Matthew 12

Matthew 12

“THE GOSPEL OF MATTHEW”

Chapter Twelve Opposition to Jesus and His ministry increased, spear-headed by Pharisees who objected to Jesus’ conduct on the Sabbath (Matthew 12:1-14). Jesus humbly sought privacy, which fulfilled Isaiah’ s prophecy concerning God’ s Chosen Servant (Matthew 12:15-21), but Pharisees followed Him making blasphemous accusations against the Spirit and demanded a sign (Matthew 12:22-45). When Jesus’ physical family wanted to see Him, Jesus identified His disciples as His true family (Matthew 12:46-50).

POINTS TO PONDER

• Jesus and the Sabbath day

• The blasphemy of the Holy Spirit

• The true family of God

REVIEW

1. What are the main points of this chapter?

• Controversies over the Sabbath - Matthew 12:1-14- The humility of the Chosen Servant - Matthew 12:15-21- Blasphemous opposition by the Pharisees - Matthew 12:22-45- Jesus’ true family - Matthew 12:46-50

2. What were Jesus’ disciples doing that angered the Pharisees? (Matthew 12:1-2)

• Plucking heads of grain to eat on the Sabbath day

3. What was Jesus doing that angered the Pharisees? (Matthew 12:9-14)

• Healing on the Sabbath day

4. What prophecy did Jesus fulfill warning people not to make Him known? (Matthew 12:17-21)

• That He would not quarrel or cry out (Isaiah 42:1-4)

5. How did the Pharisees explain Jesus’ ability to cast out demons? (Matthew 12:24)

• He did it by the power of Beelzebub, ruler of the demons

6. What was the blasphemy of the Holy Spirit? (Matthew 12:31-32)

• Attributing Jesus’ ability to cast out demons to having an unclean spirit (cf. Mark 3:30)

7. For what will one give an account in the day of judgment? (Matthew 12:36-37)

• Every idle word

8. What sign did Jesus say He would give to the Pharisees? (Matthew 12:38-40)

• The Son of Man will be three days and three nights in the heart of the earth

9. Who did Jesus identify as His true family? (Matthew 12:49-50)

• His disciples, i.e., whoever does the will of His Father in heaven

Matthew 12:1-50 Verse 1Mat 12:1-50 THE SABBATH; AGAINST THE HOLY SPIRIT; THE SIGN OF THE PROPHET JONAH; THE EMPTY HOUSE AND THE RETURN OF THE UNCLEAN SPIRITAt that season, Jesus went on the sabbath day through the grain fields; and his disciples were hungry and began to pluck ears to eat. (Matthew 12:1)This action of Jesus’ disciples should have been passed over and ignored altogether; but the bitter, hair-splitting Pharisees, finding no genuine fault in the conduct of Jesus and his disciples, attempted to make a case out of this. Their knowledge of so trifling an incident shows how minutely they observed all his deeds. Their spies must have included half the population! The time was April or May, when the grain was formed in the ear but not yet harvested. The grain was likely wheat; Indian corn would not be known until after Columbus discovered America.

Verse 2 But the Pharisees, when they saw it, said unto him, Behold, thy disciples do that which it is not lawful to do upon the sabbath.This charge was false. God’s law did not prohibit the preparation and eating of food on the sabbath day. At the conclusion of the interview, Jesus referred to his disciples as “guiltless” (Matthew 12:5). It is true, however, that the disciples had violated a Pharisaical “interpretation” of the law; and such interpretations were held even more sacred by the Pharisees than the law itself. In the Pharisees’ view, the disciples were guilty of threshing wheat! Such pedantry, nit-picking, and magnification of trifles would also have made them guilty of irrigating land, if they had chanced to knock off a few drops of dew while passing through the fields! The Pharisees were out to “get” Jesus; and any charge was better than none.

Verse 3 But he said unto them, Have ye not read what David did, when he was hungry, and they that were with him; how he entered into the house of God, and ate the showbread which it was not lawful for him to eat, neither for them that were with him, but only for the priests?Note that what David and his companions did on that occasion was , nor does Jesus say that they were blameless in so doing. That was not the point of bringing up the conduct of David. Some commentators have drawn unjustifiable conclusions from this, as, for example, Dummelow, who wrote: He (Christ) laid down the principle that even the Divine Law itself, so far as it is purely ceremonial, is subservient to human needs, and can be broken without sin for adequate cause.[1] We agree with McGarvey’s words, If Christians may violate law when its observance would involve hardship or suffering, then there is an end to suffering for the name of Christ, and an end, even, of self-denial?[2] Why then did Christ mention those unlawful actions of David? It was because the Pharisees wholeheartedly approved of that far more flagrant case of sabbath-breaking by David (for David’s action WAS unlawful; the disciples’ was not), and yet were willing to press an accusation of wrongdoing against the Christ for something of infinitely less consequence. That the Pharisees did approve David’s conduct was well known; and, if they had not approved it, they could have turned Jesus’ words against him by saying, “So, you class yourself with David, but both you and David are sinners.” That they did not so respond proves that they approved of David’s conduct. Thus, their hypocrisy was open for all to see. [1] J. R. Dummelow, One Volume Commentary (New York: The Macmillan Company, 1937), p. 666. [2] J. W. McGarvey, Commentary on Matthew (Delight, Arkansas: The Gospel Light Publishing Company), p. 104.

Verse 5 Or have ye not read in the law, that on the sabbath day the priests in the temple profane the sabbath, and are guiltless?This reference is to the fact than an exception was made for the priests who served in the temple, and who could, therefore, do work on the sabbath that would otherwise have been unlawful. Christ’s stress on that exception called attention to an analogy between himself and the temple. He referred to his body as “the temple,” stating that he would raise it up in three days (John 2:19). The argument is that, just as the priests served the temple on the sabbath day and were guiltless, his disciples might also serve Christ, the Greater Temple, without incurring guilt. Thus, even if his disciples had violated the sabbath restrictions (which they had not done), their doing so in the service of Christ would have granted them exemption. “Profaning” the sabbath does not refer to any actual profanation, but means that their actions, if performed otherwise than in temple service, would have profaned it.

Verse 6 But I say unto you, that one greater than the temple is here.Who but God Himself could be greater than the temple God ordained? Christ again made a statement fixing a gulf between himself and all ordinary men. This is a dramatic reference to the analogy between Christ and the temple, mentioned under the preceding verse, and makes it crystal clear that Jesus’ disciples were totally within the law, and were, like the temple priests, ! Those expositors who assume the charge of the Pharisees to have been correct, making Jesus’ justification of his disciples to be merely that “David did it too,” appear totally to have misunderstood this portion of God’s word. And then, to go forward and formulate a law authorizing in prescribed circumstances the breaking of God’s laws, is to forget that Jesus said, “Whosoever, therefore, shall break one of these least commandments, and shall teach men so, shall be called least in the kingdom of heaven” (Matthew 5:19).

Verse 7 But if ye had known what this meaneth, I desire mercy and not sacrifice, ye would not have condemned the guiltless.Christ said the disciples were guiltless. Therefore, he was not attempting to justify their conduct on the basis that David had also been guilty of sabbath breaking. Christ’s quotation from Hosea 6:6 (See more on this under Matthew 9:13) was a plain reference to the corruption and guilt of the Pharisees, and suggests that a proper attitude of mercy in their hearts would have rejected the criticism of this action before it was made. The real trouble was not in Christ and his disciples but in the hearts of the Pharisees.

Verse 8 For the Son of man is Lord of the sabbath.This proclamation of his own authority took the whole matter out of the context of their law, and their interpretations, and their opinions, and even out of the Law of Moses. Christ had the right to set aside all of those; and, in the final analysis, his disciples needed no permission except Christ’s to do whatever he permitted. This place has been cited as proof that Christians should keep the sabbath day, but the opposite is taught. The sabbath should be ignored and rejected utterly, unless Christ commanded it (which he did not); for Paul said, “He took it out of the way, nailing it to his cross” (Colossians 2:14).

Verse 9 And he departed thence, and went into their synagogue: and behold a man having a withered hand. And they asked him, saying, Is it lawful to heal on the sabbath day? that they might accuse him.Following so closely on the preceding, this question amounted to a continuation of the conflict regarding the sabbath day: Their question, Matthew declared, sprang not from a desire to learn, but from hope of a chance to accuse.

Verse 11 And he said unto them, What man shall there be of you, that shall have one sheep, and if this fall into a pit on the sabbath day, will he not lay hold on it, and lift it out?The obvious answer was affirmative. The Pharisees, with one accord, made an exception for “the ox in the ditch,” basing their view upon Exodus 23:4-5 and Deuteronomy 22:4.

Verse 12 How much then is a man of more value than a sheep! Wherefore it is lawful to do good on the sabbath day.In this, Christ continued to prove that his conduct and that of his apostles was altogether correct and lawful. He did not lay claim to any “excusable violations,” but he claimed strict and wholehearted compliance with the law, the whole law. He said, “Think not that I came to destroy the law or the prophets. I came not to destroy but to fulfill” (Matthew 5:17). Certainly, healing was allowable on the sabbath day, or upon any other day. That principle was honored by the Pharisees, as it applied to animals; but, in their blindness, they rejected the same principle applied by Christ to a man!

Verse 13 Then saith he to the man, Stretch forth thy hand. And he stretched it forth; and it was restored whole, as the other.Christ demonstrated the principle he had just enunciated. As Luke expressed it, it was both in “preaching and bringing” the gospel to men that Jesus surpassed all other teachers (Luke 8:1). Christ always fitted the deed to the precept and the precept to the deed. Verse 14 But the Pharisees went out and took counsel against him, how they might destroy him.Hatred and blind rage will always try to destroy that which cannot be removed by more conventional means. Mark’s mention of the Herodians in their conference shows the grounds upon which the Pharisees would attempt his legal murder; that is, by accusing him of sedition. This added to the difficulties confronting Christ in a situation where he was constrained to convince as many as possible of his Messiahship, yet without giving grounds for his legal punishment as a mere plotter against the government.

Verse 15 And Jesus perceiving it withdrew from thence: and many followed him; and he healed them all.Knowing of the evil plot to kill him, Christ withdrew, as Mark added, to the Sea of Galilee (Mark 3:7). This was in keeping with Jesus’ own rule (See under Matthew 10:23). Significantly, he healed them all. There were no failures.

Verse 16 And charged them that they should not make him known.To have given wide publicity to his deeds at that time would have prematurely precipitated his eventual showdown with the Pharisees; and Christ was not yet ready for that. He was the Great Architect of all those events; and, although he intended to die, he intended also to accomplish his death at a time and manner fully in harmony with his own eternal purpose.

Verse 17 That it might be fulfilled which was spoken through Isaiah the prophet, saying.Characteristic of Matthew are the numerous appeals to the writings of the prophets of the Old Testament. The reason for this reference is that it shows that Christ was doing exactly what it was prophesied that he would do.

Verse 18 Behold my servant whom I have chosen; My beloved in whom my soul is well pleased: I will put my Spirit upon him, And he shall declare judgment to the Gentiles. - Isaiah 42:1 ff The area into which Christ then entered had a heavy Gentile population. “Judgment,” as used in this place, means “God’s truth.” The meekness and submissiveness of the Lord in that withdrawal were also in keeping with prophecy.

Verse 19 He shall not strive, nor cry aloud; Neither shall any one hear his voice in the streets. - Isaiah 42:1 ff Jesus was no street-corner egotist, bawling for attention. Techniques of the rabble-rouser, the sensationalist, and the soapbox orator were beneath his dignity. Barnes wrote, “The meaning is that he should not seek publicity and popularity."[3] In keeping with these words concerning Christ, some of the antics of certain religionists appear to be totally improper. On Times Square in New York City, one often sees screaming advocates of this or that doctrine jostling the throngs pouring forth out of the theaters; and, although their zeal may be commendable, one cannot help remembering that the Christ drew the throngs to himself. He did not invade them, beating on a bucket, and yelling for the attention of the passers-by. ENDNOTE:[3] Albert Barnes, Barnes’ Notes (Grand Rapids, Michigan: Baker Book House, 1954), p. 129.

Verse 20 A bruised reed shall he not break, And smoking flax shall he not quench, Till he send forth judgment to victory. And in his name shall the Gentiles hope. - Isaiah 42:1 ff The last sentence of this quotation gives the sense but not the exact words of Isa 42:4. The bruised reed and dimly-lighted lamp are symbols of weakness and feebleness of faith, applicable in this place, no doubt, to the general spiritual condition of the Gentiles, but also a pledge that Christ does not despise the faith of any of his children, however weak and ready to perish. Barnes saw in the bruised reed a symbol of the soul, broken and contrite on account of sin, weeping and mourning for transgression. He will not break it. That is, he will not be severe, unforgiving, and cruel. He will heal it, pardon it, and give it strength.[4] The metaphor of the smoking flax referred to the string-like fabric, or wick, one end of which was contained in the bowl of ancient lamps, and the other end lighted. Flax was the material of which such wicks were made. “Smoking flax” indicated a lamp, nearly out of fuel, and almost ready to go out. There is also in this place a contrast between worldly conquerors and the Pharisees, on the one hand, riding rough shod over the weak and helpless; and, on the other hand, the lowly Christ, withdrawing from popular clamor, solicitous for the bruised reed or the smoking flax. But make no mistake. Christ, not the Pharisees, was THE VICTOR. Look to the last word of the quotation from Isaiah. He will send forth judgment “to victory”! Christ will continue in the way of the meek and humble. His methods did not lead to nor tend towards defeat. Far from it. Total and final VICTORY was, and ever shall be, his. ENDNOTE:[4] Ibid., p. 129.

Verse 22 Then was brought unto him one possessed with a demon, blind and dumb; and he healed him, insomuch that the dumb man spake and saw.“Dumb” in this place means “mute,” which was the original meaning of that word. More recent connotations, indicating feeble mental powers, are not implied. Extensive events developed from this gracious deed, the populace hailing him as the “Son of David” (a popular name for the Messiah), and the Pharisees accusing him of casting out demons by the power of Beelzebub.

Verse 23And all the multitudes were amazed, and said, Can this be the Son of David?The contrast in attitude between the Pharisees and the multitudes showed that Christ was getting his message over to the majority of the people in spite of the bitter opposition of the leaders. For more on “Son of David,” see under Matthew 1:1.

Verse 24 But when the Pharisees heard it, they said, This man doth not cast out demons, but by Beelzebub, the prince of the demons.Regarding the meaning of “Beelzebub,” see under Matthew 10:25. Charges of the Pharisees were not honest. They would have denied the miracles if possible; but, unable to do that, they spoke maliciously about the source of his power. “Beelzebub” was a combination of two ancient words, “Baal,” the name of the old god of the Canaanites, and [~zebul], meaning “dunghill.” In the lore of the Pharisees, “Baal-zebul,” or Beelzebub, as he came to be called, was said to be the prince of devils, or demons. How shameful it was that they linked the name of the Saviour with that false god. In spite of those vile charges having been initiated in deceit and malice on the part of their progenitors, the widening river of sin carried those slanders far from their source; and thus it is found that Celsus repeated them, with embellishments of his own, more than a century later, in 170 A.D., as did also the later Jewish Talmudists.

Verse 25 And knowing their thoughts he said unto them, Every kingdom divided against itself is brought to desolation; and every city or house divided against itself shall not stand.The argument in this and the following verse is simple, but profound. If Satan was really casting out Satan, a ridiculous absurdity on the face of it, then Satan’s kingdom was being destroyed. Note that Jesus knew their thoughts, a knowledge that only God could have.

Verse 26 And if Satan casteth out Satan, he is divided against himself; how then shall his kingdom stand?Christ, in this argument, took full advantage of the fact that the Pharisees, in malice, had overreached themselves by making an argument that was fraudulent and illogical on the face of it.

Verse 27 And if I by Beelzebub cast out demons, by whom do your sons cast them out? therefore shall they be your judges.Christ here referred to the widespread practice of some of the disciples (sons) of the Pharisees of casting out demons, or pretending to do so, which practice the Pharisees openly accepted, and upon which they based claims of divine approval of both themselves and their doctrines. Josephus described such a case thus: I have seen a certain man of my own country, whose name was Eleazer, releasing people that were demoniacal, in the presence of Vespasian and his sons and captains. He put a ring to the nostrils of the demoniac, and drew the demon out through his nostrils, making mention of Solomon, and reciting the incantations which he composed.[5] Christ’s argument was: You Pharisees accept so-called exorcisms by your disciples, in spite of all the “mumbo jumbo” and evident witchcraft connected with them, but you reject my miracles which are accomplished with only a word of authority. If the miracles of your disciples are acceptable, surely mine, the Christ’s, should also be acceptable. Of course, Christ did not endorse the exorcisms of the Pharisees’ disciples any more than he endorsed the Pharisees. ENDNOTE:[5] J. R. Dummelow, op. cit., p. 668.

Verse 28 But if I by the Spirit of God cast out demons, then is the kingdom of God come upon you.In this, Christ turned their own arguments against them. His works, accomplished by God’s power, were proof enough that the kingdom of God was at hand. “Come upon you” does not mean that the kingdom had been set up at that point, but that the King had certainly appeared, and that its establishment was near.

Verse 29 Or how can one enter into the house of the strong man, and spoil his goods, except he first bind the strong man? and then he will spoil his house.In some real sense, Satan was “bound,” else the Lord could not have cast out demons. Satan is still “bound.” All the evil on earth seems, at first, to negate this view; but, when it is considered that things might be infinitely worse than they are, and when certain passages of the word of God are taken into consideration, it appears certain that Satan is limited and restrained by divinely imposed boundaries encompassing all infernal activity: (1) Satan cannot tempt a child of God more than is possible to bear (1 Corinthians 10:13). (2) He could not enter even a herd of swine without our Lord’s permission (Matthew 8:32). (3) God’s specific permission was necessary in the satanic harassment of the patriarch Job (Job 1:12). (4) Satan sifted Peter only after the Lord allowed it (Luke 22:31). (5) Satan and his angels are reserved “in chains of darkness” until the day of judgment (2 Peter 2:4). (6) He sowed tares in the wheat, but could do so only “while men slept” (Matthew 13:25). (7) He snatches the word of God from men’s hearts, but he can do so only when hearts are hardened (Matthew 13:4). From these and countless other implications in the Scriptures, it may be positively concluded that Satan does not share control of the universe with God. Whatever Satan may do, it is always under God’s permissive will; and all that he does will finally serve the eternal purpose.

Verse 30 He that is not with me is against me; and he that gathereth not with me scattereth.Of this, Boles wrote: In the great conflict between life and darkness, good and evil, the kingdom of God and of Satan, there is no middle ground; there is no neutral position; there is no third power to which these miracles may be attributed. These Pharisees were obliged either to join Christ or to be against him. They had to become allies of God or co-workers with Satan; there was no other alternative.[6] Also, since their disciples were doing the same thing, or professing to do so, their judgment of Christ was automatically a judgment of themselves. ENDNOTE:[6] H. Leo Boles, Commentary on Matthew (Nashville: The Gospel Advocate Company, 1961), p. 268.

Verse 31 Therefore, I say unto you, Every sin and blasphemy shall be forgiven unto men; but the blasphemy against the Spirit shall not be forgiven.There is an unpardonable transgression, and here is an example of it, “blasphemy against the Spirit.” Boles’ comments that the passage speaks not of “a sin against,"[7] but of “blasphemy against” the Spirit does not exclude a class of sins which are unforgivable and known collectively as “the sin” against the Holy Spirit. From the gospel of Mark comes, “Whosoever shall blaspheme against the Holy Spirit hath never forgiveness, but is guilty of AN ETERNAL SIN; because they said, He hath an unclean spirit” (Mark 3:29-30). Significantly, Mark spoke not of “the” but “an” eternal sin, showing that the transgression under consideration in this place is one of a class of sins designated as “eternal.” We shall note the whole class of eternal sins first and then consider the example of it, committed by the Pharisees. The word of God teaches: (1) “There is a sin unto death; not concerning this do I say that he should make request” (1 John 5:16). Note that John spoke not of sin “until,” but “unto” death. Such a sin is, therefore, not UNTIL physical death, but it is UNTO spiritual death. (2) “For, as touching those who were once enlightened, and tasted the heavenly gift, and were made partakers of the Holy Spirit, and tasted the good word of God and the powers of the age to come, and then fall away, it is impossible to renew them” (Hebrews 6:4-6). (3) “She that liveth in pleasure is dead while she liveth” (1 Timothy 5:6 KJV). (4) And regarding certain violations of the Lord’s table, Paul declared, “For this cause many are weak and sickly among you, and some sleep” (1 Corinthians 11:30). “Sleep” in this place is a euphemistic expression for death. (5) That the Holy Spirit in one’s heart can be “quenched” is evident from the admonition, “Quench not the Spirit” (1 Thessalonians 5:19). (6) Concerning apostates, “The last state is become worse with them than the first” (2 Peter 2:20-21), indicating a condition worse than being lost, and which is fulfilled only by being lost without possibility of recovery. Now of this general condition, variously described as death while one lives, a sin unto death, the quenching of the Spirit, worse than being an alien sinner, and impossible to renew, and for which there is no need to pray - all such sins qualify for Mark’s description, “an eternal sin.” What, then, is THE sin that does all this? It may be any sin, hence the deadly and dangerous nature of all sin. In the physical world, what is THE fatal disease? It is the one the doctor writes on the death certificate, and may be any one of a countless number of maladies. The analogy holds in the spiritual realm; and the eternal sin is the one that destroys the soul of the sinner. That such may occur even while physical life is extended appears certain from all of the references noted above. Now, with reference to blasphemy against the Spirit, Christ named it as “an eternal sin,” making it unforgivable. It was not the only sin that could have destroyed the Pharisees, but it is the one that did. The peculiar aggravation of their wickedness springs from their reviling Christ although they knew him to be righteous. Contrary to what they KNEW, they said he had an unclean spirit. They put falsehood for truth, darkness for light, evil for righteousness, and shut their eyes and hearts against the Lord. Their blasphemy was of a kind that blotted out the hope of heaven; and there can be little doubt that the same type of blind, senseless opposition to the Lord today would have the very same consequences. Acknowledgment of the influence of the highly-esteemed Grover Cleveland Brewer in the understanding of this difficult question, is hereby registered. His convincing sermons on this subject are reflected in the above comments. Seven different sins against the Holy Spirit may be noted in these references: (1) lusting against (Galatians 5:16);(2) resisting (Acts 7:51), (3) grieving (Ephesians 4:30); (4) lying to (Acts 5:3); (5) insulting (Hebrews 10:24); (6) blaspheming against (Mark 3:29); and (7) quenching (1 Thessalonians 5:19). It might be assumed that Ananias and Sapphira (Acts 5:3) committed an eternal sin, but it is not so stated in the word of God. It is implicit, however, in the very nature of all sin that ANY SIN, persisted in, can result in quenching the sacred fire within the soul and issue at last in eternal death. ENDNOTE:[7] Ibid., p. 269.

Verse 32 And whosoever shall speak a word against the Son of man, it shall be forgiven him; but whosoever shall speak against the Holy Spirit, it shall not be forgiven him, neither in this world, nor in that which is to come.Many did speak against Christ, but when the Spirit of God came of Pentecost, they obeyed the gospel message and were saved. Those who spoke against the Spirit, rejecting the gospel which he delivered through the apostles, were not saved. No other means of redemption was given. Those who rejected the Spirit received no forgiveness then, or ever. One should avoid reading into this passage any hope that some sins will be forgiven in the world to come which remain unforgiven now. We agree with Boles. “No sin, unforgiven here, or in this world, will be pardoned or forgiven hereafter."[8] ENDNOTE:[8] Ibid., p. 270.

Verse 33 Either make the tree good, and its fruit good; or make the tree corrupt, and its fruit corrupt: for the tree is known by its fruit.Dummelow’s paraphrase on this passage brings the meaning into sharp focus: Pharisees, be logical. You say that to cast out devils is good, but that I who do it am corrupt. That is as if you said, The fruit of this tree is good, but the tree itself is corrupt. Make up your minds which way you will have it. Either say that my works are good, and therefore that I am good also, or else that my works are corrupt, and that therefore I am corrupt also. You cannot separate a tree from its fruit, for a tree is known by its fruit. Nor can you separate a man from his works, for he is known by them.[9] ENDNOTE:[9] J. R. Dummelow, op. cit., p. 669.

Verse 34 Ye offspring of vipers, how can ye, being evil, speak good things? for out of the abundance of the heart the mouth speaketh.In this, Christ applied to them the principle expounded in the preceding verse. The evil works of the Pharisees proceeded from inner corruption. Their hearts were not right in the sight of God. People should keep the heart with all diligence, for out of it are the issues of life (Proverbs 4:23). As Adams expressed it, “When the citadel of the heart is won, the turret of the understanding will not long hold out."[10] ENDNOTE:[10] R. A. Bertram, A Homiletic Encyclopedia (New York and London: Funk and Wagnalls Company, thirteenth edition), Item 2690, p. 458.

Verse 35 The good man out of his good treasure bringeth forth good things: and the evil man out of his evil treasure bringeth forth evil things.This is an elaboration of what Christ had already said. Such full attention to the Pharisees’ slanders endows the entire event with tremendous significance; and, when it is recalled that their sin consisted principally of “speaking against” Christ, the implication is mandatory that an evil mouth can damn the soul forever. Evil and unbelieving words are not merely evil within themselves, but are like the escaping bubble to the surface of the lake, that betrays the rotten carcass beneath. Evil words proceed out of evil hearts.

Verse 36 And I say unto you that every idle word that men shall speak, they shall give an account thereof in the day of judgment. This is a strong admonition to guard what is spoken. “Idle” words are not necessarily those casual and insignificant sayings indulged in the course of social fellowship, nor such words as may be calculated to bring a smile to care-worn faces, but rather, they are the words that betray a bias of the soul against God and expose the evil heart of the sinner. Again, Christ referred to “the day” of judgment. See on Matthew 12:41, below.

Verse 37 For by thy words thou shalt be justified, and by thy words thou shalt be condemned.Speech is one of the greatest endowments of humanity; and the greater the gift, the greater the sin of perverting it to unworthy purposes. It would be impossible to sum up all the sins of mankind in the area of sinful speech. It must appear even to casual thought of it that words, as used by millions, constitute the bulk of human shame and wickedness. James said, “If any stumbleth not in word, the same is a perfect man, able to bridle the whole body also” (James 3:2). Beyond everything else, man should watch what he says. One’s words can justify when they confess Christ, or teach the truth, or serve to make peace, bestow a blessing, or give encouragement; but on the other hand, when words condemn, cast a reflection, subvert the truth, utter profanity, vulgarity, hatred, or malice, or any one of a million other evil things - then such words bring the condemnation of those who speak them.

Verse 38 Then certain of the scribes and Pharisees answered him, saying, Teacher, we would see a sign from thee.This arrogant request came from a group who had already accused Jesus of being in league with the devil and who had already seen signs aplenty; but in this case, they were demanding a sign of their own choosing. Luke stated that they sought a “sign from heaven” (Luke 11:16). By that, they no doubt meant some spectacular wonder without moral value but which would appeal sensationally to a man’s curiosity. Christ always rejected that type of sign, as, for example, when he refused to jump from the pinnacle of the temple (Matthew 4:6). In fact, there is more than a suggestion that the Pharisees’ request for a sign was but a renewal of Satan’s temptation of the Lord in the wilderness. Christ always refused to perform wonders for his enemies like Herod or the Pharisees.

He did work miracles for the benefit of John’s disciples (Luke 7:18-22), and raised Lazarus that the people might believe (John 11:42). For more on “a sign from heaven,” see under Matthew 16:1.

Verse 39 But he answered and said unto them, An evil and adulterous generation seeketh after a sign; and there shall no sign be given to it but the sign of Jonah the prophet.The “adulterous generation” refers not merely to the morals of the people but to the rejection of Israel’s covenant with their God. Barnes wrote: The relation of the Jews to God was represented as a marriage contract with God as the husband and the Jewish people as his wife (Isaiah 57:3; Hosea 3:1; Ezekiel 16:15). Hence, their apostasy and idolatry are often represented as adultery.[11] The “sign of the prophet Jonah” refers to the resurrection of Christ, the greatest and most wonderful miracle of all time. Jesus’ announcement of this “sign” at that time was actually a prophecy of his death, burial and resurrection. The Old Testament had plainly indicated the Messiah would rise from the dead (Psalms 16:10); but, in keeping with his usual methods, Christ again laid claim to Messiahship, but in such terminology, and in such analogies, that his enemies would not see it, or if they did, would be unable to prove what he meant! ENDNOTE:[11] Albert Barnes, op. cit., p. 134,

Verse 40 For as Jonah was three days and three nights in the belly of the whale; so shall the Son of man be three days and three nights in the heart of the earth.The use of “whale” in this verse is in error; the Greek word is “sea-monster,” as a glance at the English Revised Version (1885) margin will show; not that there is any essential difference, for the Bible states that “God prepared” a great fish (Jonah 1:17). In the book of Jonah is related also how God “prepared” a gourd (Jonah 4:6), a worm (Jonah 4:7), and a sultry east wind (Jonah 4:8)! Why it should be considered for God a more difficult matter to prepare a great fish than any of those other “preparations” is surely a mystery! Regarding the truth of the Jonah narrative, it appears absolutely incredible that Christ, one of the Godhead, would have made a mere folk tale the principal prophecy and sign of his resurrection from the dead. We here register a protest against those expositors who are so wise above their Saviour in casting a reflection of doubt upon this astounding incident from the Old Testament. From Jesus’ reference to it here, it appears that the experience of Jonah was an authentic event which God “prepared” to be a prophecy of a still greater one, the resurrection of Christ. The question of “three days and three nights,” as signifying the time of our Lord’s remaining in the tomb, is one of the most widely discussed issues in the New Testament. An overwhelming number of scholars hold the conviction that the expression is a Hebrew idiom referring to any part of three days and nights which included an entire day, the two nights on either side of it, and portions of the other two days. The present custom of accepting a month to be 28,30, or 31 days is held to be similar to the Hebrew custom of so loosely determining “three days and three nights.” The traditional view that Christ was crucified on Friday and raised on Sunday draws its principal support from Matthew’s word that Christ should be raised “the third day” (Matthew 16:21). This view asserts that if he was crucified on Thursday, and raised on Sunday, then he would have been raised on the fourth day. In spite of the fact that a good case can be made out for the above explanation, some very respected students of God’s word take another view. Torrey said, “There is absolutely nothing in favor of Friday crucifixion, but everything in Scripture is perfectly harmonized by Wednesday crucifixion."[12] Torrey’s argument is the following: (1) Christ was crucified the day before the sabbath (Mark 15:42). (2) This does not necessarily mean the day before the ordinary sabbath, because the Jews always honored the day before the Passover (15th of Nisan) as a special “high” sabbath, no matter what day of the week it fell upon (Exodus 12:6; Leviticus 23:7; Numbers 28:16-18). (3) The truly important question is, therefore, whether “day before the sabbath” refers to an ordinary Saturday, or the special “high” sabbath related to the Passover, and occurring on any day of the week, depending where the 15th of Nisan fell. (4) John’s gospel plainly says it was “the preparation of the Passover” (John 19:14), and that it was “an high day” (John 19:31). These Scriptures plainly show that the ordinary sabbath was not meant. (5) Thus, Christ was crucified on the day before the “high day,” or first day of Passover. Since the Passover (15th of Nisan) in the year 30 A.D. fell on Thursday, the “day before” would make it Wednesday on which Christ was crucified. (6) Scriptures supporting this view are: Christ said he would rise “after three days” (Mark 8:31). “After three days” he would rise again (Mark 9:31; Mark 10:34). “This is now the third day since these things were done” (Luke 24:31). Whatever one thinks of Torrey’s argument, it must be admitted that it is supported by more Scriptures than the traditional view. Warning: devout souls will not be troubled by this question; for, if it had been necessary to know the day of the week, the Lord would have revealed it. Furthermore, to resolve this question finally and dogmatically, it would be positively necessary to know the exact year of our Lord’s passion; and THAT is not certainly known. Not even the exact year of his birth can be determined. It can never be known what day of the week was the 15th of Nisan until the overriding question of WHAT YEAR is fixed. This, of course, is the weakness of Torrey’s position. He takes the year 30 A.D. as the base of his calculations. The heart of the earth is a figurative expression for the grave which is also called “the lower parts of the earth” (Psalms 63:9; Ephesians 4:9). ENDNOTE:[12] R. A. Torrey, Difficulties in the Bible (Westwood, New Jersey: Fleming H. Revell Company, 1907), p. 109.

Verse 41 The men of Nineveh shall stand up in the judgment with this generation, and shall condemn it: for they repented at the preaching of Jonah; and behold, a greater than Jonah is here.Of surpassing interest in this passage is Christ’s reference to “the judgment.” Some fancy they see seven judgments in the word of God; but Christ continually spoke of only ONE. As already noted repeatedly in this commentary, THE was a constant theme of Christ’s teaching. Christ’s view of the judgment envisioned a day of wrath and glow toward which all the world is moving, a day on which God shall rise in righteous anger and cast evil out of his universe. Christ’s word on this subject makes it impossible to hold “our age” as the judgment; for “it is appointed unto men once to die, and after this cometh judgment” (Hebrews 9:27). Nor is the day of death to be viewed as the day of judgment. THAT comes after death.

The verses before us show that the judgment is a simultaneous judgment of all nations and conditions of men, regardless of the ages in which they lived. The Queen of the South, the men of Nineveh, and the people of Christ’s generation are spoken of as all appearing simultaneously for judgment, though, of course, their lives were separated by many centuries in time. Paul referred to that occasion as “that day” (2 Timothy 4:8). Thus, it may be logically concluded that “the judgment” of Scripture is a specific occasion, a cataclysmic day, upon which every man ever born on earth shall appear before the judgment seat of Christ to receive the deeds done in the body (2 Corinthians 5:10). How commendable was the repentance of the men of Nineveh! They repented without any command to repent, without any promise of relief if they did repent, with no invitation to repent, without even a small desire on the part of the preacher that they would repent (but, on the contrary, a fervent hope that they would not), and without any appreciation on Jonah’s part when they did repent! A preacher will know how to elaborate this! Christ’s being greater than Jonah is seen in the contrast between the messages, one secular, the other spiritual; between the messengers, one true, the other untrue; and between the miracles that certified each, one disgorged by a sea-monster, the other raised from the dead. See also Matthew 8:25.

Verse 42 The queen of the south shall rise up in the judgment with this generation, and shall condemn it: for she came from the ends of the earth to hear the wisdom of Solomon; and, behold, a greater than Solomon is here.The superior faith of the Queen of the South is seen in that she came upon a paucity of evidence, responding to rumor, or hearsay. The ends of the earth, according to Barnes, referred to “the most distant parts of the habitable world then known."[13] Christ as “greater than Solomon” was expounded by James H. Childress as follows: (1) Christ was greater in his birth, (2) his wisdom, (3) his temple, (4) his throne, (5) his prayers, (6) in his mansions, and (7) in the sacrifice Christ offered. As one example, Solomon offered at the dedication of the temple “twenty-two thousand oxen, and a hundred twenty thousand sheep” (2 Chronicles 7:5). Christ offered his own blood within the holiest place of all for the sins of all men (Hebrews 9:14). ENDNOTE:[13] Albert Barnes, op. cit., p. 135.

Verse 43 But the unclean spirit, when he is gone out of the man, passeth through waterless places seeking rest, and findeth it not.This parable of a wandering demon applies to the Jewish nation, which is “the man.” The “going out” represents the spiritual rebirth of Israel under the preaching of John the Baptist. The “swept and garnished” period (in next verse) referred to the lack of any meaningful change in the character of the people, and the relatively innocuous neglect of Christ during the early part of his ministry. The restlessness of the demon showed the anxious and unrelenting hostility of the forces of evil and their determination against Christ. Waterless places were supposed to be attractive to demons, who were thought to take advantage of people who borrowed water, and were said to take up residence in crumbs, or fragments of food. Christ flaunted all those popular notions by borrowing water from the woman at the well of Samaria (John 4:1-54), by commanding the disciples to gather up the fragments after the feeding of the five thousand, and the four thousand, and by himself frequenting desert places. Although the primary application of the “swept and garnished” condition must be to Israel’s lack of the fruits of repentance, it is also proper for the Christian teacher to base a warning to all Christians upon these words. No house can remain long empty, unused, swept, garnished, or idle. Alas, such is a true description of the spiritual condition of many. They are “good,” but “good for nothing.” Their righteousness consists of emptiness, superficial decoration, and negative goodness.

However, the life that is not constantly improved and dedicated, and pressed, and worn out in service to God, will finally revert to a condition worse than at the first. The evil spirit cast out of a man is ever lurking and seeking an opportunity to return with seven companions worse than himself, and to take over and plunge the soul in greater wickedness than ever. That is exactly what happened to Israel.

Verse 44 Then he saith, I will return into my house whence I came out; and when he is come, he findeth it empty, swept, and garnished.See comment on preceding verse. The failure of Israel to carry forward the good impulses initiated by the preaching of John and the early popularity of Christ and his teachings became the occasion for a far more terrible thing than mere neglect and casual indifference. In the diabolical intentions of the wicked leaders, coupled with the relative “emptiness” of the people regarding any genuine righteousness, Christ clearly saw that the Pharisees would be able to deceive and command them all in a catastrophic rejection of himself as the Christ. That is why the warning came at that moment, when the evil heart and purpose of the Pharisees had become so evident to Christ.

Verse 45 Then goeth he and taketh with him seven other spirits more evil than himself, and they enter in and dwell there: and the last state of that man becometh worse than the first. Even so shall it be also unto this evil generation.These words were doubtless spoken in sorrow. They were a firm, dogmatic prophecy of Israel’s rejection of Christ, reminding one of 2 Peter 2:20. What state is worse than being unsaved? It is the apostasy from which it is impossible to be renewed (Hebrews 6:4-6).

Verse 46 While he was yet speaking to the multitudes, behold, his mother and his brethren stood without, seeking to speak with him.If the mother of Jesus in this passage was his literal mother, then there is no reason to suppose that his brothers were not his literal brothers. Medieval theology has warped the views of expositors on such Scriptures as this and others like it. See more on this subject under Matthew 13:55. What they desired to discuss is not known.

Verse 47 And one said unto him, Behold thy mother and thy brethren stand without, seeking to speak to thee.Whoever delivered that message apparently expected Jesus to drop everything and honor the intrusion. He did no such thing. He plainly declared that the ties of flesh and blood would not take precedence over the spiritual ties of the kingdom itself. At least, this would appear to be a logical inference from what Christ said and did.

Verse 48 But he answered and said unto him that told him, Who is my mother? and who are my brethren? And he stretched forth his hand towards his disciples, and said, Behold, my mother and my brethren!Probably due to his foresight of the gross idolatry that would flourish around the name of his mother, Christ was careful to guard against it. More on this will be found under Matthew 13:55. Mary was never set forth as a female deity by Christ. If she had been, in any sense, the “Mother of God,” Christ’s treatment of her on this occasion was improper. Although there is no hint that they were aware of it, Mary and his brothers were interfering with his work; and Christ refused to see them, at least until the business at hand was completed.

Verse 50 For whosoever shall do the will of my Father who is in heaven, he is my brother, and sister, and mother.Relationship to Christ does not depend on fleshly kinship but on obedience to God’s will. As John’s gospel has it, “As many as received him, to them gave he the right to become children of God, even to them that believe on his name: who were born, not of blood, nor of the will of the flesh, nor of the will of man, but of God” (John 1:12-13).

J.W. McGarvey Commentary For Matthew Chapter TwelveDisputations with the Pharisees, Matthew 12:1-50 About Plucking Grain on the Sabbath, Matthew 12:1-8. (Mark 2:23-28; Luke 6:1-5)

1. through the corn.—The fields of small grain called corn in our version, were frequently unfenced, being protected from live stock by the vigilance of shepherds and herdsmen. The narrow roads ran through the fields, and the bending heads of the ripening grain were within reach of the passer-by on either side.
2. not lawful to do.—The charge of the Pharisees was false. The law did not forbid eating or preparing food on the Sabbath. 3, 4. what David did.—Jesus expressly admits that what David did was unlawful; and some have supposed that he here intends to justify it on the ground of necessity, and then to argue that his disciples, though guilty of violating the law of the Sabbath, are justifiable on the same ground. There is no doubt that on this ground David excused himself for eating the show-bread, and that the Pharisees did the same for him. But it can not be that he who refused to turn stones into bread when tortured by a forty days’ fast, and who said, “Whosoever shall break one of these least commandments, and teach men so, shall be called the least in the kingdom of heaven,” would approve such a violation of law as David was guilty of. Neither can it be that he allowed his own disciples while under the law to break the Sabbath. If Christians may violate law when its observance would involve hardship or suffering, then there is an end of suffering for the name of Christ, and an end even of self-denial. But it is clear that by the Pharisees David’s act was thought excusable; otherwise they could have retorted on Jesus thus: Out of your own mouth we condemn you: you class your act with David’s; but David sinned, and so do you. Now the real argument of Jesus is this: David, when hungry, ate the show-bread, which it was confessedly unlawful for him to eat, yet you justify him: my disciples pluck grain and eat it on the Sabbath, an act which the law does not forbid, and yet you condemn them.
3. the priests in the temple.—Having silenced his opponents by the argument ad hominem, he next proves by the law itself that some work may be done on the Sabbath-day. The priests in the temple were required to offer sacrifice, trim the golden lamps, and burn incense on the Sabbath, and these acts required manual labor. In this case, the general law against labor on the Sabbath was modified by the specific law concerning the temple service. The term “profane” is used, not because it was a real profanation, but because, being labor, it had the appearance of profanation. The example proves that the prohibition of labor on the Sabbath was not universal, and as it was not, it might not include what the disciples had just done.
4. greater than the temple.—A greater thing, not person. The disciples who ate the grain are compared to the priests in the temple; and the temple, with that which led the disciples to the act in question. This was the service which they were rendering to Jesus— a service which sometimes prevented the usual means of providing food. It was their obligation to serve him which was greater than the temple; that is. greater than the obligation of the temple service on the priests. If, then, the priests were justifiable, much more the disciples.
5. mercy, and not sacrifice.—On the meaning of this expression, see note on 9:13. The argument is, that mercy toward these hungering disciples was more acceptable to God than sacrifices at the altar; and that, if the Pharisees had known the meaning of the passage, they “would not have condemned the guiltless.”
6. Lord of the sabbath.—That he was Lord of the Sabbath— a fact which his previous works had demonstrated— placed his conduct in regard to the Sabbath above criticism, and made it really a guide as to the proper way to observe the Sabbath. This remark takes the question outside the range of argument, and brings it within the range of authority. It should be observed that, in this discussion, Jesus sought chiefly to expose the inconsistency of his assailants, and to assert his own divine authority. He reserved to another opportunity a more detailed argument to prove the innocence of acts of mercy on the Sabbath. (See next paragraph.) About Healing on the Sabbath. Matthew 12:9-13 (Mark 3:1-6; Luke 6:6-11)
7. into their synagogue.—It is highly probable that when the preceding disputation occurred, Jesus, foreknowing what would take place afterward in the synagogue, reserved other remarks about the Sabbath for that occasion.
8. to heal on the sabbath.—In the field the Pharisees had boldly declared that it was unlawful to pluck the grain on the Sabbath; in the house, reminded of another aspect of the Sabbath question by seeing the man with a withered hand, but taught discretion by their previous defeat, they approached the subject with a question: “Is it lawful to heal on the Sabbath-days?” They desired to appear as if seeking information, but Matthew says they asked the question “that they might accuse him;” that is, that they might find in his answer or his act some ground of accusation. 11, 12. lawful to do well.—The argument in this case is drawn from the practice of his accusers, and on this account it is an argument ad hominem; but the practice was proper in itself, and therefore it is also an argument ad rem. Assuming, with the consent of all parties, that it was lawful to relieve the sufferings of “one sheep” on the Sabbath, he argues, much more is it lawful to do the same for a man; and hence the general conclusion that “it is lawful to do well on the Sabbath-days.” It is not an excusable violation of law, but it is lawful. From the two disputations taken together, the people learned that works of religion, like those of the priests in the temple, and works of humanity, like feeding the hungry and healing the sick, were lawful on the Sabbath.
9. saith he to the man.—Men are apt to be content with merely proving the propriety of a certain course of action; but Jesus followed the proof with the act. He commanded the man to stretch forth his withered hand: he did so, and it was withered no longer. Jesus Retires from Strife, Matthew 12:14-21. (Mark 3:7-12)
10. a council against him.—When men are determined to maintain a position, without regard to truth or justice, defeat in argument always throws them into a passion. The Pharisees were true to depraved human nature in now holding a council to determine how they might destroy Jesus. 15, 16. he withdrew himself.—In contrast with the course of his enemies, Jesus, though victorious, retires from the conflict, and pursues, in other places, the even tenor of his way— still healing the sick and forbidding them to give unnecessary publicity to his name. 17-20. that it might be fulfilled.—The first part of the quotation from Isaiah (verse 18) is descriptive of the person and character of Jesus; that contained in versos 19 and 20 is fulfilled in the events of this paragraph. The quiet retreat of Jesus from the violence threatened by the Pharisees fulfilled the prediction, “He shall not strive, nor cry; neither shall any man hear his voice (angry voice) in the streets;” and the healing of the multitudes who followed him (15) fulfilled the prediction about the bruised reed and the smoking flax. A bruised reed, barely strong enough to stand erect, or bowed with its head toward the earth; and smoking flax (a lamp-wick), its flame extinguished and its fire almost gone, fitly represent the sick, and lame, and blind who were brought to Jesus to be healed. The statement that he would not break these bruised reeds, nor quench this smoking flax, was an emphatic declaration, by contrast, that he would heal their bruises and fan their dying energies into a flame. judgment unto victory.—In this expression the term judgment is put for that authoritative announcement of the divine will which was sent forth in the gospel; and the victory is that which the gospel is winning.
11. snail the Gentiles trust.—This verse refers to the reception of the gospel by the Gentiles, and is quoted here merely to complete the connection, not because it was fulfilled in the incidents of the paragraph. About Casting out Demons, Matthew 12:22-30. (Mark 3:22-27; Luke 11:14-23) 22, 23. were amazed, and said.—The astonishment was unusual, because this man was not only a demoniac, but also blind and dumb. It was a triple cure. By their question, “Is not this the son of David?” the people expressed in a tone of triumph their faith in Jesus.
12. but by Beelzebub.—Beelzebub is a corruption of Baalzebub, the god of the fly, a deity of the Ekronites. (See 2 Ks. 1:2.) How this old god of the fly, who was worshiped by the Philistines of Ekron to protect them from the flies and other pestiferous insects, came to be identified in the Jewish mind with Satan (see verse 26), is not known by modern scholars. The name occurs in the Bible only in 2 Ks. 1:2, and in this and the parallel places in Mark and Luke. In their explanation of this miracle, the Pharisees displayed some thought and ingenuity. There are only two possible methods of. evading the logical force of a miracle: one is to deny the reality of the miracle; and the other, to refer the effect to some other cause than the power of God The Pharisees, being unable to deny the reality of the miracle, and knowing that demons are under the command of Satan, resorted to their only alternative by affirming that the power was satanic. They did not affirm this in regard to all of Christ’s miracles; for it would have been absurd to represent Satan as a healer of diseases and a friend of man; but it was affirmed only of casting out demons. The assertion, if believed by the people, would not only have destroyed their confidence in the divine mission of Jesus, but it would have established in the place of it the injurious supposition of a league with Satan. It derived great plausibility from the consideration, that as there were at least two powers by which demons might be cast out, and as both were invisible, it might appear impossible to decide whether it was the power of God or the power of Satan. The Pharisees thought that they had advanced an explanation which, whether true or false, Jesus could not clearly disprove; and Jesus himself considered it worthy of the very thorough and exhaustive reply which follows. 25, 26. Every kingdom divided.—Here we have the first argument of Jesus in reply. The explanation given by the Pharisees represented Satan as divided against himself; for he never achieved so signal a triumph over living men as when he held them in possession of evil spirits; and, to rob himself of so great a victory would be to fight against his own kingdom, and to involve it to that extent in the desolation common to all kingdoms divided against themselves. He argues, not that Satan could not do this, but that he would not, and that therefore the explanation which supposes him to do it is absurd.
13. by whom do your children.—The persons referred to were exorcists, a class of persons among the Jews who were accredited with the power of casting out demons, and who were held in high esteem by the Pharisees. (See Acts 19:13; Josephus Ant. B. 8, ch. 2, § 5.) The truth of the charge that Jesus cast out demons by the power of Satan, depended on the assumption that he had access to no other power by which it could be done. But if this assumption were true, then it would affect the exorcists as well as himself. On the other hand, if they cast out demons by divine power, then the same might be true of him. This was an argument ad hominem, which could be answered only by showing that the exorcists had some reason to claim favor with God, which Jesus had not; and this they dared not pretend. It is not implied in this argument that the exorcists actually cast out demons, but only that the Pharisees believed they did. It is quite certain that they could not cast out demons by a word, as Jesus did; for this would have been a miracle. But it was some diseased condition of mind, or of body, or of both, which enabled demons to possess certain persons; otherwise they would have possessed all; and it is probable that, by some method of treatment through which the disease was cured and the demon, in some instances, thrown off, the exorcists had gained credit with the people; but their usual attempts at exorcism have all the marks of trickery and imposture.
14. by the Spirit of God.—Having sufficiently proved by the two preceding arguments that he had not cast out demons by the power of Satan, he now takes as granted the only alternative, that he did it by the Spirit of God; and from this established fact he draws the conclusion, “then the kingdom of God is come to you.” The argument, fully stated, is this: If I cast out demons by the Spirit of God, this proves the divine authority of all that I say; and therefore you should believe that the kingdom of God is at hand, as I have preached it to you.
15. bind the strong man.—Here we have the fourth and last argument of the series. Satan is the strong man, his house the body of the demoniac, and his goods the evil spirit within the man. Jesus had entered his house and robbed him of his goods; and this proves that, instead of being in league with Satan, he had overpowered him. Great must have been the surprise of the Pharisees when they heard this reply. An explanation by which they thought they had both refuted the argument drawn from his miracle, and turned the force of the miracle against him, has only furnished him with an occasion to show the absurdity of their explanation and their logical inconsistency in propounding it; to prove, more clearly than ever, that he acted by divine authority; and to demonstrate the fact that he was making successful warfare against the dominion of Satan.
16. not with me is against me.—This remark was intended, I think, for the bystanders. It was important for them to see that there was no middle ground— that those who were not with him and helping him to gather, were with the Pharisees, and helping them to scatter abroad. In the figure of gathering and scattering, the people are compared to a flock of sheep, which Jesus was endeavoring to gather into the fold, while his enemies were trying to scatter them abroad. The Unpardonable Sin, Matthew 12:31-37. (Mark 3:28-30)
17. blasphemy against the Holy Spirit.—Blasphemy is any kind of injurious speech. The blasphemy against the Holy Spirit here denounced is the evil speech just made by the Pharisees, in which a work performed by the Holy Spirit was attributed to Satan. This is made still plainer in Mark’s report of this conversation. (Mark 3:30.) Whether a man can commit this blasphemy in any other way, does not appear from the text. It is most likely that John refers to this sin when he says: “There is a sin unto death: I do not say you should pray for it.” (1 John 5:16.) There has been much superstition and some idle speculation connected with this subject, which we will not pause to consider in detail. It is best in this, as in all other matters, to be content with what is clearly taught. 31, 32. shall be forgiven.—The statement that all manner of sin and blasphemy shall be forgiven to men, is not a declaration of universal pardon. George Campbell thinks that shall be is here a Hebraism for may be. The Hebrew language, having no potential mood, used the future indicative as a substitute for it; and Jews, in writing Greek, sometimes did the same through habit. But it is true, literally, that all manner of sin and blasphemy, with the exception stated in the text, will be forgiven to men; that is, among the innumerable sins forgiven through Christ, some to one man and some to another, every conceivable sin will be forgiven except the one in question.
18. shall not be forgiven.—Why it is more certainly fatal to speak against the Holy Spirit than against the Son of man, may be in part beyond our powers of comprehension; but this much we know, that one who speaks against the latter may subsequently be convinced by the testimony of the Holy Spirit, and become a believer. But if he reject the evidence given by the Holy Spirit and ascribe it to Satan, he rejects the only evidence on which faith can be based; and without faith there is no forgiveness. If it be answered that a man might do this at one period of his life, and subsequently be convinced and repent, we reply that this is precisely what the Savior, in effect, says he can not do; and we therefore suppose that one who is so desperately wicked as to be guilty of this sin, is already beyond the reach of redemption. Such was the condition of some of the Pharisees. (23:33; John 8:21.) the world to come.—The term here rendered world (αἰῶν) is by most scholars rendered age. Whether “this age” and “the age to come” mean the Jewish age which then was, and the Christian age which was to come; or the age of time, and the coming age of eternity, is not clear. In either case, however, the sin remains forever unforgiven; for the Christian age extends to the day of judgment, and beyond that there is no forgiveness. To be guilty of sin that never shall be forgiven, whether it be the sin that is unpardonable, or merely sin that is not pardoned, is to be eternally miserable. This alone is sufficient proof of everlasting punishment.
19. known by his fruit.—By this brief allegory, the application of which is indicated below. Jesus lays bare the cause of the evil speech of the Pharisees, and prepares the way for a general statement in reference to all evil speech. As a tree is known by its fruit, a man is known by his speech.
20. how can ye.—As the allegory imports, they, being like the bad tree which could not bear good fruit, could not “speak good things.” The epithet “generation of vipers” (more accurately rendered “offspring (γεννήματα) of vipers”), is thrown in to intensify the thought of their “being evil,” and it points to the venomous malice and cunning with which they laid their plots against him. 34, 35. of the heart.—Still tracing up the cause of the blasphemy and of all evil speech, he here locates it in the heart, asserting that both the good things of the good man, and the evil things of the evil man, are brought forth out of the heart. The state of the heart, then, determines the speech and action of the man; and these, on the other hand, determine the state of the heart. The popular proverb, “If the heart is right, all is right,” is strictly true; and it is true, not, as is often supposed, because God overlooks evil conduct when the heart is right; but because, when the heart is right, all the conduct is just such as it ought to be. Whenever there is an evil word spoken, an evil act performed, or a duty neglected, it is because the heart is not right at that point. Let us not deceive our own hearts (James 2:26), nor be deceived as to their state. (Psalms 19:12.) 36, 37. every idle word.—Not only for words spoken with evil purpose, but for idle words, those which are spoken for no purpose, we shall give account in the day of judgment, and by them be condemned or justified. Were it not for the gracious provisions of the gospel by which our evil speeches shall be forgiven (31), who would be able to stand? “Let us fear, lest, a promise being loft us of entering into his rest, any of you should seem to come short of it.” (Hebrews 4:1.) A Sign Demanded, Matthew 12:38-42. (Luke 11:29-32)
21. we would see a sign.—Both their request for a sign, and the answer of Jesus saying that none would be given except the sign of Jonah, show that they meant a sign different from those he had been showing, and one which they might regard as more directly and unmistakably from God. They meant the same as when they afterward demanded a sign from heaven, (16:4.) 39, 40. sign of the prophet.—This remark shows that the very singular incident of being swallowed by a great fish and thrown up on dry land after three days, occurred to the prophet as a type of the burial and resurrection of Christ. This was a sign from heaven because it was wrought by God without human instrumentality. three days and three nights.— As Jesus was buried late Friday afternoon, and arose before sunrise Sunday morning, he was in the tomb only an hour or two of Friday, all of Saturday, and between eleven and twelve hours of Sunday, counting the day, according to Jewish custom, as beginning with sunset. It was not, then, according to our mode of expression, three days and three nights, but only two nights and a part of three days. We inquire how the statement of the text can be true, and, in order to an intelligible answer, we note the following facts and considerations.
22. The time between his death and his resurrection is expressed in three different forms. Most frequently it is said that he would rise again on the third day. (Matthew 16:21 Matthew 17:23, et al.) Once it is said that he would rise after three days (Mark 8:31); and once, in our text, that he would be in the heart of the earth three days and three nights.
23. The Jews, in all periods of Bible history, used the expressions after three days and on the third day, as equivalents. Thus Moses says that Joseph put his brethren into prison three days; yet in the next sentence he represents him as releasing them “on the third day.” (Genesis 42:17-18.) When the people petitioned Rehoboam to lighten their burden, he said, “Depart ye for three days, then come again to me.” They departed, and “came again the third day, as the king had appointed.” (1 Kings 12:5 1 Kings 12:12.) When Esther was about to venture into the king’s presence, she instructed the Jews in Shushan to fast three days, night and day; yet she went in on the third day. (Ezra 4:16 Ezra 5:1.) Still more in point, when the Pharisees petitioned Pilate for a guard, they said to him, “This deceiver said while he was yet alive, After three days I will rise again. Command, therefore, that the sepulcher be made sure until the third day.” (Matthew 27:63-64.) Now with us, if he were going to rise after three days, it would be necessary to guard the sepulcher until within the fourth day; and so, the fast for Esther should have run into the fourth day, the people should have returned to Rehohoam on the fourth day, and Joseph should have released his brethren on the fourth day. It is the peculiar and inaccurate usage of the Jews which makes the difference; and that the New Testament writers continued this established usage is proved by the fact, that when Matthew and Mark report the same words of Jesus, one of them uses the expression “on the third day,” and the other, “after three days.” (16:21; Mark 8:31.)
24. In reality, after three days, and, after three days and three nights, are equivalent expressions, for if you count, for example, from Friday at sunset, after three days would be after sunset on Monday, the three days being Saturday, Sunday, and Monday. But in this period would be included three nights, viz, Friday night, Saturday night, and Sunday night. Now it is not always true in the use of words, as it is in Mathematics, that things which are equal to the same thing are equal to each other; but seeing that the expression after three days means the same with a Jew as on the third day, and that the expression after three days covers the same length of time as the expression three days and three nights, the last expression would most naturally be used as an equivalent for the first. That it was so used by Jesus, is clear from the fact that, in speaking of the same lapse of time he sometimes says cm the third day, and at least once he says, “three days and three nights.” The only escape from this conclusion is to suppose that on the occasion of our text he deliberately and without reason contradicted himself in the presence of his enemies. But those enemies themselves, as we have seen, understood and employed the usage as he did, and it appears that all parties among the Jews understood these expressions as equivalents. There is no contradiction, then, between this and other passages on the subject, but the appearance of contradiction arises entirely from a peculiar Jewish usage. It may be well to remark at this point, that the above mentioned facts refute the hypothesis of some, that Jesus was buried on the afternoon of Thursday. If he had been buried on Thursday, and had risen Sunday morning, he would have been in the grave three nights, but he would also have been there parts of four days, and the Jewish expression would have been, he will arise the fourth day, or, after four days. As proof of this, if we count the time from the appearance of the angel to Cornelius (Acts 10:1-48.) till the arrival of Peter at the house of Cornelius, we find that it is precisely three days, according to our mode of counting; but it includes three nights and parts of four days, and hence Cornelius says to Peter, “Four days ago I was fasting until this hour,” etc. (Acts 10:30.) 41, 42. and condemn it.—When one man does well, and another, under more favorable circumstances, does ill, the former condemns the latter by showing that he could have done much better if he would. That the Ninevites repented at the preaching of Jonah was in this way a condemnation of the Jews, because the latter would not repent at the preaching of a far greater than Jonah; and that the queen of the South came so far to hear the wisdom of Solomon, was a still severer condemnation of them, because they despised a much greater wisdom which was in their midst. Parable of the Unclean Spirit, Matthew 12:43-45. (Luke 11:24-28)
25. is gone out of a man.—This remark implies that unclean spirits sometimes went out of men voluntarily. When they did so, they wandered through “dry places,” that is, through places such as waterless deserts are to living men, seeking rest, and finding none. A more graphic description of utter wretchedness, it would be difficult to imagine.
26. into my house.—The house is the man’s body which he had left; and it is called a house because it afforded the evil spirit some relief from the wretchedness of his wanderings. That the house was empty, swept, and garnished, means that the man’s body was well prepared for the demon’s return.
27. more wicked.—That the seven other spirits were more wicked than the first, is proof that some demons are worse than others; that he went and got them, is proof that evil spirits have communications among themselves; and that the man was then worse than at first, shows that the greater the number and the wickedness of the demons within a man, the worse his condition. Even so shall it be.—In the application of this parable, only one point of comparison is made, and we will save ourselves much useless labor if we content ourselves with this. It is expressed in these words: “The last state of that man is worse than the first: even so shall it be with this wicked generation;” that is, the last state of this generation will be worse than the first. The reference is to the continually increasing wickedness of the Jews, which culminated in the dreadful scenes preceding the destruction of Jerusalem. They were now like a man with one evil spirit; they were then to be like a man with eight, and each of the seven worse than the one. Interference of His Mother and Brothers, Matthew 12:46-50. (Mark 3:21 Mark 3:31-35; Luke 8:19-21)
28. and his brethren.—The fact that these persons called his brothers came with Mary, establishes a strong presumption that they were sons of Mary, and literally brothers of Jesus. (See also the parallel in Mark.)
29. desiring to speak with thee.—To send a message to him in the house (13:1) while he was speaking to the people, was an interruption; and the message itself, that they desired to speak with him, was an interference. It was assuming that the business which they had for him was more urgent than his business with the people, and that the latter should give way to the former. A more definite statement of their purpose is given by Mark. (Mark 3:21 Mark 3:31.)
30. Who is my mother?—The tone of his answer showed plainly to the audience that he would allow no interference with his work on the score of earthly relationships; and it shows plainly to us that the supposed subserviency of Jesus to his mother, which is the ground of the worship of Mary, is most emphatically repudiated by Jesus himself. To all who now call on the “Mother of God,” as Mary is blasphemously styled, Jesus answers, as he did to the Jews, Who is my mother? 49, 50. the same is my brother.—It is here taught with emphasis that Jesus holds all who do the will of God as his brothers, sisters, mother; that is, as sustaining a relation to him as intimate as that sustained by these relatives. This statement not only shows the extreme absurdity of the worship of Mary, but it teaches us that our duty to the Church is never to be sacrificed to the caprices, prejudices, or preferences of our earthly relatives. Argument of Section 9In the preceding section the historian reports the disputation between Jesus and the Pharisees in reference to the two charges that he had violated the Sabbath, and that he had cast out demons by the prince of the demons. In the course of the disputations the following facts containing proof of the claims of Jesus are brought into prominence.
31. That his conduct was above reproach. His enemies were so watchful that his disciples could not pluck a few heads of grain as they passed through the fields on the Sabbath without their notice, and so captious that he could not heal an afflicted man on the Sabbath without incurring their censure. Their watchfulness in these small matters proves how certainly they would have detected in him any real fault; and that they did not do so, is proof that no real fault was discernible in his conduct.
32. His meekness in retiring from the presence of angry contention (Matthew 12:14-21), was just such as we would expect to find in the Son of God, and it was the fulfillment of predictions concerning him uttered hundreds of years before his coming.
33. In reply to the charge that he cast out demons by the power of Satan, it is proved beyond controversy that his miracles were wrought by the power of the Spirit of God; that God, therefore, was with him; and that, consequently, all that he claimed for himself was true.
34. The above evidences are confirmed by the manner in which, as described in the last paragraph, he arose above all the narrower and cramping influences of family ties, and asserted the higher claims of religious fraternity. A failure in this respect would have argued human weakness; that he did not fail is an argument for his divine perfection.

Questions by E.M. Zerr For Matthew 121. What day of week is mentioned? 2. Through what did Jesus go? 3. Who were with him? 4. What did they do ? 5. Was this lawful ? 6. State what was charged against them. 7. Did this imply the guilt of theft ? 8. To whose example did Jesus refer? 9. Did David eat bread from the table? 10. By what ordinance did priests profane the Sabbath ? 11. What comparison is here made as to greatness? 12. Which is preferable, mercy or sacrifice? 13. Knowledge of this would have prevented what? 14. How extensive is Christ’ s lordship ? 15. Into what structure did Jesus now enter? 16. To whom did it belong? 17. What unfortunate case did he see there? 18. State the question he was asked. 19. Tell their purpose in the question. 20. On what ground would they base it? 21. To what example did he refer? 22. And the comparison he made. 23. Also state his conclusion. 24. What then was done for the unfortunate man? 25. Tell what the Pharisee held. 26. State the object of it. 27. Why was it not done? 28. What is said of Jesus’ following? 29. Tell what favor he gave to the people. 30. What charge did he give them? 31. Whose prophecy is being fulfilled? 32. Who is “ my” in 12: 18 ? 33. Identify the servant of same verse. 34. To what people was he to show judgment? 35. Describe his personal bearing. 36. What about the reed and flax? 37. Until what has been accomplished? 38. Whose trust will be secure?. 39. Tell who was brought to Jesus. 40. How was the man affected? 41. What work did Jesus do ? 42. State its effect on the people. 43. Who were displeased? 44. Did they deny the miracle? 45. To whom did they credit the power? 46. By what spirit did Jesus do the miracle? 47. Give his argument from the kingdom and house. 48. And about Satan working against himself. 49. What claim did they make for their children ? 50. State the question based on this claim. 51. Give argument about a strong man’ s house. 52. State Jesus’ teaching as to neutrality. 53. How many unpardonable sins ? 54. Is sin against Christ included ? 55. Compare a tree with its fruit. 56. What knowledge is imparted with this fact? 57. Was Jesus speaking of literal trees? 58. What generation does he mention? 59. Why can they not speak good things? 60. What regulates the mouth? 61. How does this affect the good and the evil man ? 62. When must idle words be accounted for? 63. By what will we be justified or condemned ? 64. What did certain scribes and Pharisees call for? 65. How did Jesus name that generation? 66. Was their request sincere? 67. Tell what sign only would be given them, 68. State the comparison made here. 69. When will Ninevites cause condemnation? 70. State the basis for this fact. 71. What other person will cause like condemnation? 72. When cast out, what does an unclean spirit seek? 73. Finding none what does he decide to do? 74. In what condition does he find things? 75. At that, what does he do? 76. This brings about what comparison? 77. To what is this all likened? 78. Who had arrived at this time ? 79. What was said to Jesus? 80. Tell the reply he made.

Matthew 12:1

12:1 At that time is a phrase that does not have any specific meaning as to date. On the same event Mark 2:23 and Luke 6:1 word the thought “it came to pass.” It is the writer’s way of introducing another subject, and if the particular date is important in determining the meaning it must be learned by the context. Corn in the Bible means small grain such as wheat or barley, and ears of corn means the heads. Deuteronomy 23:25 gives the public the right to make a personal use of this grain while in the field, but it was not permitted to cut any of the straw with a sickle.

Matthew 12:2

12:2 The Pharisees knew about this law and hence could not accuse them of trespass. They were so eager to find fault, however, that they charged them with breaking the law of the sabbath.

Matthew 12:3

12:3 Two wrongs never make one right, but these Pharisees pretended to have so much respect for David and other of the fathers or ancestors, that it was fair to refer to him in this manner to expose their hypocrisy.

Matthew 12:4

12:4 The incident is recorded in 1 Samuel 21 when David was fleeing from Saul. He did not eat of the bread that was then on the table, but that which had been put back for the use of the priests after the table had been supplied with new loaves. While it was intended only for the priests, yet an emergency existed which allowed David and his men to eat. Likewise, the disciples were out from home with Jesus and were in need of food, and that justified them in eating in this way because the necessities of life do not constitute a violation of the sabbath law.

Matthew 12:5

12:5 To profane means to make a secular use of a thing. Numbers 28:9-10 shows the priests performing the manual labor of handling an animal in the sacrifice. John 7:22-23 tells of a child being circumcised even on the sabbath day. The surgical act of performing circumcision was a manual one and hence technically violated the sabbath law. But it was understood that if an emergency or positive commandment called for some physical act even on the sabbath day, then the regular law as to its observance did not apply or bind the parties to its usual observance.

Matthew 12:6

12:6 The temple was holy and it was the place where these manual performances were done. In this place means the case of Jesus and his disciples, and that it was of more importance at that time than the sanctity of the sabbath day.

Matthew 12:7

12:7 This subject is explained at Matthew 9:13.

Matthew 12:8

12:8 The title Son of man is used only by Jesus himself, and it applies especially to him because he was born of a member of mankind, as well as having been begotten of God. Lord of the sabbath does not imply that he would belittle the law of the holy days. He was with his Father in all of the works of creation, also in the issuing of laws and dispensations for the conduct of human beings. Any lawmaking power has the right to alter its own edicts if and when it sees fit to meet an emergency, hence Jesus was within his rights in the above conduct.

Matthew 12:9

12:9 The use of the synagogues is explained at Chapter 4:23. Jesus entered into such a place and there met another opportunity of performing a good work, also of exposing the hypocrisy of the Jews who were present.

Matthew 12:10

2:10 Jesus was not long in meeting such an opportunity as referred to in the preceding verse. A hand withered means one that had been cut off from obtaining its normal share of moisture and nourishment from the circulation. The condition would be caused by some permanent obstruction that could not be cured by natural means. The account here says they asked him, while the accounts of the same event in both Mark 3:2 and Luke 6:7 say they watohed him. There is no contradiction for the last two passages explains the first to mean that they were asking that question in their minds. This conclusion is borne out by the 8th verse of Luke 6 which says, “But he knew their thoughts.” The idea is that they had an accusing suspicion of him in their minds that Jesus would probably heal the man, then they could charge him with breaking the sabbath.

Matthew 12:11

2:11 But, knowing their thoughts Jesus anticipated their verbal question and asked one himself. The manual labor necessary to lift a sheep out of a pit would be far greater than what is required to heal an afflicted man. Yet these critics would not hesitate performing that kind of deed even on the sabbath day.

Matthew 12:12

2:12 The contrast between the value of a man and a sheep is so evident that they could not give Jesus any answer to his question. Lawful to do well was putting the case in an unexpected form. It ignored the technical fact of a physical action on the sabbath day and expressed the more important and unanswerable idea of doing well. They could not deny that it would be doing well to relieve a man of an affliction, neither would they presume to say that any time existed when it would be wrong to do well.

Matthew 12:13

2:13 The hand only was afflicted, hence the man could use his arm to extend the hand toward Jesus. We have no doubht that Jesus could have healed the man without any ac tion on his part, but it has always been a feature of the Lord’s dealings to require man to cooperate with Him. This was exhibited as an act of faith on the part of the afflicted man when he reached out his hand and so he received the favor of a cure.

Matthew 12:14

2:14 The Pharisees displayed the very depths of wickedness in wanting to destroy Jesus. They could not deny the good done to the afflicted man, neither could they answer the reasoning that Jesus put to them, so the next resort was to destroy him. Council is from and does not mean the sanhedrin, but a meeting especially called in the form of a consultation.

Matthew 12:15

2:15 Jesus always knew what was going on and prevented the wicked designs of the Pharisees by leaving the scene. He was not intimidated from continuing his good works, for when the multitudes followed him he healed all that were afflicted.

Matthew 12:16

2:16 Not make him known. See the comments at Matthew 9:30.

Matthew 12:17

2:17 That it might be fulfilled is explained at Matthew 4:14.

Matthew 12:18

2:18 The quotation is from Isaiah 42:1-3 which is the Old Testament form of Esaias. The pronouns of the first person refer to God. Gentiles means the nations in general. The favor of Christ’s work was finally to be given the people of the world.

Matthew 12:19

2:19 Strive is from ERIZO which Thayer defines, “To wrangle, engage in strife.” Cry is from and defined, “To cry out, cry aloud.” It means that Jesus was not to be a noisy, loud-mouthed person. His voice was not to be heard in the streets; he was not to be an ordinary “street preacher.”

Matthew 12:20

2:20 The figures in this verse are used for the same purpose as the preceding verse, to illustrate the gentleness and quietness with which Jesus was to go about his work. A reed in normal condition is not very resistant, much less if it has been bruised. Jesus would not use enough violence even to break such an article. Smoking flax denotes the wick in a candlestick that is being used as a light. Jesus would not use enough violence even to snuff out that imperfect light. He was to maintain that spirit until he had completed his work and was ready to sit upon his throne.

Matthew 12:21

2:21 The word Gentile comes from different Greek words and they also are rendered by different words them as unworthy of respect as they in the Authorized Version. The gen- were trying to place Jesus. The general meaning of the word is that it refers to the people of the world who are not Jews. The Mosaic system was for the Jews only while that given by Christ was for universal benefit.

Matthew 12:22

2:22 Being possessed with a devil is explained at chapter 8:28. It was the man who was rendered blind and dumb, for when the devil was cast out the man spoke.

Matthew 12:23

2:23 It was known by many tbat David was to have a descendant who would be a wonderful man in many respects. When they saw these mighty works being performed by Jeeus, they concluded that he was that ODe predicted by the prophets.

Matthew 12:24

2:24 The Pharisees could not deny the fact of the casting out of the devil, for the people were there and saw the evidence of it. They thought of robbing Jesus of his proper credit by reflecting against the power by which he did it. It was known that Beelzebub (Satan) had displayed supernatural power, hence it seemed convenient to reason that he could be working through Jesus, little realizing how their inconsistency would soon be exposed and turned against them.

Matthew 12:25

2:25 Jesus knew their thoughts. The Pharisees did not always express themselves directly to Jesus because they were too cowardly to do so, but they would make their remarks to the multitude. But they could not escape exposure in that way because the Lord always knows what people are thinking. He therefore made this argument based on the unreasonableness of their statement. For Beelzebub to assist Jesus in casting out the devils, beings in the same wicked moral class as Satan himself, would be like a kingdom engaging in conflict with itself which would certainly bring it to ruin.

Matthew 12:26

2:26 Satan is one of the names of Beelzebub and he would be interested in the same conditions that would be favorable to the other devils, and surely would not cooperate with Jesus or any other person in opposing their interests. these persons really did cast out devils, they just made that claim such as the case in Acts 19:13. But their position on the subject gave Christ another basis for exposing their inconsistency. They would not admit that their children did their work by the help of Beelzebub, for that would be classing

Matthew 12:27

2:27 Jesus did not admit that these persons really did cast out devils, they just made that claim such as the case in Acts 19:13. But their position on the subject gave Christ another basis for exposing their inconsistency. They would not admit that their children did their work by the help of Beelzebub, for that would be classing

Matthew 12:28

2:28 Taking for granted, then, that Christ was doing his work by the Spirit of God, it would prove his claim that he was the one to bring the kingdom of God to them.

Matthew 12:29

2:29. This verse is another argument against the accusation of the Pharisees. Whoever can enter forcefully into a man’s house and plunder him must be stronger than Verse 23. It was known by many he. Likewise, to overcome Satan and that David was to have a descendant cast him out of his lodgings, one who would be a wonderful man in would have to be stronger than he. many respects. When they saw these Therefore, it could not be Satan doing mighty works being performed by this for that would be making him Jesus, they concluded that he was that stronger than himself. one predicted by the prophets.

Matthew 12:30

2:30 This verse is a conclusive statement of principle on which Jesus regards all intelligent creatures. There is no neutrality between the kingdom of Christ and that of Satan. A man may refuse to be outwardly an advocate of the kingdom of Christ but still wish to profess being in favor of it. But in that case he will be regarded as an active worker in the kingdom of Satan and against that of Christ.

Matthew 12:31

2:31 All manner of sin. This phrase is so direct and complete that it will not admit a single exception but the one that Jesus makes. (More on this thought in the next verse.) The original word for blasphemy is defined by Thayer as follows: “Universally, slander, detraction, speech injurious to another’s good name.” forgiven. Neither in this world, neither in the world to come. The original word for world is AION and one meaning of it is “age.” When Jesus spoke this passage the Jewish age was in force, and the Christian age was to come. The blasphemy against the Holy Spirit would not be forgiven under

Matthew 12:32

2:32 Sometimes persons will attempt to formulate a description of some very wicked actions. They may think they have an unanswerable argument when they tell of the vicious things that have been said about Christ, and state that such conduct as that must be the “unpardonable sin” if there ever was any. Yet our present verse is directly against that because it specifically says that speaking against the Son of man “shall be forgiven.” It should be noted that the Scriptures in no place calls this the “unpardonable” sin. We do not know that it would be impossible for God to pardon this sin, but we are told plainly in these two verses that it shall not be forgiven. Neither in this world, neither in the world to come. The original word for world is AION and one meaning of it is “ age.” When Jesus spoke this passage the Jewish age was in force, and the Christian age was to come.

The blasphemy against the Holy Spirit would not be forgiven under either dispensation. This sin will be described in detail at Mark 3:30. To say that the world to come means the life in heaven would im0ly that some sins will be forgiven at that time which we know is not true. All sin, whether “ pardonable” or not will have o have been forgiven before the judgment day for any person to enter into that life. At that time the status of every intelligent being will be as described in Revelation 22:11.

Matthew 12:33

2:33 Make is said in the sense of describe or consider or classify. The clause means that as a bad tree cannot produce good fruit, so the good work of casting out a devil could not be done by a wicked character like Satan.

Matthew 12:34

2:34 Generation of vipers is defined by Thayer, “Offspring of vipers,” and the same author explains his definition thus: “Addressed to cunning, malignant, wicked men.” On the principle that a corrupt tree cannot produce good fruit, these wicked Pharisees are unable to bring forth good fruit in the way of righteous words or deeds. It is under that rule of reasoning that Jesus accuses them of having an evil heart, because the words of their mouth were evil against the Holy Spirit.

Matthew 12:35

2:35 See the preceding verse for the explanation of this.

Matthew 12:36

2:36 The original for idle is ARGOS, and its proper or literal meaning is to be worthless or meaningless. Such a word not only cannot convey any good impression to the hearer, but it might be mistaken for something the speaker never intended. To make that use of language would therefore be wrong and will have to be accounted for.

Matthew 12:37

2:37 See the comments at Matthew 11:19 on the word justified, to learn in what sense a man may be justified by his words. It should be noted that the text does not say a man will be justified by his words only.

Matthew 12:38

2:38 The word sign is from SEMEION which has been rendered in the Authorized Version by miracle 22 times, sign 51, token 1, wonder 3. Jesus worked miracles for a testimony to those who were honestly disposed toward information, but there is no case on record where he did it to gratify mere curiosity. These Jews had just witnessed the casting out of the devil, and that should have convinced them that Jesus was a good man to say the least. This present re quest was in the nature of a challenge, and it also was in line with the leading characteristic of their race (1 Corinthians 1:22).

Matthew 12:39

2:39 For the reasons expressed in the preceding paragraph, Jesus called them an evil generation and refused to perform any miracle at that time. However, he was willing to stake his reputation as a prophet on an event yet to come.

Matthew 12:40

0. Thayer defines the original for sign, “A sign, prodigy, portent,” and he explains his definition to mean “an unusual occurence, transcending [going beyond] the common course of nature.” Jonah lived three days and three nights in the belly of the fish, which was certainly something unusual. And Jesus predicted that he would be three days and three nights in the heart of the earth (Matthew 12:40) and live again.

Matthew 12:41

2:41 We know that Christ will be the only one to sit on the throne of judgment at the last day, hence all apparent statements to the contrary are to be understood in some accommodative sense. The word condemn is from which Thayer defines, “b. by one’s good example to render another’s wickedness the more evident and censurable.” If the men of Nineveh were willing to repent at the preaching of a man like Jonas, there will be no excuse for people who have had that of the Son of man given them.

Matthew 12:42

2:42 The lesson of responsibility based upon opportunity is that in the preceding verse and is the same in this. If as notable a person as a queen would come so far to hear the wisdom of a man, surely the people should show greater interest in the wisdom of such a person as Jesus. This woman is called the queen of the south because the country of Sheba was a great distance from Judea and was south as to direction and in such a trip signified that a great territory was represented.

Matthew 12:43

2:43 Jesus made some arguments based on the practices and beliefs of the people without necessarily endorsing those beliefs. (See comments at verse 27). The Jews believed that the devils haunted the deserts, but made raids into the places of civilization to torment human beings. One of those devils was cast out of a man and it went back to its regular dwelling place (according to the Jewish notion) but could not find a satisfactory spot to rest.

Matthew 12:44-45

4-45 A man’s body is likened to a house and hence the clearing out of the demon is called the sweeping and cleaning of a house. The demon saw the place he had just been occupying in such an inviting condition that he wanted to share it with his special friends and took them with him. Logically, then, that man was in worse condition than he was the first time. Let the reader remember that Jesus is only using this notion of the Jews for an illustration, not that he endorses it, and it serves as a likening of what was to come to their race. The things used for the story existed only in the belief of the Jews, but the thing it was used to illustrate was to come as an actual experience upon the nation. The Jews at first accepted the Gospel and furnished many recruits, but the nation as a whole turned against it and became unbelievers. Their city was finally destroyed and they became the object of scorn in the eyes of the peoples of the world.

Matthew 12:46

2:46 Brethren is from which Thayer defines as follows: “1. A brother (whether born of the same two parents, or only of the same father or the same mother): Matthew 1:2; Matthew 4:18 and often. That ’the brethren of Jesus,’ Matthew 12:46-47; Matthew 13:55; Mark 6:3 (in the last two passages also sisters); Luke 8:19; John 2:12; John 7:3; Acts 1:14; Galatians 1:19; 1 Corinthians 9:5, are neither sons of Joseph by a wife before Mary (which is the account in the Apocryphal Gospels), nor cousins, the children of Alphaeus or Cleophas (i. e., Clopas) and Mary, a sister of the mother of Jesus (the current opinion among the doctors of the church since Jerome and Augustine), according to that use of language by which like the Hebrew . . . denotes any blood-relation or kinsman, but own brothers, born after Jesus, is clear principally from Matthew 1:25; Luke 2:7 . . . where, had Mary borne no other children after Jesus, instead of HUION , the expression HUION would have been used, as well as from Acts 1:14; John 7:5, where the Lord’s brethren are distinguished from the apostles.” For the convenience of the reader and to save him from confusion, I will state that this quotation from the lexicon shows that Jesus had fleshly brothers who were the children of Joseph and Mary, and that Mary did not remain a virgin after the birth of Jesus as the Romanists teach.

Matthew 12:47

2:47 Jesus never disrespected his mother but treated her as any man should the woman who had given him birth, but the people needed the lesson that is set down here, and it was for their benefit that he spoke.

Matthew 12:48

2:48 The question does not indicate that Jesus intended to ignore his family relations, or that he did not recognize them; it was not asked for that purpose.

Matthew 12:49

2:49 After the aforesaid remark, Jesus pointed toward his disciples as an answer to his own question. Since the persons included in the gesture were men and women, while he named three relationships regarding family ties, we know he had some figurative sense in mind for the terms.

Matthew 12:50

2:50 The only proper relationship that can be produced by obedience to the will of God is that of brethren. Thus the conclusion is necessary that no earthly relative should be regarded as near to one as our fellowship with Christ.