Matthew 12

Matthew 12:1-50

Subdivision 4. (Matthew 12:1-50.)The Passing of Divine Long-suffering. The fourth subdivision now closes this part with the full manifestation of the breach between the Lord and Israel. The incidents are grouped together, however, not altogether historically, but according to the usual manner in Matthew, for the purpose of illustrating clearly the great dispensational change that is beginning. The story of the corn-fields and the healing of the withered hand is brought in here from the earlier place to which it belongs chronologically, because the Sabbath was a sign of God’s covenant with the nation; and Christ being Lord of it shows how absolutely dependent upon Him their blessing was. The repetition of their awful charge of casting out demons through the prince of the demons, gives occasion to the Lord’s warning as to blasphemy against the Spirit as the unpardonable sin. While at the end of the twelfth chapter He formally refuses the claim of fleshly relationships, such as Israel’s was (“of whom, as concerning the flesh Christ came,”) and declares the spiritual tie between His disciples and Himself as that which replaces it, - the new principle of Christianity. In the next chapter we have the parables of the Kingdom in its present form, and the very style (the parable) shows the mass of the people as given up to hardness of heart (Matthew 13:11-15).

It is true that after all this the Lord presents Himself definitively to the nation; riding into Jerusalem as her King in fulfilment of Zechariah’s prophecy, and this brings on the closing scenes; but it is the full public confirmation which they here give, and which it was designed of God that they should be permitted to give, of a rejection which had virtually taken place before. At this, and the principle involved in it, we shall have to look, when we reach that portion of the Gospel. 1.(1) The question of the Sabbath is that which we find first raised; and Christ declares Himself the Lord of the sabbath on a double ground, that of His Person and that of His work. At this we must look more closely. The two incidents given here are found in both the other synoptic Gospels, and the question (somewhat differently answered) is found in all. If the ten commandments were, as Scripture positively declares (Exodus 34:27), God’s covenant with His people, the Sabbath as the fourth of these had evidently a peculiar place among them. It was the only commandment that was positive, not moral, - something, therefore, which, with the failure of the covenant itself, might fail and be set aside, as those which were moral could not. Covenant or no covenant, every other part of the “ten words” has its ground in the nature of God Himself, and must be as unchanging as He is. Thus, although the “rule” of Christianity is not that of the law but a higher one (Galatians 6:16), yet it is none the less true that “the righteousness of the law” - the “righteous requirement” (dikaioma), that which was essentially righteous in it - “is fulfilled in us who walk, not after the flesh, but after the Spirit” (Romans 8:4). In the sabbath, then; we find something which in its being set aside could be a “sign” of their relationship with God broken by their sin, as no other commandment could. And the Sabbath was a “sign.” “I gave them My sabbaths,” says God by Ezekiel, “to be a sign between Me and them, that they might know that I am the Lord that sanctify them” (Ezekiel 20:12). For this purpose it was, in fact, every way fitted. As first given in the book of Exodus, it is a memorial of God’s rest as the Creator, when satisfied with the goodness of all His hands had made. Thus alone could He rest ever; and as a sign of God resting as satisfied, we can see at once how much the maintenance of the sabbath meant for an Israelite, - how fiercely the Pharisee would resent the thought of its being set aside. In Deuteronomy (Deuteronomy 5:15) they are commanded to keep it as a people redeemed from Egyptian bondage; and here also the loss of it would be most serious. As the sign of a people set apart to God they had often submitted to all kinds of injury rather than themselves violate it. With their multiplied guards against infringement - the hedge round the law - the disciples rubbing the ears of corn between the hands could be thought of as a work: the gathering for personal use, if hungry, was permitted. The Pharisees boldly appeal to Him about the conduct of His disciples in doing what was not lawful to do upon the sabbath; not unlawful in itself, or at other times, but as a violation of the day of rest. The Lord replies, justifying them against the charge, but not at all in the way we should expect Him to have done. He does not attack their human additions to the divine Word, nor their fine spun interpretations of it: He takes higher and stronger ground, exposing the whole condition of the people as before God, and through their unbelief in Him, who was Lord of the sabbath, and with whose rejection the sabbath could no longer be with them at all. David was ahungered, and those that were with him: did they remember how he entered into the house of God, and ate the show-bread, which was not lawful for him to eat, nor for those with him, but only for the priests? This was not a doubtful point, not a question of human additions to the law or interpretations of it, but a direct opposition to the Levitical statute. But how, then, could the Lord justify this? Was it on the ground of hunger, merely? and were they so far from possibility of help as to justify the setting aside of the law in their case? and was every hungry man entitled with David here to set it aside? The answer must be surely sought elsewhere: David, who took the show-bread, was in fact the anointed King of Israel, Saul having been rejected of God for his disobedience to the divine commands. Yet David was now fleeing, a well-nigh solitary man; from the causeless wrath of Saul. Moreover upon,the King all Israel’s relation to God now depended. The priesthood had utterly failed; the ark was in practical banishment all the days of Saul (1 Chronicles 13:3). And, according to the prophetic word of the man of God to Eli, even the " faithful priest," raised up of God, was to “walk before” His “anointed” king “continually.” (1 Samuel 2:35-36, and contrast Numbers 27:21.) Thus David brings the ark to Zion, and assumes afterwards the ordering of the service in connection with it. David, then, being in rejection, the whole relationship of God with Israel had suffered eclipse, and the sanctity of the consecrated things was departed from them: and this is, no doubt, the meaning of his words to the high-priest upon the occasion referred to: “and the bread is, as it were, common; though it were sanctified this day in the vessel.” All was, for the moment, in abeyance in Israel, and that because of the rejection of the anointed of Jehovah. How much more surely, then, when the antitypical David was in their midst, only to be rejected, was it the uttermost folly to contend for a sabbath! How could the sabbath remain for those who were refusing the Lord of the sabbath?*
The Lord cites from the law itself another witness. The priestly service of sacrifice did not cease upon the sabbath: the morning and evening sacrifices were even increased (Numbers 28:9-10). Here man’s sin was the cause, but the grace of God also that provided for the sin. This whole typical sacrificial system, much older than the law, and dating really from the gate of Eden; though incorporated with the legal system when this was established, was the constant, though veiled, witness of the grace running through all previous dispensations. Before it, wherever there was conflict, the “sign” of the legal covenant gave way, as here. Thus, even now, Israel’s sin, and yet also the incoming grace of God along with it, were setting aside the legal covenant. “The temple” thus insisted on this violation of the Sabbath, for the glory of Him whose abode it was, and in the interests of those who could only in such a manner be maintained in relation to Him.

But here was what was greater than the temple as much as the antitype was greater than the type: temple and sacrifice, the glory of God and the blessing of man, were all represented there in Him, as never before had been. No doubt, they were ignorant of it: alas, they were ignorant of plainer things, in which the character of God whom they professed to serve declared itself. He had said: “I will have mercy, and not sacrifice,” but with them sacrifice (in the mere external way) overshadowed mercy. God was a God of requirement rather than of bounteous giving. Had they known Him as such, they would not have condemned the guiltless. For the truth was here, the seal of all that He was saying, that “the Son of man was Lord of the Sabbath,” - the One, therefore, who had in His hand the whole adjudgment of their case; which in law, too, had gone so entirely against them. The Giver of divine rest was, indeed, among them: as that, we have just heard him proclaim Himself; for no rest could there be for man; except at the same time God could rest also. In Christ He has declared His delight; on Him the Spirit of God, dove-like, rests; He is the “Father of eternity,” the One who brings about the eternal rest of God, and who, by His work, brings sinners to partake of it. But thus also, if He be rejected, Sabbath there can be none, and for ever none. The claim of His work is more distinctly affirmed in His healing the withered hand in the synagogue afterwards. Here He does work Himself, and in answer to their challenge. With distinct purpose to accuse Him, they ask, “Is it lawful to heal on the sabbath?” to which He answers by another question: would they not lift a sheep of theirs out of a pit upon the sabbath? and was not a man more than a sheep? Then; having silenced them with His word, He silences them with His deed: divine power heals the man before their eyes. Who shall stay God’s love from going forth? and yet they but respond to this with more determined hatred. (2) We now, for the first time, hear of a council held to put Jesus to death. Aware of it, He withdraws Himself, but cannot withdraw from the need which continually appeals to Him. Still the stream of mercy flows; but He charges them strictly not to make Him known: He accepts rejection, will not gather the multitudes after Him by the fame of His abundant miracles, nor raise up any against His enemies. There was plenty of material to work upon; plenty of readiness, as we know, to follow a leader of such a kind as had arisen and still would rise; but He was upon a different path and with a different purpose from any of theirs. The Spirit of God quotes from Esaias to show this. The Son-Servant (ho pais) of God, His Chosen; His Beloved, in whom His soul delights, - terms by which He is characterized in answer to the enmity and reproach which manifest themselves upon man’s part, - characterized, too, by the Spirit that abides upon Him, in the fulness of that Spirit He is going to show judgment to the nations.

Judgment is here the absolute right of things. Quietness, patience and gentleness characterize Him: “He shall not strive, nor cry, nor cause His voice to be heard in the streets. A bruised reed” - the perfect symbol of weakness surely - “will He not break, and smoking flax will He not quench, until He send forth judgment unto victory. And in His name shall the nations trust.” The application here is perfectly evident. Rejected of Israel, He is turning to the Gentiles, and we think, and are intended to think, of the present grace going out to the Gentiles during the Christian dispensation. But such a Gentile dispensation is never contemplated in the Old Testament prophets: it is a gap of time in the working out of God’s purposes as to Israel, which in this way foreshortens their perspective, and brings the first and second comings of the Lord between which it lies, into a closeness of connection which is confusing enough to those who are not aware of this.* Isaiah in the passage quoted does not, in fact, speak of such a dispensation. He begins with the character of the Lord’s ministry in Israel as Matthew here exhibits it, and then contrasts with this His showing judgment to the nations, and the final blessing which will flow out to them, in words which are quite capable of taking in the present time; and Matthew uses it in this way. There is no statement of any change of dispensation; as is clear; none the less it snits well with what is now taking place, - the shadow of the cross now beginning to fall across the path of One who meek and lowly of heart, and knowing what is before Him, accepts rejection and this uttermost sorrow with it, finding His joy meanwhile in such service of love as grace had brought Him down to, His precious compensation for the cross itself.
(3) And the road still leads downwards. One possessed by a demon is brought to Him, blind and dumb and, the demon cast out, the blind and the dumb is at once restored. The multitudes, astonished, cry out, “Is this the Son of David?” and yet, as the question implies, only half convinced. The Pharisees hasten to extinguish the spark of this conviction by repeating their former blasphemy. They could not deny the power that was so manifest. They were driven then; if they did not submit and own God in it, to the awful alternative of imputing this to Satan.

To Himself, it would seem, they dared not do this. The Lord read it in their hearts, however, and answered it. If Satan could cast out Satan; as they supposed, his kingdom would be divided against itself, and such a divided kingdom could not stand. Division there might be, no doubt, and discord in many respects, and in fact evil is in this way ever discordant, as truth and goodness are the only perfect unity. But with these healed demoniacs, it was not insinuated even that merely one form of evil had contended with another, - one had given place to another. Nay, the power of Satan; they confessed, was broken and gone: Satan was really cast out.

Satan. then, had not done this. To say so would be but to confound good with evil, and lose the power of discernment altogether. Moreover their sons professedly cast out demons. How was it, then; if they admitted, as they did admit, this? Was it an opposite power that worked in the same way? or how did they distinguish? These, then; would be their judges. If, on the other hand, it had to be admitted that this was the work of the Spirit of God, the kingdom of God had come upon them unawares. The expression here suggests the idea of surprise: here it was, not indeed as established outwardly, but in the power which belonged to it, and that as manifested in the King Himself. Yet they were not prepared for it and did not recognize it, When before their eyes! Who, then, could enter into a strong man’s house, and seize upon his goods, if he did not first bind the strong man? Strong enough Satan had shown himself in the case of these poor demoniacs; yet his power had been vanquished, the enemy bound. And by whom? It had come, then, to this: there must now be an open decision; neutrality could not be permitted. “He that is not with Me is against Me; he that gathereth not with Me scattereth.” Mercy could no longer be shown where the power of the Spirit of God had, as power, to be owned, and yet attributed to Satan himself: This blasphemy was no longer ignorant unbelief: it was open-eyed opposition to God and to all that was of God. A word spoken against the Son of man might be forgiven; the lowly place that He had taken - though it were but fullest grace and to meet the need of man - might yet hide His glory from the eyes of carnal men; but here was what had to be owned, could not be hidden: open-eyed hatred could not be forgiven; could never be. They expected fuller mercy in the age to come - in Messiah’s day - than in the present age of law: but this could never be forgiven; in this age nor in that to come. (4) That generation had proved its condition; the tree was known by its fruit. It was a viper’s brood, from which no good thing could be expected any longer. Their mouth was speaking now out of the fulness of the heart. The treasures of the good man were good things, but the treasures of the evil, evil. Thus an idle word might prove a man’s condition, and in the day of judgment all such would be taken into account, - by his words a man be justified or condemned. How impossible, then, for any to escape, who has not found his shelter in Him whom Israel here refuses! (5) The end, then; had been reached morally. It was no use asking now for signs. An evil and adulterous generation could not be helped by signs. One they should have, the sign of the prophet Jonah. Jonah, three days and three nights in the belly of the great fish, had been a sign to the Ninevites, and thus the preaching of a man; as it were risen from the dead, had brought that great city to repentance. Well, the Son of man would be really in the grave three days and nights, rejected and cast out, but at His preaching by His resurrection they, more hardened than Nineveh, would not repent.

The Ninevites would rise up in the judgment to condemn them; so much the more as the Son of man was greater than Jonah. The queen of the south also, would rise up in the judgment against them, who came from the ends of the earth to hear the wisdom of Solomon: and here was One how much greater! (6) The Lord goes on to predict the end of this reformed and law-boasting generation; which rejected Him. They were cleansed from idolatry indeed, but it was but as when the unclean spirit had gone out of a man; not cast out, but of its own will. Swept and adorned its house might be, but, empty, it only invited the return of its former occupant. The occupant would return: idolatry will again take possession of Israel in the latter days, and with seven other spirits worse than this: and they will enter in and dwell there. The last state of that generation* will be worse than the first. We shall see later on in the Gospel (Matthew 24:1-51) to what the Lord refers.
(7) All this is closed, on the Lord’s part, with a significant word. While still speaking to the people, He is told by one of the bystanders that His mother and His brethren stand without, desiring to speak with Him. The cry had been raised, as we learn from Mark (3: 21), even among His “friends,” that He was beside Himself; and this attempt speak with Him on the part of His relatives no doubt was a consequence of this. The opposition had grown so great, that alarm for His personal safety may have actuated them, and the desire to induce Him to take in some respects a different course. But if such were their thought Matthew gives no hint of it; and the omission is significant. The Lord’s words are not to be taken as if they referred merely to any conduct of this kind, as far as this Gospel is concerned.

They are to be taken rather in connection with what has gone before and what follows here; that is, as referring to the dispensational change beginning. Judaism was essentially a national religion: men were “Jews by Nature,” as the apostle says, although of course, proselytes were admitted. Christians are such by new nature only: the spiritual tie is the whole thing. And that is what the Lord here affirms: He answered an said to him that spake to Him, Who is My mother? and who are My brethren? And, stretching out His hand over His disciples, He said, Behold My mother and My brethren: for whosoever shall do the will of My Father who is in heaven; he is My brother, and sister, and mother."