the smoke indicates. Why bother with them? But to all such souls the love of Christ goes out. The negatives “he will not break in pieces” by treading down, “he will not quench” form a litotes, negation where the corresponding affirmation is intended: he will make that reed whole again, will make that flaxen wick burn brightly. Those who are destroyed by sin he will save. This is fitting when it is applied to Christ, but great difficulty is encountered when the Jewish nation is regarded as the Servant.

Some interpreters devote a good deal of discussion to Matthew’s substitution of εἰςνῖκος, “unto victory,” for Isaiah’s le’emeth (LXX εἰςἀλήθειαν), “unto truth.” But the Hebrew means only “in reality and truth,” cf., 1 John 3:18, i.e., with actual success. Hence v. 21 (and the entire fourth verse of Isaiah), which, according to the prophet’s frequent usage, verifies this success. Actually to bring the gospel “right” or righteousness to success is to put it forth “to victory.” Matthew translates the thought and is not hampered by mechanical literalism.

Matthew 12:21

21 Matthew omits the first two lines of Isa. 42:4. We need not speculate about the reason for this abbreviation. It lies in the phrase “to victory,” which has already expressed the thought of the omitted lines, namely, that Christ shall not fail. So Matthew closes with the final line: “And in his name Gentiles shall hope,” reproducing: “And the isles shall wait for his law.” The rendering is plainly interpretative. The inhabitants of the islands were Gentiles. To wait for is to hope.

And Torah (“law”) is his Name. Here we have one of the many instances in which the ὄνομα denotes “the revelation” which makes Christ (or God) known to men, only part of which is expressed in the special terms used as personal names. This waiting and hoping is misunderstood when in Pelagian fashion it is regarded as an unconscious religious desire for Christ and the gospel on the part of the so-called better class of pagans. 1 Cor. 1:23 teaches the opposite. This waiting and hoping expresses the great need of Christ on the part of the pagan world. In the whole world the heathen find nothing that can save them; their only hope is Christ. This objective fact is put into fervent subjective form by the poetic prophet (Isa. 40–66 is one grand poem, the greatest ever penned by human hands).

Matthew 12:22

22 Then was brought to him a demoniac, blind and dumb; and he healed him so that the dumb was speaking and seeing. “Then” means at this season (v. 1). Matthew selects another notable clash with the Pharisees that occurred at this time. The miracle that furnished the occasion is, therefore, only briefly sketched: the sufferer was brought, blind and dumb, and healed so that he spoke and saw.

Matthew 12:23

23 And amazed were all the multitudes and kept saying, Can this be the Son of David? The aorist recites only the fact of the amazement, while the imperfect pictures how this question circulated and continued to be raised. The interrogative μήτι has a negative implication: “We can hardly think so.” At the same time it conveys the idea that this negation is quite doubtful: “It seems as though he is after all.” R. 917. Their unbelief is breaking before the astounding miracle. The English can render this μήτι only imperfectly; the German is more flexible: Doch nicht etwa ist dieser der Sohn Davids? Οὗτος is purely deictic, R. 697, and “the Son of David” is the Messiah (1:1).

Matthew 12:24

24 The Pharisees were not present. When the Pharisees heard it they said, This fellow does not expel the demons except in connection with Beelzebul, ruler of the demons. When they discovered what was passing from mouth to mouth the Pharisees tried to check the growing conviction. Their οὗτος is highly derogatory: “this fellow.” So also their explanation is negative: “does not … except,” etc. They intend to say that he himself is unable by his own power to expel demons; the only way in which he does it is by some connection with Satan. These demons leave their victims only at Satan’s behest, by obeying their ruler with whom Jesus is in league. Ἐν is usually called “instrumental”: “by” or “through,” which, however, changes the thought.

R. 590 makes it locative, which is hard to visualize. The preposition simply means “in connection or in union with Beelzebul.” On this name for Satan see 10:25. The absence of the article before ἄρχοντι does not make Beelzebul only one of the rulers any more than “Herod, king of Galilee,” is made one of the kings of Galilee by the absence of “the” before “king.”

Some would cancel 9:34, on the plea that this verse inserts what happened later. Likewise it is said that 10:24–33 was spoken at a later time because of v. 25 and Beelzebul. In reality this blasphemy began early in the ministry of Jesus, just as Matthew indicates in 9:34, and was finally advanced with great boldness, as we now see. Therefore Jesus now crushes this vicious blasphemy.

Matthew 12:25

25 Jesus called the Pharisees to him (Mark 3:23) and made his full reply to them. But knowing their thoughts, he said to them, Every kingdom divided against itself becomes waste; and every city or house divided against itself will not stand. The Pharisees said nothing in Jesus’ presence, but he knew their thoughts about himself, i.e., the vicious, blind hatred from which their blasphemy had sprung. In his reply to them he meets also these their thoughts. The two observations with which Jesus begins sum up the universal experience which no sane man contradicts. A kingdom, city, or house, once divided against itself (μερισθεῖσα, aorist passive participle), one part fighting the other, is devastated and as a result will not stand, i.e., goes down in ruin. This is the major premise.

Matthew 12:26

26 Now the minor, introduced by “if,” since it embodies the assertion of the Pharisees: “If it were true as you boldly claim.” And if Satan expels Satan, he was divided against himself. And now the conclusion (οὖν) in the form of a question, showing the utter absurdity of the Pharisaic claim: How, then, shall his kingdom stand? How strong the absurdity is the idea of Satan expelling Satan makes plain. This is not one Satan expelling another Satan, as some would suppose, for only one Satan exists. But he acts through his demons, and thus, if he did the expelling through Jesus, in a very real sense he would, indeed, be expelling himself. For the sake of the argument the present indicative ἐκβάλλει after εἰ assumes that the untrue assertion of the Pharisees is true.

R. 1008. The aorist ἐμερίσθη may be gnomic and thus timeless, or it may intend to imply that even before Satan expelled himself he was already divided. The conclusion: “Therefore his kingdom will not stand,” is made a question with “how,” thus forcing upon the Pharisees the giving of an answer which neither they nor anyone else can give.

Opposition to Jesus upsets men’s logic. They may put forth as being convincingly sound what is absurdly unsound. The view that as a ruse and to gain other evil purposes Satan might allow Jesus to expel a demon is refuted by the fact that Jesus expelled all the demons he found in possession of men; and no other purpose of Satan has ever been pointed out for his allowing Jesus to expel these demons.

Matthew 12:27

27 And if I in connection with Beelzebul expel the demons, your sons—in connection with whom do they expel them? For this they shall be your judges. This second proof rests on the first. The emphasis is on the subjects: “I—your sons.” The latter are not physical sons or pupils of the Pharisees but, as is suggested by the similar expression “sons of the prophets,” Genossen eurer Zunft, experts of your own guild of whom you approve and are proud, because they are able to expel demons. The fact that Satan neither could nor would lend himself to such expulsions, v. 25, 26 have put beyond question. Whoever drives out devils can do so only by being in the necessary connection with God.

What a desperate self-contradiction, therefore, to claim that when Jesus drives them out, this is done in connection with Satan; but when their own experts drive them out, this is done in connection with God! Something is viciously wrong with men who ascribe the identical effect to absolutely opposite causes. “Because of this,” i.e., the thing Jesus here exposes, “they,” their own associates, “shall be their judges” before God’s judgment bar. God will let these Pharisaic exorcists pronounce sentence on these blaspheming Pharisees. What their verdict will be need not be stated.

The argument of Jesus has been considered apart from v. 25, 26, and has been inverted. And this is done on the basis of Josephus’ Wars 7, 6, 3; Ant. 8, 2, 5, the story of the drawing of a demon through the nose by means of a mythical root, called Baaras, which is secured in a truly magical manner. Acts 19:13, etc., is quoted. But the reason for this is not apparent. The conclusion is drawn that in their exorcism these Pharisaic exorcists used witchcraft and charms which contained the names of demons. The argument of Jesus is said to be this: your sons drive out devils by means of devils; how, then, can you object to me for driving out devils by the help of the chief devil? your own sons will convict you of injustice.

But if this were the argument, Jesus would not deny but rather admit and defend his connection with Beelzebul and would prove only that the Pharisees were the last persons who had a right to blame him for such a connection. We cannot assume that the sons of Sceva mentioned in Acts 19:13 substituted the name of Jesus for the name of some demon they had before used because they regarded the former as being more potent. The way in which they tried to use the name of Jesus indicates that hitherto they had used some sacred not some demon formula. The Son of God cannot admit even for the sake of argument that he uses the power of Beelzebul.

Matthew 12:28

28 But if I in connection with God’s Spirit expel the demons, then the kingdom of God did already reach to you. This is the proper conclusion to be drawn from the fact that Jesus is expelling the demons as the Pharisees constantly see him doing. Back of this conclusion lies the logical dilemma: either a connection with God or one with Satan; tertium non datur. The connection with Satan has already been exploded as being absurd and impossible, v. 25–27. Hence the connection with God alone is left. The Spirit of God is mentioned because in Christ’s work all three divine persons are active (3:11, 16; 12:18), and it is the Third Person whose special task it is to build the kingdom on earth. Jesus expelled the demons by his word alone, and every word of his is the product of the Spirit.

Thus every demon expulsion effected by Jesus is so much evidence of the Spirit’s presence and work, in other words, so much blessed proof that “the kingdom of God did already reach to you,” φθάνειν, “to overtake,” “to reach or arrive,” thus used especially in the New Testament. The tense is interesting: the demon expulsions show that the kingdom is not merely on the way but “did already reach to you” (we should say “has reached,” R. 842), is in your very midst. Here Jesus uses the expression “the kingdom of God” to correspond with “God’s Spirit,” whereas he otherwise employs the expression the kingdom of the heavens. The sense is quite the same. On this βασιλεία see 3:2, die Koenigsherrschaft, the rule of God as the King. This royal divine rule has reached to you, is present as having arrived for you, and you can see it in the abject defeat of Satan and his demons in every demoniac’s deliverance.

Only devilish minds could deny what was so evident. In all of the Gospels the Spirit is mentioned as the Third Person of the Trinity without the slightest objection on the part of any Pharisee.

Matthew 12:29

29 The whole matter is made clear by an illustration which Luke 11:21, 22 reports with a little more detail. Or, if this matter of God’s Messianic kingdom for which you have been looking and hoping seems strange to you, answer this simple question: how can one enter the house of the strong and plunder his goods unless he first binds the strong? Then he shall plunder his goods. Isa. 49:25 seems to have suggested this question to Jesus. The tertium in the illustration is the fact that complete defeat must precede the act of plundering: God’s kingdom must have come before demoniacs could be liberated as Jesus was liberating them. “The strong” is Satan although in the case of this singular the article is generic, R. 757.

Satan is like a powerful brigand or robber. His οἰκία or “house” is his lair or dwelling, here the kingdom of Satan, in which he is ἄρχων or ruler (v. 24). Luke adds the details about his being armed and guarding his goods. For τὰσκεύηαὐτοῦ Luke has τὰὑπάρχοντααὐτοῦ;his “goods” are his “possessions,” such as the demoniacs whom Satan has in his power. Now, how can anyone do what Jesus is doing right along: go in and “plunder” the strong man’s goods, take them away, snatch demoniacs out of Satan’s power without first actually “binding” (δήσῃ) this strong bandit? This binding was the victory recorded in 4:1–11.

The objection that the latter was moral while the power over the demoniacs was physical, is irrelevant, since Satan gained his physical power to hurt by his moral victory in tempting man into sin. Hence the victory of Jesus reversed this moral victory by vanquishing Satan in another temptation.

It was thus that the kingdom did already reach to you (v. 28), quod erat demonstrandum, as Zahn puts it. “And then he will plunder his house,” i.e., at will, just as Jesus is taking the demoniacs from Satan at will. This statement clinches the point. All that Jesus here says would be senseless if Satan were not the personal being he is represented to be in the Scriptures from Gen. 3 onward, and if demoniacal possession, like the demons themselves, were an ordinary mental ailment.

Matthew 12:30

30 Up to this point Jesus’ reply to the Pharisees is strictly objective, dealing with Satan and Jesus, correcting the wrong thoughts of the Pharisees (v. 25, “knowing,” etc.). Now the discourse becomes subjective and, although for the greater part it retains the third person it reaches its climax in the second, in v. 34 and 37. The general personal principle is first laid down: He that is not with me is against me; and he that does not gather with me scatters. This is regarded as self-evident. In the case of Jesus neutrality is impossible. In μετά we have personal association and attachment, and in κατά, “down on me,” hostility.

But we cannot agree that at this time the Pharisees were trying to assume a neutral position, and that v. 24 is only an expression of embarrassment on their part, that they were at a loss for a better explanation; the very next verses refute this view. The Pharisees were against Jesus; from the very moment when they decided not to be “with him” they had swung to the other side. In the battle against Satan every man who does not side with Jesus is against him and for Satan. Luke 9:50 and Mark 9:40 agree with this view; for to do a miracle or a kind deed “in Jesus’ name” is neither neutral nor hostile to Jesus.

Both attitudes have their immediate effect on others: the one gathers, the other scatters. Since no objects are mentioned, of the three suggested: sheep, grain, and fish, we choose the first (9:36; 10:6; John 10:12, where σκορπίζει is also used in connection with sheep). The great work of Jesus was to gather the lost sheep; the wolf, Satan, scattered them.

Matthew 12:31

31 For this reason I say to you, every sin and blasphemy will be remitted to men, but the blasphemy against the Spirit will not be remitted. “For this reason” means: because neutrality in regard to Jesus is impossible, since he who is not with him is thereby already against him. This makes it necessary for Jesus to tell the Pharisees and for them to know about the possibilities in regard to finding remission. This is, indeed, great, including every sin no matter what it may be, even blasphemy, mocking and vicious utterances directly against God or holy things connected with God. But the one exception is the blasphemy against the Spirit. Here the possibility of remission comes to an end.

The verb ἀφίημι means “to send away,” to remove the sin from the sinner so that he is free of it, and so that the sin can never be found and charged againt him before the judgment bar of God. This verb as well as its noun ἄφεσις, “sending away,” “remission,” are the most blessed terms in the Scriptures. The agent in the passives is God; he alone remits. The futures are predictive; see R. 873 which discusses their expression by “shall” or “will.”

Matthew 12:32

32 The matter is so important that Jesus restates and amplifies. And whoever shall say a word against the Son of man, it will be remitted to him; but whoever will say it against the Holy Spirit, it will not be remitted to him neither in this eon nor in the one to come. Blasphemy is now defined; it means “to say a word against the Son of man” or “against the Holy Spirit.” The parallel shows that, like the former, the latter is also a person. It is now evident that the genitive τοῦΠνεύματος in v. 31 is objective (R. 494, 500), for it is restated by κατά, “against” (“down on,” R. 607). The blasphemy that may be pardoned is now specified; it is that “against the Son of man” (see 8:20), the divine Savior and Son of God in human form. “To say a word” means to utter a statement such as the one uttered by the Pharisees in v. 24. But when it is directed against the Holy Spirit, such blasphemy is absolutely unpardonable. “The Spirit, the Holy One,” puts emphasis on both terms and. makes the adjective a sort of climax in apposition with the noun, R. 776, last paragraph. “This eon” is the vast period of time as marked by the form and the condition of things that now fill it. “In this world” will do as a translation as long as time is kept in mind and not merely place. “The eon to come” is the world age that shall follow in the consummation at the last day when heaven and earth are joined. The temporal term αἰών is still retained although eternity is the opposite of time, namely, timelessness; this retention is due to our mental inability to think of anything apart from time.

Jesus is warning the Pharisees who had never believed in him. Hence the sin against the Holy Ghost may be committed, not only by former believers (Heb. 6:4–6; 10:26–31; 1 John 5:16), but also by men who have never believed. Zahn’s effort to make all sins in which men persist impenitently to the end the sin against the Holy Ghost is contradicted by the entire teaching of Scripture on the subject of sin. The distinctive mark of this one sin is blasphemy, and this the blasphemy against God’s Spirit. The fact that a large number of other sins fails of pardon and brings damnation, and that in varying degrees, is shown, for instance, in 11:21, 24.

It is rationalizing to assert that the expressions “in this eon” and “in the one to come” imply that one may die without pardon and yet at the end of the world obtain pardon. This view assumes that the phrases are in opposition to each other. But οὔτε—οὔτε does not involve an opposition. The second phrase is added to reinforce the first: “neither in time nor in eternity,” i.e., absolutely never. The sense is that the man who blasphemes the Spirit thereby and at that moment places himself at a point where God’s pardon cannot possibly reach him. He is then in the same hopeless position as the devils.

Jesus’ words already now pronounce upon him the verdict of damnation. “In the one to come” teaches no purgatory and no probation after death as though for other sins that are less fatal remission may be had in the hereafter. The only judgment in the world to come is that pronounced at the last day, and in its verdict this is identical with the judgment pronounced on every man at the time of his death.

Jesus does not state in so many words what gives such an exceptional quality to blasphemy against the Spirit. Yet this quality is indicated. The Pharisees were evidently on the verge of forever placing themselves beyond pardon. Jesus points this out in v. 28: he is expelling demons “in connection with God’s Spirit.” By blaspheming Jesus (v. 24) the Pharisees came very near to blaspheming God’s Spirit.

All other sins and other blasphemies are, of course, never pardoned unless repentance (3:2; 4:17), i.e., contrition and faith, are in evidence. Thus the blasphemy against the Spirit is unpardoned forever because it forever lacks repentance; Heb. 6:4–6, “impossible to renew them again unto repentance”; there is no sacrifice for sins, only a frightful looking forward to judgment and fiery indignation. This explains why other blasphemies may be pardoned: they do not render repentance “impossible.” It is the specific work of the Spirit to produce repentance; hence to blaspheme him produces a state which forever bars out him and his work.

Because of his divine power Jesus was able to see how close to this state the Pharisees were. With our limited human powers we are never able to judge so accurately. Hence we can never say of any man, however blasphemous he may be, that he has committed this sin; that verdict belongs to God alone. The words of Jesus and those of Hebrews we are able to use only as a warning, which is enough. Yet we may say that whoever fears that he has committed the unpardonable sin thereby furnishes evidence that he has not done so. Nor can any man commit it inadvertently or unconsciously.

Its commission is possible only when the Spirit through the Word has come upon a man and has been clearly recognized as God’s Spirit with his divine power and grace to save. When a man deliberately answers him with blasphemy he forever nullifies even the Spirit’s power to change him. His is already then the unalterable condition of the devils and of the damned in hell. It constitutes his character indelebilis.

Matthew 12:33

33 Either make the tree excellent and its fruit excellent, or make the tree worthless and its fruit worthless; for by the fruit the tree is known. It seems impossible to let “the tree” represent the Pharisees. How can Jesus order them either to make themselves morally excellent (καλός) or morally worthless (σαπρός) when they already were so vicious that he had just warned them against committing the sin against the Spirit? Nor can we think that Jesus here explains only the λόγον in v. 32 as being the fruit which betrays the nature of the tree; for this “word” is blasphemy, fruit that only too plainly reveals the tree. Both imperatives, too, would be out of place, for no man can make himself a good tree, and every man is already by nature a worthless tree. On σαπρός see 7:17. A “rotten,” “corrupt,” diseased tree cannot be referred to but a “worthless” variety of tree, the fruit of which is not good for eating.

The tree is Jesus himself, and ποιεῖν refers to mental action (much like John 5:18; 8:53; 10:33) in good Greek fashion: “In your thinking and judging you will have to make the tree and its fruit the same, either excellent or worthless; for it is certainly beyond question that a tree is known by (ἐκ) the fruit it bears.” The argument is to the same effect as that employed in v. 25, 26. The evident good deeds of Jesus performed by freeing demoniacs cannot come from a person connected with Beelzebul; to have such a person, his deeds would have to be of the same type. Compare the same argument in John 10:25; 37, 38. The absolute irrationality of the blasphemy of the Pharisees exposes its devilish animus.

Matthew 12:34

34 This explains the address which Jesus hurls into the faces of these Pharisees just as the Baptist did in 3:7; see the exposition there given. Offsprings of vipers, how can you utter beneficial things when you are wicked? for out of the abundance of the heart the mouth makes utterance. Being men filled with deadly hypocrisy, base treachery, and fatal self-deceit, moral offspring of like progenitors whose ancestor is the old Serpent himself (John 8:44), how can they, being πονηποί, actively, viciously “wicked” as they are, allow anything ἀγαθά, wholesome and beneficial, to come out of their mouths (λαλεῖν)? Jesus lays bare what is really in the hearts of these Pharisees. When they claimed that his expelling the demons proved his connection with Satan they revealed only with what their wicked hearts were overflowing (i.e., were more than full), real devil’s thoughts. The heart is like a reservoir: it holds much, but when it gets too full, the mouth carries the περίσσευμα, the overplus, off in speech.

The heart overflowing in speech through the mouth is about the same as the tree with its native fruit. The overflow shows what is in the reservoir.

Matthew 12:35

35 Hence the further figure concerning the heart. The good man (representative singular, R. 408) out of his good treasure puts out good things; and the wicked man out of his wicked treasure puts out wicked things. The “treasure” is both the receptacle and its contents. Each man stores up what he thinks is valuable in thoughts, judgments, convictions, and the like. As occasion arises, he draws on these treasures of his. They are exactly like the man who has stored them away. Ἀγαθός = “good” in the sense of “beneficial,” of such quality as to bring advantage to its possessor as well as to others.

And the opposite, πονηρός, depraved and depraving, of such quality as to tender both its possessor as well as others “wicked.” Each man has only his own fund on which to draw. Men are divided into only two classes, for here the case of a good man (a believer) who is still afflicted with sin need not to be brought in. To which class the Pharisees belong is evident from the sample of their treasure (v. 24) which they have exhibited.

Matthew 12:36

36 Moreover, I say to you that every idle utterance which men may utter, they shall render due account concerning it on judgment day. For in accord with thy words wilt thou be acquitted, and in accord with thy words wilt thou be condemned. Δέ turns to another slightly different point. Jesus cuts off the excuse that one may give voice to an utterance (ῥῆμα, matching λαλήσωσιν) that is merely ἀργόν, “idle,” not carefully considered, just popping out of his mouth. But even such an utterance betrays the state of the heart. Hence men “shall render due account” (this is the meaning of ἀποδίδωμιλόγον) concerning it “on judgment day.” This applies to the wicked alone, for all the sins of the godly will have been dismissed and thus will have utterly disappeared at that day. The construction is usually called an anacoluthon, being broken by taking up πᾶνῥῆμα by περὶαὐτοῦ (R. 718); but the subject (or object) “every utterance” may also be called a pendant nominative (or accusative) which is left hanging in the sentence structure, R. 436, 439, 459.

Matthew 12:37

37 The reason for this accountability is that ἐκτῶνλόγωνσου thou shalt be either acquitted at the final judgment or condemned. Note the forensic sense of both passive verbs which have God as their agent. B.-P. 366 lets ἐκ mean nach, gemaess, entsprechend, according to the rule that lies at the bottom of these acts. This accords with Luke 19:22: “Out of thine own mouth I shall judge thee.” Here the two phrases have λόγοι, “words” as conveying thought, and not ῥήματα, “utterances” as opposed to silence. The reason for using λόγοι here is the fact that even the ῥήματα shall be weighed in the judgment according to what they reveal concerning the man who uttered them. By what we say from day to day, including every idle utterance as well as every sentiment, we are writing our own verdict for deliverance to us “on judgment day.” For our mouths reveal what our hearts are and contain; they do it even in the case of hypocrites and liars.

Let not the Pharisees say that “Beelzebul” (v. 24) only slipped out of their mouth and was not intended seriously. Even as an idle ῥήμα betrays the speakers.

Matthew 12:38

38 The fourth clash with the Pharisees is connected with the third, as Luke 11:15, 16 shows, as well as Matthew’s ἀπεκρίθησαν. Then answered him certain of the scribes and Pharisees saying, Teacher, we want from thee a sign to see. On the verb “answered” see 4:15. It is quite broad: any response to any situation. One response to the healing of the demoniac recorded in v. 22 is the charge of satanic help made in v. 24; the other is the demand for a visible sign. This demand came from “certain of the scribes and Pharisees,” one Greek article making them a single small group.

The Pharisees made the charge voiced in v. 24, and then some of them who were also scribes made the further demand for a sign. These were the sopherim, lawyers who had passed due examination and shown the necessary learning. At thirty years of age they were formally admitted to the chair of the scribe by the laying on of hands and by receiving tablets on which to write the sayings of the wise and “the key of knowledge” wherewith to open or shut the treasures of wisdom. They were the authorized expert expounders of the law. Coming from them, the demand for “a sign to see” means that as they understood the law such a sign would have to be furnished by the Messiah to receive Jewish acknowledgment.

Luke 11:15, 16 thus reveals two attitudes: the ordinary Pharisees see in the healing of the demoniac nothing but satanic help, while the learned experts among them would add a decisive test, “tempting him” (Luke 11:16). They feel certain that Jesus will be unable to furnish this sign. If he tries it he will fail, and this will prove that he is operating only with Satan’s help. The respectful address, “Teacher,” is one of hypocrisy. For while they acknowledge that Jesus is one who, like themselves, is learned in the law, they were in reality seeking utterly to ruin his standing with the people. We paraphrase their request: “What we really want from thee (θέλομεν) is a genuine sign that we can see.” The indicative is abrupt (R. 923) and not like the “we would see” of our versions; it does not intimate that they are, perhaps, asking too much but that they are letting Jesus feel that they will be satisfied with nothing less.

“A sign to see” is an objection to the signs Jesus had thus far wrought. What these scribes and Pharisees could “see” in them was to them not nearly enough. For all these signs, shining with grace, mercy, and help to poor sinners and sufferers, were aimed at a seeing with the spiritual eyes of faith, at recognizing Jesus as the divine Deliverer from sin and Satan’s power, John 10:38. In the spiritually blind eyes of these men such signs amounted to nothing. They demanded something that required no faith but just ἰδεῖν, sight. Shall we say that they asked that the heavens be moved, the clouds made to gyrate, sun, moon, and stars to perform antics, visions to be painted in the sky with unearthly colors, angel hosts to parade down the milky way?

Suppose for a moment that Jesus had met this demand. Such prodigies and portents meet no spiritual need, point to no deliverance from sin, have no affinity with saving faith. Moreover, they respond only to the morbid side of our nature, stimulate the unhealthy craving that, when fed, only demands more, and when more and more is not forthcoming, reverts to the old dissatisfaction, doubt, and denial. The faith these men promise Jesus for just one such sign is a spurious faith. Their demand and Christ’s steady refusal show only how far they were inwardly removed from him.

Matthew 12:39

39 But he answering said to them, A generation wicked and adulterous is out after a sign; anda sign shall not be given to it save the sign of Jonah, the prophet. For just as Jonah was in the belly of the sea monster for three days and three nights, so shall the Son of man be in the heart of the earth for three days and three nights. The circumstantial ἀποκριθείς marks the importance of the answer. The reply is lofty, masterful, and authoritative to a degree. Men are dictating to the Messiah what he should do. These are not his friends, who, despite all good intentions may ask for something that is amiss, but men with hostile intent, set on a course that is opposed to the Messiah. They must be answered as Jesus here answers them.

Note the superior objective tone in “a generation wicked and adulterous.” Jesus here characterizes the entire Jewish nation of his day. As a generation they were “wicked and adulterous,” the second adjective defining the first, Πονηρός is always used in the active sense. The wicked actions Jesus has in mind are “adulterous,” breaches of the covenant relation with God which is conceived as a marriage bond, Hos. 1:2–2:15; Jer. 3:6–13; Ezek. 16. This spiritual adultery includes all unfaithfulness to God, not only the old idolatry practiced during the history of the Jews, but turning from him in hypocrisy (Jer. 3:10), inward hostility to him (Hos. 7:13–16), friendship of the world (James 4:4, etc.). In this instance this adulterous character appears in the scorning of the signs of love and grace, in rejecting Jesus’ saving ways. By their illegitimate demand they revealed their inner divorce from God.

Their covenant and marriage tie no longer held them. They were out after (ἐπιζητεῖ, with ἐπί being directive) something else.

When it is applied to our own generation, “adulterous” can be applied only to those who outwardly belong to the church and claim connection with God through Christ and yet violate this connection by perverting his Word, disobeying its gospel commands, and by uniting with others of this type. This word was never applied to the Gentiles and should not be applied to men who are outside of the church.

The kind of sign these Jews demand “shall not be given” to them. The passive verb leaves the Giver veiled and states only the cold fact. It is morally impossible for either God or Christ to grant such a sign. The motive back of this demand which rejects God’s signs and prescribes a sign of its own is divorced from God. The scribes and Pharisees are correct: Jesus is unable to meet the demand they make. But let them not smile and say, “I told you so!” God has a sign, a very special sign, for just such people as they are.

Do they act aggrieved because the sign they want is denied them? The most significant of signs is waiting for them, one in which their own guilt will culminate (crucifying Christ) and their own judgment will be indicated (Christ’s resurrection and glorification). It is “the sign of Jonah, the prophet.” By means of the article this sign is marked as one that is well known to all who are acquainted with the book of this prophet.

Matthew 12:40

40 With γάρ Jesus explains just what this sign is. “The sign of Jonah” means that what happened to Jonah pictures and typifies what the same divine power will do with Jesus who is here again called “the Son of man,” his human nature by which he will die and rise being joined to the divine nature. Let us give due attention to the fact that Jesus himself states that Jonah was in the belly (κοιλία, abdominal cavity) of the sea monster “for three days and three nights” (quoted from Jonah 1:17) exactly as the book of Jonah records. Jesus puts his own seal upon this historical fact. Whoever rejects the miracle must settle with Jesus. The issue centers on the very point that is so objectionable to modern skeptics. Nor does Jesus regard it as a side issue but as a type of the very climax of his own work, his death and his resurrection and the effect that followed these. And Jesus does this; v. 40 is not an explanation inserted by Matthew.

The word κῆτος = “sea monster,” the dag gadol of Jonah 2:1. The “whale” of our versions is only an effort at translation. “The great fish” is not described as to genus or species. Delitzsch thinks of either canis carcharias or squalus carcharias L., a shark, and adds accredited accounts regarding what they are able to swallow. The miracle, however, is not the fact that Jonah was swallowed by such a fish but that, after being swallowed, he was preserved alive, ejected on the third day, and escaped to execute his mission. It is exactly like all other miracles recorded in the Scriptures, a work of the omnipotent power of God.

How can Jesus say that his stay in the grave would be “for three days and three nights” when he actually spent only two nights in the grave? The difficulty disappears when in Tobit 3:12 we read, “Ate not nor drank for three days and three nights,” and yet in the very next verse, “Then on the third day,” the fast being ended. Similarly Esther 4:16 compared with 5:1. “Three days and three nights” is, therefore, not proverbial for “a brief time,” nor can we say that Jesus is concerned only to obtain a parallel experience to that of Jonah as far as the number of days is concerned. The manner of numbering nights with the days is an idiomatic Jewish usage. As Jonah escaped on the third day, so Jesus arose on the third day. And since the Jewish day begins with the night (or evening), it is the night that forms part of the first day which seems to us to be overcounted, not the one that forms part of the third day—the Sunday of the resurrection began at dusk on Saturday.

“In the heart of the earth” must refer to the tomb in Joseph’s garden and not to hades, hell, or the mythical “realm of the dead,” the intermediate state between heaven and hell. Jesus is not speaking of his descent into hell (1 Pet. 3:19). This took place after his vivification in the tomb. It was a timeless act, for which no duration in terms of time is or ever can be given. The fish had swallowed Jonah bodily, and his bodily stay in the fish typifies the stay of Jesus’ body in the tomb. We know of no place where that body might have been during those three days except in Joseph’s tomb; that tomb was not empty during those three days.

The unusual expression “in the heart of the earth” is due to the prophetic and hence veiled nature of the statement. It signifies “inside the earth” as “in the belly” signifies “inside the fish.” The idea that a great depth must be referred to is thus excluded.

The location of either hell or the fabled intermediate “realm of the dead” in the core of our physical globe is an idea that is foreign to Scripture, just as heaven is not located in the physical sky. The typical feature is simply this: when Jonah disappeared in the maw of the monster, his career seemed to have been ended—it was not; he returned alive and preached with wonderful success in Nineveh. So when the Jews saw Christ laid in the tomb, they thought that his career was ended—it, too, was not; he returned alive, and his mighty work went on according to the divine will. The parallel is emphasized and placed beyond question by the three days. The antitype thus fits the type exactly according to the divine design which arranged both.

In order to avoid acceptance of the miracle in connection with Jonah some interpreters find “the sign of Jonah” in the latter’s preaching. But this is no more a sign than is the preaching of any other prophet. Jonah did not preach in the belly of the fish, nor Jesus in the tomb. This also settles the question in regard to the historical reliability of the miracle. If it were a myth, a parable, a poetical or symbolical invention, something that transpired only in Jonah’s mind, it could not be a sign. Only an objective reality can serve as a sign. The myth destroys the sign, and the sign the myth. Compare Delitzsch on the book of Jonah.

Matthew 12:41

41 Jesus now states what this sign of his own death and resurrection will reveal to this wicked and adulterous generation—their condemnation. Ninevite men will stand up in the judgment together with this generation and will condemn it, because they did repent at the proclamation of Jonah and, lo, something more than Jonah is here. With an adjective denoting locality or race ἀνήρ and ἄνδρες are customary. The absence of the article leaves the stress on their being from Nineveh. Jesus sees them at the final judgment, standing up together with (μετά), side by side with this generation of the Jews. And then not these Jews will condemn those Gentiles, but those Gentiles these Jews.

When both appear before God’s judgment bar, and their cases are laid before the Judge, the case of the Ninevites will in the eyes of the Judge serve as a condemnation of the case of the Jews. And, of course, the Judge will so recognize and pronounce.

Why? Because the Ninevites repented when they had nothing but Jonah and his preaching, while “lo,” just look, “here is more than Jonah,” the neuter πλεῖον including everything the Jews had in Christ. The case is doubly bad: the Ninevites had so little and repented; the Jews have so much and refuse to heed it. In general the idea is the same as that expressed in 10:15; 11:21, 24, but now we have Gentiles that actually repented. The character of this repentance is discussed in 11:21. The points to be noted are these: wicked Gentiles to whom a strange prophet from a foreign land is sent, one who had by God’s own hand been miraculously rescued from a terrible death, who brought nothing but the threatenings of the law, yet these Gentiles believe that prophet, repent by fasting in sackcloth and ashes, desist from sin and amend their ways.

On the other hand, these Jews, who, in addition to all their other prophets, now have the Messiah himself, whom God would glorify by the resurrection from the dead, who came with the gospel and its consummation in his own resurrection, and these Jews spurned it all. What God will do with the Ninevites because of their measure of repentance Jesus does not indicate. On that day we shall witness the mercy as well as the justice of God in his dealings with the Gentiles.

A sign such as the Jews demanded would not be given them but they had “the sign of Jonah” which signified Christ’s resurrection. When God would be ready for this, the typical Jonah would receive his antitype, Christ. The Ninevites who heeded Jonah and this generation of Jews who spurned Christ would thus be thrown into terrible contrast, the Gentiles by their very action condemning the Jews for theirs. In this contrast the Jewish guilt for crucifying Jesus is omitted; Jonah typifies only the resurrection. The promised sign is thus one of crowning grace. Yet even this these Jews will reject even as they are now rejecting him and thus will seal their fate.

Matthew 12:42

42 A second comparison has the same purpose. A queen of the south will arise in the judgment together with this generation and will condemn it, because she came from the ends of the earth to hear the wisdom of Solomon and, lo, something more than Solomon is here. Although “a queen” is indefinite, it refers to the queen of Sheba mentioned in 1 Kings 10:1–13, who came a thousand miles from what were then literally the ends of the earth. Danger, hardships, time, and expense were as nothing to her compared with the wisdom of Solomon which she desired to hear. The aorist ἀκοῦσαι indicates that she heard and appropriated Solomon’s wisdom. Nothing is said about the religious character of Solomon’s wisdom, but that is certainly included, for she found far more than had been reported to her.

Here again we have these points: a benighted Gentile and a woman at that in a far distant land who had only more or less uncertain reports to inform her undertakes a journey of such proportions to hear the wisdom of one who again is a type, though only a type, of Christ. And once more the exclamation because of the telling contrast: “and, lo, something more is here,” the same neuter πλεῖον for all that is embodied in Christ. People of the covenant here in their own land with Wisdom itself come to dwell among them, and yet they will not hear. We may parallel this comparison with the preceding one, including the resurrection and its apostolic preaching, for Jesus speaks of the total unbelief of “this generation.” So this queen, too, shall rise up (the future passive is used in the middle sense) and in the same way condemn these Jews. She might have had an excuse for not obtaining the wisdom of Solomon, but the Jews had none for scorning the heavenly wisdom of salvation in Christ. This reference to wisdom is especially pertinent to the scribes whose very profession it was to seek and to dispense the true wisdom of God.

Matthew 12:43

43 With δέ Jesus introduces an illustration which pictures the condition of “this generation” of Jews. He describes the case of a demoniac, one that at times happened. Now when the unclean spirit is gone out from the man he goes through waterless places seeking rest and does not find it. In some way the demoniac is delivered from the demon that had taken possession of him; the details of the deliverance are not necessary for the illustration. The Greek articles with “spirit” and “man” indicate only that a specific case is being presented, not that what is here said is repeated in the case of every healed demoniac. The expelled spirit, now without fixed abode, wanders from place to place seeking ἀνάπαυσις, “pause,” i.e., some place where he may satisfy his unclean or morally vile desires.

Why he flits about “through waterless places,” which must refer to arid and desert localities and cannot be figurative (heretics, unbaptized people), has often been asked but never really answered. We are referred to Tobit 8:3; Baruch 4:35 (both apocryphal); and to Isa. 34:14; Rev. 18:2, with the remark that desert places were thought to be the abode of demons. But Jesus is not voicing opinions that were current in his time, he is stating a fact.

Nor is it likely that the expelled demon is seeking healing for his wounds. Would they heal more quickly in “waterless” places? Or that he hates the sight of men who remind him that he has been driven out. Why, then, does he go back to the man from whom he was expelled? Jesus knows the ways of demons; we do not. He went into the wilderness to be tempted of the devil and now tells us about demons passing througth waterless regions. As in the case of other facts for which we have no explanation, we accept this as a fact.

Matthew 12:44

44 Then he says, I will return to my house whence I went out! And having come, he finds it standing vacant, having been swept and having been set in order. The context indicates nothing regarding the demon’s having recovered from his defeat and his wounds. The only implication is that the demon, weary of drifting about and unable to find pause elsewhere, bethinks himself of his former house and determines to return to it. Even after the vain attempt against Jesus, Satan departed from him only “for a season” (Luke 4:13). The fact that one has been freed from the devil does not grant perpetual immunity from the devil’s assaults.

The figure of the “the house” is transparent and is carried through the second statement. After εὑρίσκει the participles are indirect discourse. The demon finds the house “standing empty,” the present participle σχολάζοντα merely describing its condition. It is literally “at leisure,” nobody is occupying it. This is most significant. The Holy Spirit is not occupying the man and his heart.

Why he is not is easily guessed. No true spiritual change has been wrought in him. The man was merely in some way freed from demoniacal possession, he had not become a child of God.

The two perfect participles are not merely thrown in for good measure. “Having been swept and having been set in order” belong together and picture this house as having been made ready for a tenant. And now the old tenant has arrived, anxious to move in again. Since this house is now untenanted, these participles cannot denote sanctification and spiritual gifts, for then God’s Spirit would be dwelling there. All we may say is that this man who was once the victim of the demon’s violence with everything in him unclean and disordered through the demon’s presence is now living an outwardly reformed life but apart from God.

Matthew 12:45

45 Then he goes and takes with himself seven other spirits more wicked than himself and, having entered in, dwells there. This demon is not breaking into this house. Hence he does not get seven more spirits to help him break into it. Nor are they called “stronger than he.” Quite the contrary, the house is now so inviting that this demon can have the company he wants. He sees that there is room enough for eight and so he goes and gets the seven. Why he secures just seven is another question that remains without an answer. Since there are eight, this cannot be an imitation of the sacred number seven. Whereas at one time one demon played havoc with this man, eight now violate him.

And the last conditions of that man are worse than the first. Why? Eight demons instead of one, and seven of them “more wicked” and thus more vicious than the one. The two neuter plurals say nothing about the comparative difficulty of freeing the man; they compare only his two conditions, the last being worse than the first.

And now the application of this illustrative example is made. Thus will it be also with this wicked generation. Note that “this wicked generation” repeats v. 39 and reveals the unity of this discourse. By adding πονηρᾷ with a second article it is made emphatic, R. 776. “Thus” == the last conditions of this wicked generation will be worse than the first. Which are the conditions here compared? “This generation” forbids our going back to times of the Old Testament, or going forward into the later history of the Jews. Jesus is speaking of the generation that was helped by the Baptist, and we may include the work Jesus did in support of the Baptist’s (John 4:1, 2).

It helped only for a time. Even now the spiritual condition of the Jews was worse, as witness this entire chapter and its culmination in the blasphemy of v. 24 and in the warning against the unpardonable sin, v. 31, 32. This would go on until judgment would descend in the destruction of Jerusalem and the deportation of the people. One striking feature in Christ’s revelation is the fact that Jesus answers the charge of being connected with Satan (v. 24, etc.) by pointing out that the Jews themselves were like a man who was repossessed by eight demons instead of by one. Yet all these terrible revelations were uttered as warnings in order to save those who could yet be saved: “Save yourselves from this untoward generation!” Acts 2:40.

Matthew 12:46

46 This probably is the reason that Matthew ends this section on the clash with the Pharisees by adding the incident in which Jesus calls his disciples his brothers, sisters, and mother. However hopeless this generation as such may be, some are won for Christ even among such people. While he was still speaking to the multitudes, lo, his mother and his brothers were standing outside seeking to speak to him. The genitive absolute, “he still speaking to the multitudes,” makes it certain that Matthew gives us the true connection of events. The strange nature of the incident is marked by the interjection. It is certainly strange to find the mother of Jesus participating in this affair.

Although she is mentioned first because she is the nearest relative of Jesus, we cannot think that she was the instigator but prefer to believe that she permitted herself to be drawn into this affair by the fears and the urgings of the others. Even so, here we have a picture of Mary that is far different from the legendary image of “the Mother of God” found in medieval and in Romish tradition. She is carried along by a mistaken movement. On the other hand, we refuse to charge Mary with unbelief (John 7:5) and opposition to her son; she grew in faith as others did.

Who “his brothers” are, in the writer’s opinion has not been determined. Modern commentators answer: the sons of Joseph and Mary who were born later than Jesus. But here and elsewhere they act as though they were older than he. Others think of sons of Joseph by a former marriage. In Mark 6:3 Jesus is called “the son of Mary” in a marked way (compare John 19:26) and is kept distinct from the brothers and the sisters. In Acts 1:14 Luke writes: “Mary, the mother of Jesus, and his brothers”—not “her sons.” Still others, for instance, the Latin Church since Jerome and older Protestant theologians and some interpreters of our day, think of the sons of Clopas, a brother or a brother-in-law of Joseph.

Thus these brothers would be first cousins of Jesus. This little company was standing (the past perfect εἱστήκεισαν is always used as an imperfect) outside, ἔξω, i.e., of the packed crowd. Jesus probably sat on a raised place where all could see and hear him, and the crowd sat around him cross-legged in Oriental fashion so densely packed that no one could pass through. Luke 8:19 has διὰτὸνὄχλον, and no house is mentioned; the house mentioned in Mark 3:20 has no connection with the present incident.

What Mary and his brothers wanted to speak to him about is indicated in Mark 3:21. They thought that Jesus was “beside himself,” was using himself up in his excessive labors, was like one who is no longer in his rational mind. Their object was to lay hold of him and to take him away to a place where he could be quiet. We may take it that their intentions were the best, the dictates of solicitous affection. It is difficult to decide whether the charge of the Pharisees that Jesus was possessed by Beelzebul precipitated this move on the part of his relatives, they assuming that the charge had so much truth back of it, that Jesus was showing an unbalanced mind, was consuming himself with his labors.

This created a delicate and a trying situation for Jesus, yet he meets it with perfect mastery. He shows no impatience with his relatives—his mother should have known better. He is absolutely truthful and resorts to no equivocation either before the people or before his relatives. He utilizes the untimely and illadvised interruption for defining and for impressing a most momentous truth upon them.

Matthew 12:47

47 Now one said to him, Lo, thy mother and thy brothers are standing outside seeking to speak to thee. If this verse, which is omitted in some codices, is not genuine, it might as well be, for Mary and the brothers did not push through the crowd, someone must have shouted to Jesus, not in order to interrupt his severe censures (v. 38–45), but to do Jesus and his relatives a service. The perfect ἑστήκασι always has a present meaning. The reason for speaking with Jesus is still unrevealed. The suggestion that it was about some domestic affair overlooks Mark 3:21.

Matthew 12:48

48 Instead of turning to his relatives, Jesus turns to the man who told him about them. And he answered and said to him that told him, Who is my mother? and who are my brothers? The circumstantial participle added to the verb marks the reply as being important (3:15). Yet why put more than is necessary into it by saying that Jesus was lifted above family and human life, was the Son of God and no longer a son of Nazareth or of Mary or of Israel, that his Messianic feeling was wrestling with his filial feeling? This question intends to fix this man’s attention and that of all those present on the thing Jesus asks. They are to pause and to think and to ask just who is Jesus’ mother and who are his brothers. And the dramatic question, thus put, automatically lends a deeper significance to “my mother” and “my brothers.” And while men’s minds are still searching, and before they can center on a wrong answer, Jesus himself gives the terse, striking, perfect answer which, because of the way in which it is introduced, will the more remain fixed in the memory.

Matthew 12:49

49 And having stretched out his hand toward his disciples, he said, Lo, my mother and my brothers! For whoever shall do the will of my Father in the heavens, he is my brother and sister and mother. First, the illuminating gesture, the extended hand pointing to the μαθηταί and differentiating them from the ὄχλοι, the crowds. A μαθητής is one who has learned from his master and thus has imbibed his spirit; see 5:1. This gesture is like the action of Jesus on the last day when the same hand shall separate the disciples (believers) from all others, whoever they may be. But does Jesus here exclude his own mother from his spiritual family?

Nothing in this action or in his words says this. The dramatic gesture is matched by the dramatic word which reduces the answer to the fewest words: “Lo, my mother and my brothers!” All of the disciples were men. When Jesus calls them “my mother and my brothers,” this grouping together of mother and brothers helps to show that Jesus is speaking of something that is higher than blood ties.

Matthew 12:50

50 Just what he has in mind he explains by γάρ. Christ here confesses his disciples before men as he will confess them at that day before his Father and the holy angels. But he does it in a way that opens the blessed relationship to all who may want to enter it. Whoever—he; ὅστις—αὐτός; universal—yet particular; open to all and excluding none (“whoever”)—yet embracing only those who become truly his (“he,” i.e., “he alone”). What really makes us one with Christ is stated most exactly: ὅστιςἄν, an indefinite relative clause with the futuristic subjunctive. The aorist ποιήσῃ, is complexive, summing up into one point the person’s life of doing the Father’ will. “The will (θέλημα) of my Father in the heavens” is what this supreme and exalted Father wills. “My Father,” Jesus says, not “your Father,” because he must connect himself and his entire mission with this Father of his, this Father’s will that we are to do.

Jesus reveals this will, invites, draws, enables us to perform it. This θέλημα is the Father’s gracious gospel will, the will which, unlike the will revealed in the law, furnishes us the power whereby we may truly do it. The Scriptures are full of statements declaring this will. Read John 6:29, 40, 47; 2 Pet. 3:9; 1 Tim. 2:4. The Baptist proclaimed it in 3:2; Jesus repeated the proclamation in 4:17; the Twelve were to do the same in 10:7, and did it in Acts 2:38, etc. The Father’s will is that by his grace we repent and believe, turn from our sins, and by faith receive his pardon in Christ Jesus.

His will is our regeneration, James 1:18; John 3:3, 5; Eph. 2:1–5; our restoration to childhood and heirship, Gal. 3:26–29. We do this will when we let Christ work all this in us and bestow all this upon us.

The gravest perversion of this θέλημα and this ποιῆσαι is that of Pelagianism and of synergism as well as that of all Pharisaism or work-righteousness, which call on us and our natural powers to do the works of the law and thus to earn heaven, or by our own natural powers to believe in Christ and to obey him, or at least to aid in our repentance and conversion. Ποιεῖν is indeed an activity, but it is one wrought in us wholly by grace, Phil. 2:13.

Αὐτύς is emphatic: “he and he alone.” He is “my brother and sister and mother” welds all three into one concept, that of the most intimate spiritual relationship. As Jesus came to do his Father’s will, the will that involved our salvation, so we are one with him when we do his Father’s will, that same will regarding our salvation. Yet this does not imply that we are to do over again what Jesus did, but that we are to let him bestow on us all that he did for us. While in v. 49 mother was placed emphatically first, it is now, equally emphatically, placed last; and in the middle Jesus adds “my sister” (Matt. 13:56), thus the more wiping out any distinction and bringing out the thought that the one true relationship of spiritual connection is in the mind of Jesus. “Sister” and “mother” no more refer to women disciples than “brother” refers only to men, cf. Gal. 3:28. All believers are of the household of God (Eph. 2:19), of the household of faith (Gal. 6:10). All others are “strangers and foreigners” who, indeed, may possibly become disciples and relatives but who, if they remain as they are, will be sundered forever from the divine family of believers.

To Jesus this tie is supreme. Alas, the earthly ties have often been placed above the heavenly, men have loved wife, child, father, mother more than Christ, 10:37. Did Mary and Jesus’ brothers get to speak with him as they desired? The evangelists have no interest in giving us this detail. In his Messianic work Jesus allowed no dictation or interference even on the part of his mother (John 2:4). Yet 13:1 would indicate that Jesus finally went home with his relatives, on this very day once more to go out to preach and to teach.

R. A Grammar of the Greek New Testament in the Light of Historical Research, by A. T. Robertson, fourth edition.

B.-D Friedrich Blass’ Grammatik des neutestamentlichen Griechisch, vierte, voellig neugearbeitete Auflage besorgt von Albert Debrunner

Concordia Triglotta Triglot Concordia. The Symbolical Books of the Ev. Lutheran Church.

B.-P. Griechisch-Deutsches Woerterbuch zu den Schriften des Neuen Testaments, etc., von D. Walter Bauer, zweite, etc., Auflage zu Erwin Preuschens Vollstaendigem Griechisch-Deutschen Handworterbuch, etc.