Text -- Matthew 12:22-32 (NET)

Jesus and Beelzebul

12:22 Then they brought to him a demon-possessed man who was blind and mute. Jesus healed him so that he could speak and see. 12:23 All the crowds were amazed and said, “Could this one be the Son of David?” 12:24 But when the Pharisees heard this they said, “He does not cast out demons except by the power of Beelzebul, the ruler of demons!” 12:25 Now when Jesus realized what they were thinking, he said to them, “Every kingdom divided against itself is destroyed, and no town or house divided against itself will stand. 12:26 So if Satan casts out Satan, he is divided against himself. How then will his kingdom stand? 12:27 And if I cast out demons by Beelzebul, by whom do your sons cast them out? For this reason they will be your judges. 12:28 But if I cast out demons by the Spirit of God, then the kingdom of God has already overtaken you. 12:29 How else can someone enter a strong man’s house and steal his property, unless he first ties up the strong man? Then he can thoroughly plunder the house. 12:30 Whoever is not with me is against me, and whoever does not gather with me scatters. 12:31 For this reason I tell you, people will be forgiven for every sin and blasphemy, but the blasphemy against the Spirit will not be forgiven. 12:32 Whoever speaks a word against the Son of Man will be forgiven. But whoever speaks against the Holy Spirit will not be forgiven, either in this age or in the age to come.

Commentary -- Word/Phrase Notes (per phrase)

Robertson: Mat 12:23

Is this the Son of David? ( mēti houtos estin ho huios Daueiḋ ).

The form of the question expects the answer "no,"but they put it so because of the Pharisaic hostility towards Jesus. The multitudes "were amazed"or "stood out of themselves"(existanto ), imperfect tense, vividly portraying the situation. They were almost beside themselves with excitement.

Robertson: Mat 12:24

The Pharisees ( hoi de Pharisaioi ).

Already (Mat 9:32-34) we have had in Matthew the charge that Jesus is in league with the prince of demons, though the incident may be later than this one. See note on Mat 10:25 about "Beelzebub."The Pharisees feel that the excited condition of the crowds and the manifest disposition to believe that Jesus is the Messiah (the Son of David) demand strenuous action on their part. They cannot deny the fact of the miracles for the blind and dumb men both saw and spoke (Mat 12:22). So in desperation they suggest that Jesus works by the power of Beelzebub the prince of the demons.

Robertson: Mat 12:25

Knowing their thoughts ( eidōs de tas enthumēseis autōn ).

What they were revolving in their minds. They now find out what a powerful opponent Jesus is. By parables, by a series of conditions (first class), by sarcasm, by rhetorical question, by merciless logic, he lays bare their hollow insincerity and the futility of their arguments. Satan does not cast out Satan. Note timeless aorist passive emeristhē in Mat 12:26, ephthasen in Mat 12:28 (simple sense of arriving as in Phi 3:16 from phthanō ). Christ is engaged in deathless conflict with Satan the strong man (Mat 12:29). "Goods"(skeuē ) means house-gear, house furniture, or equipment as in Luk 17:36 and Act 27:17, the tackling of the ship.

Robertson: Mat 12:30

He that is not with me ( ho mē ōn met' emou ).

With these solemn words Jesus draws the line of cleavage between himself and his enemies then and now. Jesus still has his enemies who hate him and all noble words and deeds because they sting what conscience they have into fury. But we may have our choice. We either gather with (sunagōn ) Christ or scatter (skorpizei ) to the four winds. Christ is the magnet of the ages. He draws or drives away. "Satan is the arch-waster, Christ the collector, Saviour"(Bruce).

Robertson: Mat 12:31

But the blasphemy against the Spirit ( hē de tou pneumatos blasphēmia ).

Objective genitive. This is the unpardonable sin. In Mat 12:32 we have kata tou pneumatos tou hagiou to make it plainer. What is the blasphemy against the Holy Spirit? These Pharisees had already committed it. They had attributed the works of the Holy Spirit by whose power Jesus wrought his miracles (Mat 12:28) to the devil. That sin was without excuse and would not be forgiven in their age or in the coming one (Mat 12:32). People often ask if they can commit the unpardonable sin. Probably some do who ridicule the manifest work of God’ s Spirit in men’ s lives and attribute the Spirit’ s work to the devil.

Vincent: Mat 12:26

He is divided ( ἐμερίσθη )

Lit., " he was divided. " If he is casting himself out, there must have been a previous division.

Vincent: Mat 12:28

Is come unto you ( ἔφθασεν ἐφ ' ὑμᾶς )

The verb is used in the simple sense to arrive at (2Co 10:14; Phi 3:16), and sometimes to anticipate (1Th 4:15). Here with a suggestion of the latter sense, which is also conveyed by the Rev., " come upon. " It has come upon you before you expected it.

Vincent: Mat 12:29

Of a strong man ( τοῦ ἰσχυροῦ )

Rev. rightly gives the force of the article, the strong man. Christ is not citing a general illustration, but is pointing to a specific enemy - Satan. How can I despoil Satan without first having conquered him?

Vincent: Mat 12:29

Goods ( σκεύη )

The word originally means a vessel, and so mostly in the New Testament. See Mar 11:16; Joh 19:29. But also the entire equipment of a house, collectively: chattels, house-gear. Also the baggage of an army. Here in the sense of house-gear. Compare Luk 17:31; Act 27:17, of the gear or tackling of the ship. Rev., lowered the gear.

Vincent: Mat 12:32

The Holy Spirit ( τοῦ πνεύματος τοῦ ἁγίου )

The Spirit - the holy. These words define more clearly the blasphemy against the Spirit, Mat 12:31.

Wesley: Mat 12:22

Many undoubtedly supposed these defects to be merely natural. But the Spirit of God saw otherwise, and gives the true account both of the disorder and the cure. How many disorders, seemingly natural, may even now be owing to the same cause? Luk 11:14.

Wesley: Mat 12:23

That is, the Messiah.

Wesley: Mat 12:24

Mar 3:22.

Wesley: Mat 12:25

It seems they had as yet only said it in their hearts.

Wesley: Mat 12:26

Does not that subtle spirit know thin is not the way to establish his kingdom?

Wesley: Mat 12:27

That is, disciples, cast them out - It seems, some of them really did this; although the sons of Sceva could not.

Wesley: Mat 12:27

Ask them, if Satan will cast out Satan: let even them be judges in this matter. And they shall convict you of obstinacy and partiality, who impute that in me to Beelzebub, which in them you impute to God. Beside, how can I rob him of his subjects, till I have conquered him? The kingdom of God is come upon you - Unawares; before you expected: so the word implies.

Wesley: Mat 12:29

So Christ coming into the world, which was then eminently the strong one's, Satan's house, first bound him, and then took his spoils.

Wesley: Mat 12:30

For there are no neuters in this war. Every one must be either with Christ or against him; either a loyal subject or a rebel. And there are none upon earth, who neither promote nor obstruct his kingdom. For he that does not gather souls to God, scatters them from him.

Wesley: Mat 12:31

How much stir has been made about this? How many sermons, yea, volumes, have been written concerning it? And yet there is nothing plainer in all the Bible. It is neither more nor less than the ascribing those miracles to the power of the devil, which Christ wrought by the power of the Holy Ghost. Mar 3:28; Luk 12:10.

Wesley: Mat 12:32

In any other respects: It shall be forgiven him - Upon his true repentance: But whosoever speaketh thus against the Holy Ghost, it shall not be forgiven, neither in this world nor in the world to come - This was a proverbial expression among the Jews, for a thing that would never be done. It here means farther, He shall not escape the punishment of it, either in this world, or in the world to come. The judgment of God shall overtake him, both here and hereafter.

JFB: Mat 12:22

"a demonized person."

blind and dumb, and he healed him, insomuch that the blind and the dumb both spake and saw.

JFB: Mat 12:23

The form of the interrogative requires this to be rendered, "Is this the Son of David?" And as questions put in this form (in Greek) suppose doubt, and expect rather a negative answer, the meaning is, "Can it possibly be?"--the people thus indicating their secret impression that this must be He; yet saving themselves from the wrath of the ecclesiastics, which a direct assertion of it would have brought upon them. (On a similar question, see on Joh 4:29; and on the phrase, "Son of David," see on Mat 9:27).

JFB: Mat 12:24

Mark (Mar 3:22) says, "the scribes which came down from Jerusalem"; so that this had been a hostile party of the ecclesiastics, who had come all the way from Jerusalem to collect materials for a charge against Him. (See on Mat 12:14).

JFB: Mat 12:24

An expression of contempt.

JFB: Mat 12:24

Rather, "Beelzebul" (see on Mat 10:25).

JFB: Mat 12:24

Two things are here implied--first, that the bitterest enemies of our Lord were unable to deny the reality of His miracles; and next, that they believed in an organized internal kingdom of evil, under one chief. This belief would be of small consequence, had not our Lord set His seal to it; but this He immediately does. Stung by the unsophisticated testimony of "all the people," they had no way of holding out against His claims but the desperate shift of ascribing His miracles to Satan.

JFB: Mat 12:25

"called them" (Mar 3:23).

JFB: Mat 12:25

"house," that is, "household"

JFB: Mat 12:26

The argument here is irresistible. "No organized society can stand--whether kingdom, city, or household--when turned against itself; such intestine war is suicidal: But the works I do are destructive of Satan's kingdom: That I should be in league with Satan, therefore, is incredible and absurd."

JFB: Mat 12:27

"your sons," meaning here the "disciples" or pupils of the Pharisees, who were so termed after the familiar language of the Old Testament in speaking of the sons of the prophets (1Ki 20:35; 2Ki 2:3, &c.). Our Lord here seems to admit that such works were wrought by them; in which case the Pharisees stood self-condemned, as expressed in Luke (Luk 11:19), "Therefore shall they be your judges."

JFB: Mat 12:28

In Luke (Luk 11:20) it is, "with (or 'by') the finger of God." This latter expression is just a figurative way of representing the power of God, while the former tells us the living Personal Agent was made use of by the Lord Jesus in every exercise of that power.

JFB: Mat 12:28

"no doubt" (Luk 11:20).

JFB: Mat 12:28

Rather "upon you," as the same expression is rendered in Luke (Luk 11:20): --that is, "If this expulsion of Satan is, and can be, by no other than the Spirit of God, then is his Destroyer already in the midst of you, and that kingdom which is destined to supplant his is already rising on its ruins."

JFB: Mat 12:29

Or rather, "the strong man's house."

and spoil his goods, except he first bind the strong man? and then he will spoil his house.

JFB: Mat 12:30

On this important parable, in connection with the corresponding one (Mat 12:43-45), see on Luk 11:21-26.

JFB: Mat 12:31

The word "blasphemy" properly signifies "detraction," or "slander." In the New Testament it is applied, as it is here, to vituperation directed against God as well as against men; and in this sense it is to be understood as an aggravated form of sin. Well, says our Lord, all sin--whether in its ordinary or its more aggravated forms--shall find forgiveness with God. Accordingly, in Mark (Mar 3:28) the language is still stronger: "All sin shall be forgiven unto the sons of men, and blasphemies wherewith soever they shall blaspheme." There is no sin whatever, it seems, of which it may be said. "That is not a pardonable sin." This glorious assurance is not to be limited by what follows; but, on the contrary, what follows is to be explained by this.

but the blasphemy against the Holy Ghost shall not be forgiven unto men.

JFB: Mat 12:32

In Mark the language is awfully strong, "hath never forgiveness, but is in danger of eternal damnation"--or rather, according to what appears to be the preferable though very unusual reading, "in danger of eternal guilt"--a guilt which he will underlie for ever. Mark has the important addition (Mar 3:30), "Because they said, He hath an unclean spirit." (See on Mat 10:25). What, then, is this sin against the Holy Ghost--the unpardonable sin? One thing is clear: Its unpardonableness cannot arise from anything in the nature of sin itself; for that would be a naked contradiction to the emphatic declaration of Mat 12:31, that all manner of sin is pardonable. And what is this but the fundamental truth of the Gospel? (See Act 13:38-39; Rom 3:22, Rom 3:24; 1Jo 1:7, &c.). Then, again when it is said (Mat 12:32), that to speak against or blaspheme the Son of man is pardonable, but the blasphemy against the Holy Ghost is not pardonable, it is not to be conceived that this arises from any greater sanctity in the one blessed Person than the other. These remarks so narrow the question that the true sense of our Lord's words seem to disclose themselves at once. It is a contrast between slandering "the Son of man" in His veiled condition and unfinished work--which might be done "ignorantly, in unbelief" (1Ti 1:13), and slandering the same blessed Person after the blaze of glory which the Holy Ghost was soon to throw around His claims, and in the full knowledge of all that. This would be to slander Him with eyes open, or to do it "presumptuously." To blaspheme Christ in the former condition--when even the apostles stumbled at many things--left them still open to conviction on fuller light: but to blaspheme Him in the latter condition would be to hate the light the clearer it became, and resolutely to shut it out; which, of course, precludes salvation. (See on Heb 10:26-29). The Pharisees had not as yet done this; but in charging Jesus with being in league with hell they were displaying beforehand a malignant determination to shut their eyes to all evidence, and so, bordering upon, and in spirit committing, the unpardonable sin.

Clarke: Mat 12:22

One possessed with a devil, blind and dumb - A person from whom the indwelling demon took away both sight and hearing. Satan makes himself master of the heart, the eyes, and the tongue of the sinner. His heart he fills with the love of sin; his eyes he blinds that he may not see his guilt, and the perdition which awaits him; and his tongue he hinders from prayer and supplication, though he gives it increasing liberty in blasphemies, lies, slanders, etc. None but Jesus can redeem from this threefold captivity.

Clarke: Mat 12:23

Is not this the son of David? - Is not this the true Messiah? Do not these miracles sufficiently prove it? See Isa 35:5.

Clarke: Mat 12:24

Beelzebub - See Mat 10:25.

Clarke: Mat 12:25

Every kingdom divided against itself is brought to desolation - Our Lord’ s argument was thus: - "The welfare of any kingdom, city, or family, depends on its concord and unanimity; Satan, like every other potentate, must wish to rule his empire in peace and security; how then can he be in league with me, who oppose his authority, and am destroying his kingdom?

The reasoning of the Pharisees, Mat 12:24, was not expressed, and Jesus, knowing their thoughts, gave them ample proof or his omniscience. This, with our Lord’ s masterly confutation of their reasonings, by a conclusion drawn from their own premises, one would have supposed might have humbled and convinced these men; but the most conclusive reasoning, and the most astonishing miracles, were lost upon a people who were obstinately determined to disbelieve every thing good, relative to Christ. How true the saying - He came unto his own, and his own received him not!

Clarke: Mat 12:26

If Satan cast out Satan - A good cause will produce a good effect, and an evil cause an evil effect. Were I on Satan’ s side, I would act for his interest and confirm his influence among you; but I oppose his maxims by my doctrine, and his influence by my power.

Clarke: Mat 12:27

By whom do your children cast them out? - Children, or sons of the prophets, means the disciples of the prophets; and children or sons of the Pharisees, disciples of the Pharisees. From Act 19:13, Act 19:14, it is evident there were exorcists among the Jews, and, from our Lord’ s saying here, it is also evident that the disciples of the Pharisees did east out demons, or, at least, those who educated them wished to have it believed that they had such a power. Our Lord’ s argument here is extremely conclusive: If the man who casts out demons proves himself thereby to be in league with and influenced by Satan, then your disciples, and you who taught them, are all of you in league with the devil: ye must either give up your assertion, that I cast out demons by Beelzebul, or else admit this conclusion, in its fullest force and latitude, that ye are all children of the devil, and leagued with him against God

Envy causes persons often to condemn in one, what they approve in another.

Clarke: Mat 12:28

But if I cast out devils by the Spirit of God - Perhaps the Spirit of God is here mentioned by way of opposition to the magical incantations of the Jews; for it is well known that by fumigations and magical washings, they professed to cast out devils. See a case mentioned by Schoettgen on this verse

Clarke: Mat 12:28

Then the kingdom of God - For the destruction of the kingdom of Satan plainly implies the setting up of the kingdom of God

Clarke: Mat 12:28

Is come unto you - Is come unexpectedly upon you. Εφθασεν, from φθανω, to appear suddenly - unexpectedly

They pretended to be in expectation of the kingdom of God, and consequently of the destruction of the kingdom of Satan. But, by being not prepared to receive Christ in these proofs of his Divine mission, they showed that their expectation was but pretended. They were too carnal to mind spiritual things.

Clarke: Mat 12:29

Else how can one enter into a strong man’ s house - Men, through sin, are become the very house and dwelling place of Satan, having of their own accord surrendered themselves to this unjust possessor; for whoever gives up his soul to sin gives it up to the devil. It is Jesus, and Jesus alone, who can deliver from the power of this bondage. When Satan is cast out, Jesus purifies and dwells in the heart.

Clarke: Mat 12:30

He that is not with me is against me - In vain do men seek for methods to reconcile God and mammon. There is no medium between loving the Lord and being his enemy - between belonging to Christ or to Satan. If we be on the side of the devil, we must expect to go to the devil’ s hell; if we be on the side of Christ, we may expect to go to his heaven. When Christ, his truth, and his servants are assaulted, he who does not espouse their cause is not on Christ’ s side, but incurs the guilt of deserting and betraying him. There are many, (it is to be feared), in the world who are really against Christ, and scatter abroad, who flatter themselves that they are workers together with him, and of the number of his friends

Clarke: Mat 12:30

Scattereth abroad - This seems to have been a proverbial form of speech, and may be a metaphor taken from shepherds. He who does not help the true shepherd to gather his flock into the fold is, most likely, one who wishes to scatter them, that he may have the opportunity of stealing and destroying them. I do not find any parallel to this proverbial mode of speech in the Jewish rabbins, if it be one, nor have I met with it among the Greek or Roman writers.

Clarke: Mat 12:31

All manner of sin and blasphemy - Βλασφημια, injurious or impious speaking, mocking and deriding speech, Anglo-Saxon. See Mat 9:3

Clarke: Mat 12:31

But the blasphemy against the Holy Ghost - Even personal reproaches, revilings, persecutions against Christ, were remissible; but blasphemy, or impious speaking against the Holy Spirit was to have no forgiveness: i.e. when the person obstinately attributed those works to the devil, which he had the fullest evidence could be wrought only by the Spirit of God. That this, and nothing else, is the sin against the Holy Spirit, is evident from the connection in this place, and more particularly from Mar 3:28-30. "All sins shall be forgiven unto the sons of men, and blasphemies wherewith soever they shall blaspheme; but he that shall blaspheme against the Holy Ghost hath never forgiveness, but is in danger of eternal damnation; Because they said, He hath an unclean spirit.

Here the matter is made clear beyond the smallest doubt - the unpardonable sin, as some term it, is neither less nor more than ascribing the miracles Christ wrought, by the power of God, to the spirit of the devil. Many sincere people have been grievously troubled with apprehensions that they had committed the unpardonable sin; but let it be observed that no man who believes the Divine mission of Jesus Christ, ever can commit this sin: therefore let no man’ s heart fail because of it, from henceforth and for ever, Amen. See below.

Clarke: Mat 12:32

Neither in this world, neither in the world to come - Though I follow the common translation, yet I am fully satisfied the meaning of the words is, neither in this dispensation, (viz. the Jewish), nor in that which is to come, viz. the Christian. עולם הבא olam ha -ba , the world to come, is a constant phrase for the times of the Messiah in the Jewish writers. See below. The sin here spoken of by our Lord ranks high in the catalogue of presumptuous sins, for which there was no forgiveness under the Mosaic dispensation. See Num 15:30, Num 15:31; Num 35:31; Lev 20:10; 1Sa 2:25. When our Lord says that such a sin hath no forgiveness, is he not to be understood as meaning that the crime shall be punished under the Christian dispensation as it was under the Jewish, viz. by the destruction of the body? And is not this the same mentioned 1Jo 1:7, called there the sin unto death; i.e. a sin that was to be punished by the death of the body, while mercy might be extended to the soul? The punishment for presumptuous sins, under the Jewish law, to which our Lord evidently alludes, certainly did not extend to the damnation of the soul, though the body was destroyed: therefore I think that, though there was no such forgiveness to be extended to this crime as to absolve the man from the punishment of temporal death, yet, on repentance, mercy might be extended to the soul; and every sin may be repented of under the Gospel dispensation

Dr. Lightfoot has sufficiently vindicated this passage from all false interpretation. "They that endeavor hence to prove the remission of some sins after death, seem little to understand to what Christ had respect when he spake these words. Weigh well this common and, most known doctrine of the Jewish schools, and judge

"He that transgresses an affirmative precept, if he presently repent, is not moved until the Lord pardon him; and of such it is said, Be ye converted, O back sliding children! and I will heal your backslidings. He that transgresses a negative precept, and repents, his repentance suspends judgment, and the day of expiation expiates him; as it is said, This day shall all your uncleannesses be expiated to you. He that transgresses to cutting off (by the stroke of God) or to death by the Sanhedrin, and repents, repentance and the day of expiation do suspend judgment, and the strokes that are laid upon him wipe off sin, as it is said, And I will visit their transgression with a rod, and their iniquity with scourges. But he by whom the name of God is profaned (or blasphemed) repentance is of no avail to him to suspend judgment, nor the day of expiation to expiate it, nor scourges (or corrections inflicted) to wipe it off, but all suspend judgment, and death wipes it off. Thus the Babylonian Gemara writes; but the Jerusalem thus: Repentance and the day of expiation expiate as to the third part, and corrections as to the third part, and death wipes it off, as it is said, And your iniquities shall not be expiated to you until ye die: behold, we learn that death wipes off. Note this, which Christ contradicts, concerning blasphemy against the Holy Ghost. It shall not be forgiven, saith he, neither in this world, nor in the world to come; that is, neither before death, nor, as you dream, by death. Jerus. Sanhed. fol. 37. and Bab. Yoma, fol. 86

"In the world to come. - Some phrases were received into common use, by which, in common speech, they opposed the heresy of the Sadducees, who denied immortality, Of that sort were עולם הבא olam ha -ba , Αιων ὁ μελλων, The world to come. גן עדן gan aden , Παραδεισος, paradise: גו הנום gei hinnom , Γεεννα, hell, etc

"At the end of all the prayers in the temple (as we observed before) they said עד עולם ad olam , for ever. But when the heretics (i.e. the Sadducees) brake in, and said there was No Age but one, then it was appointed to be said for ever and ever. מן העולם ועד העולם min ha -olam , vead ha -olam . Bab. Beracoth, fol. 54. This distinction of עולם הזה olam hazeh , this world, and of עולם הבא olam ha -ba , the world to come, you may find almost in every page of the rabbins

"The Lord recompense thee a good reward for this thy good work in this world, and let thy reward be perfected in the world to come. Targum on Ruth

"It (that is, the history of the creation and of the Bible) therefore begins with the letter ב beth , (in the word ברישית bereshith ), because two worlds were created, this world and a world to come. Baal Turim

"The world to come hints two things especially, (of which see Rambam, in Sanhed. cap. ii. Chelek). I. The times of the Messiah: ‘ Be mindful of the day wherein thou camest out of Egypt, all the days of thy life: the wise men say, by the days of thy life is intimated this world: by all the days of thy life, the days of the Messiah are superinduced.’ In this sense the apostle seems to speak, Heb 2:5; Heb 6:5. II. The state after death: thus Rab. Tancum, The world to come, is when a man has departed out of this world."

Calvin: Mat 12:22

Mat 12:22.Then was brought to him Luke explains from the effect, that the devil by which the man was possessed was dumb; but Matthew says, that a twofold plague had been inflicted on the man. Many persons, no doubt, are blind and deaf on account of natural defects; but it is evident, that this man had become blind, and had been deprived of the use of speech, though there was no defect in his optical nerves, ¹⁰⁴ or in the proportion of his tongue. We need not wonder that so much liberty should be allowed to Satan in injuring the bodily senses, when God justly permits him to corrupt or pervert all the faculties of the soul.

Calvin: Mat 12:23

23.And all the people were astonished Hence we infer, that there was a visible display of the power of God, which drew upon him the admiration of the great body of the people, who were not at all actuated by any wicked disposition. For how came it that all admired, but because the fact compelled them to do so? And certainly there is not one of us, who does not see in this narrative, as in a mirror, an unwonted power of God: and hence it follows, that a diabolical venom must have seized the minds of the scribes, who were not ashamed to slander so remarkable a work of God. But we must attend to the result of the miracle. Moved with admiration, those who saw it ask each other, Is not Jesus the Christ? Acknowledging the power of God, they are led, as it were by the hand, to faith. Not that they suddenly profited as much as they ought to have done, (for they speak doubtfully;) but yet it is no small proficiency to be aroused to consider more attentively the glory of Christ. Some look upon this as a full affirmation, but the words convey no such meaning; and the fact itself shows, that an unexpected occurrence had struck them forcibly, and that they did not form a decided opinion, but only that it occurred to them that he might be the Christ.

Calvin: Mat 12:24

24.But when the Pharisees heard it The scribes cannot withhold the acknowledgment of a fact so open and manifest, and yet they maliciously carp ¹⁰⁵ at what Christ did by Divine power. Not only do they obscure the praise of the miracle, but endeavor to turn it into a reproach, as if it were performed by magical enchantment; and that work, which could not be ascribed to a man, is alleged by them to have the devil for its author. Of the word Beelzebub I have spoken under the Tenth Chapter, ¹⁰⁶ and of the prince of the devils I have said a little under the Ninth Chapter. ¹⁰⁷ The opinion expressed by the scribes, that there is a prince among wicked spirits, did not arise from a mistake of the common people, or from supposition, but from a conviction entertained among the godly, that the reprobate have a head, in the same manner as Christ is the Head of the Church.

Calvin: Mat 12:25

Mat 12:25.But as Jesus knew their thoughts Though Christ knew sufficiently well, and had often learned by experience, that the scribes, in the exercise of their malice ¹¹⁶ were in the habit of putting an unfavorable construction on every thing that he did, yet Matthew and Luke, I have no doubt, mean that Christ was a discerner of their hearts. ¹¹⁷ And indeed it is probable, that they spoke so openly against Christ, that their calumnies reached his ears; but Christ knew by his Divine Spirit the dispositions which led them to slander him. For it frequently happens that erroneous judgments are formed by men who do not intentionally, after all, oppose what is right, but err through ignorance; who do not cherish a hidden and concealed venom, but whose rashness carries them headlong. ¹¹⁸ The meaning therefore is, that Christ reproved them with the greater severity, because he was a witness and judge of their inward malice.

Every kingdom divided against itself In refuting the calumny alleged against him, he first quotes a common proverb. This refutation may appear to be not quite satisfactory. We know what subtle methods Satan sometimes employs, presenting all the while an appearance of discord, in order to entrap the minds of men by superstitions. Thus, for example, the exorcisms of Popery are nothing else than feats of dexterity, in which Satan pretends to fight with himself. But no suspicion of this nature fell on Christ; for he cast out devils in such a manner, as to restore to God the men in whom they dwelt sound and whole. Whenever Satan enters into a collusion with himself, he pretends to be vanquished, and yet it is himself that triumphs. But Christ attacked Satan in open combat, threw him down, and left him nothing remaining. He did not lay him low in one respect, that he might give him greater stability in another, but stripped him completely of all his armor. Christ therefore reasons justly, that there is no community of interest between him and Satan, because that father of cunning ¹¹⁹ keeps one object in view — the preservation of his kingdom.

But perhaps it will be objected, that the devils are often hurried along, by giddiness and blind madness, to destroy themselves. The answer is easy. The words of Christ mean nothing more than that it was absurd in the scribes to maintain, that the devil, who endeavors by every method to make men his slaves, should, of his own accord, destroy the power which he possessed over them. Besides, it ought to be remembered, that common proverbs were employed by Christ in such a manner, as to be merely probable conjectures, and not solid arguments; and that, when he speaks of what is known and well attested, he finds it easier to reach the conscience of his adversaries. ¹²⁰ Everybody knew that Christ had driven Satan from his possession, and nothing was plainer than that all his miracles tended to this object; and hence it was easy to conclude, that his power, which was so much opposed to Satan, was divine.

Calvin: Mat 12:27

27.By whom do your children cast them out? He charges them with passing an unjust and malicious decision, because in the same case they did not decide in a similar manner, but as they were affected towards the persons. Now this inequality shows, that their prevailing motive was not a regard to what is just and right, but blind love or hatred; and that it was even an evidence of wicked self-love ( φιλαυτίας) and envy, to condemn in Christ what they praised in their own children By your children some understand the children of the whole nation; and some think that the Apostles are so called, because they were acknowledged to be children, while Christ was treated as if he had been a foreigner. ¹²¹ Others refer it to the ancient Prophets. I have no doubt that he means the Exorcists, who were at that time generally employed among the Jews, as is evident from the Acts of the Apostles, ( Act 19:19.) There is reason to believe, that no greater kindness would be exercised in judging of the disciples of Christ than of their Master; and to apply these words to the dead is a forced construction, when they manifestly denote a comparison of the present time.

There was indeed no statute of the Law for having Exorcists among the Jews; but we know that God, in order to maintain their fidelity to his covenant, and their purity of worship, often testified his presence among them by a variety of miracles. It is even possible that there were persons who cast out devils by calling on the name of the Lord; and the people, having experienced such a display of the power of God, rashly concluded that it was an ordinary office. ¹²² The Papists afterwards, resolving not to occupy a lower rank, imitated them by creating Exorcists; and in this way were apes of apes. Besides, it was not necessary that Christ should approve of those exorcisms, in order to point out the malice of those who wished to have them regarded as sacred, and as authorized by the name of God; for the objection was, as we say, of a personal nature. ¹²³

Therefore they shall judge concerning you These words are not to be taken literally, but the meaning is: “We need not go far to seek your condemnation. You attribute to Beelzebub the miracles which I have performed, and you praise the same things in your own children. You have at home what is sufficient to condemn you.” But if any one prefer to understand them differently, as reproaching them with the grace of God, which was sometimes exhibited through the Exorcists, I do not greatly object to that view. Though they were greatly degenerated, yet the Lord was pleased not to leave them altogether without evidences of his power, that there might be some testimony to authorize the priesthood in general, and the service of the temple; for it was of the highest importance that there should be evident marks to distinguish them from the superstitions of the Gentiles. I look upon the former view, however, as the natural one.

Calvin: Mat 12:28

28.But if I cast out devils by the Spirit of God Luke says, if I cast out devils by The Finger of God; employing the word Finger metaphorically instead of the Spirit. As God works, and exerts his power, by his Spirit, it is with propriety that the word Finger is applied to him. And this mode of expression was common among the Jews, as Moses relates that Pharaoh’s magicians said, This is the finger of God Now Christ infers from what he has already stated, that the scribes prove themselves to be ungrateful to God, by being unwilling that He should reign among them. Hitherto, he replied to their idle calumny; but now, he treats them as convicted persons, and charges them not to make ungodly opposition to the kingdom of God. He does not confine himself to a single miracle, but takes occasion from it to discourse on the object of his coming, reminds them that they ought not merely to look at one remarkable fact, but at a far more important truth, that it was the will of God, by revealing His Messiah, to raise up their salvation which was fallen, and to restore his kingdom among them. Thus we see that Christ complains of their ingratitude, in madly rejecting from the midst of them the inestimable grace of God. The kingdom of God hath come to you The word come is emphatic, and implies that, without any request from them, God appears as their Redeemer, while they do everything that is in their power to drive him away, and, when he is present and prepared for their salvation, refuse to give him a place.

Calvin: Mat 12:29

29.How can any one enter into the house of a strong man? Though the Evangelists differ a little as to words, there is a perfect agreement among them as to the substance of this discourse. Christ is pursuing the subject, on which he had lately touched, about the kingdom of God, and declares it to be necessary that Satan be violently driven out, in order that God may establish his k i ngdom among men. What he now states is nothing else than a confirmation of the preceding statement. But to ascertain more fully the intention of Christ, we must call to our recollection that analogy which Matthew (8:17) traces between the visible and the spiritual layouts which Christ bestows. ¹²⁴ Every benefit which the bodies of men received from Christ was intended to have a reference to their souls. Thus, in rescuing the bodily senses of men from the tyranny of the devil, he proclaimed that the Father had sent him as a Deliverer, to destroy his spiritual tyranny over their souls.

I now return to his words. He maintains that a strong and powerful tyrant cannot be deprived of his dominion, till he is stripped of his armor; for if he is not met by a force superior to his own, he will never yield of his own accord. Why is this asserted? First, we know that the devil is everywhere called the prince of the world Now the tyranny which he exercises is defended on every side by strong ramparts. His snares for entrapping men are beyond all calculation; nay, men are already his slaves, and so firmly bound by a variety of fetters, that they rather cherish the slavery, to which they are devoted, than make any aspirations after freedom. There are also innumerable evils which he inflicts upon them, by which he holds them in wretched oppression under his feet. In short, there is nothing to prevent him from tyrannizing over the world without control. Not that he can do anything without the permission of the Creator, but because Adam, having withdrawn from the dominion of God, has subjected all his posterity to this foreign sway.

Now though it is contrary to nature that the devil reigns, and though it is by, just punishment of God, on account of sin, that men are subjected to his tyranny, yet he remains in quiet possession of his kingdom, and may insult us at his pleasure, till a stronger than he shall rise up against him. But this stronger person is not to be found on earth, for men have not sufficient power to relieve themselves; and therefor it was promised that a Redeemer would come from heaven. Now this kind of redemption Christ shows to be necessary, in order to wrench from the devil, by main force, what he will never quit till he is compelled. By these words he informs us, that it is in vain for men to expect deliverance, till Satan has been subdued by a violent struggle. ¹²⁵

He expressly accuses the scribes of ignorance, in not understanding the principles of the kingdom of God. But this reproof applies almost equally to all, for all are chargeable with the same folly. There is no man who does not loudly boast that he desires the kingdom of God; and yet we do not permit Christ to fight boldly, as the occasion requires, in order to rescue us from the power of our tyrant; just as if a sick man were to entreat the aid of a physician, and then to refuse every remedy. We now see the reason why Christ introduced this parable. It was to show, that the scribes were hostile to the kingdom of God, the beginnings of which they maliciously resisted. Let us also learn that, as we are all subject to the tyranny of Satan, there is no other way in which he commences his reign within us, than when he rescues us, by the powerful and victorious arm of Christ, from that wretched and accursed bondage.

Calvin: Mat 12:30

30.He that is not with me There are two ways of explaining this passage. Some suppose that it is an argument drawn from contraries, and that Christ’s meaning is: “ I cannot reign till the devil is overthrown; for the object of all his attempts is, to scatter whatever I gather.” And certainly we see abundant evidence of the earnestness with which that enemy labors to destroy the kingdom of Christ. But I rather agree in opinion with those who explain it to denote, that the scribes are declared to be, in two respects, opposed to the kingdom of God, because they intentionally hinder its progress. “ It was your duty to assist me, and to give me your hand in establishing the kingdom of God; for whoever does not assist is, in some measure, opposed to me, or, at least, deserves to be reckoned among enemies. What then shall be said of you, whose furious rage drives you into avowed opposition? ” ¹²⁶

And he that gathereth not with me scattereth The truth of this is abundantly manifest from what has been already said; for so strong is our propensity to evil, that the justice of God can have no place but in those who apply to it in good earnest. This doctrine has a still more extensive bearing, and implies that they are unworthy to be considered as belonging to the flock of Christ, who do not apply to it all the means that are in their power; because their indolence tends to retard and ruin the kingdom of God, which all of us are called to advance.

Calvin: Mat 12:31

31.Therefore I say to you This inference ought not to be confined to the clause immediately preceding, but depends on the whole discourse. Having proved that the scribes could not blame him for casting out devils, without opposing the kingdom of God, he at length concludes that it is no light or ordinary offense, but an atrocious crime, knowingly and willingly to pour contempt on the Spirit of God. We have already said, that Christ did not pronounce this decision on the mere words which they uttered, but on their base and wicked thought.

All sin and blasphemy As our Lord declares blasphemy against the Holy Ghost to be more heinous than all other sins, it is of importance to inquire what is the meaning of that term. Those who define it to be impenitence ¹²⁷ may be refuted without any difficulty; for it would have been in vain and to no purpose for Christ to say, that it is not forgiven in the present life. Besides, the word blasphemy cannot be extended indiscriminately to every sort of crimes; but from the comparison which Christ makes, we shall easily obtain the true definition. Why is it said that he who blasphemes against the Spirit is a more heinous sinner than he who blasphemes against Christ? Is it because the majesty of the Spirit is greater, that a crime committed against him must be punished with greater severity? Certainly that is not the reason; for as the fullness of the Godhead (Col 2:9) shines in Christ, he who pours contempt upon him overturns and destroys, as far as it lies in his power, the whole glory of God. Now in what manner shall Christ be separated from his Spirit, so that those who treat the Spirit with contempt offer no injury or insult to Christ?

Already we begin to perceive, that the reason why blasphemy against the Spirit exceeds other sins, is not that the Spirit is higher than Christ, but that those who rebel, after that the power of God has been revealed, cannot be excused on the plea of ignorance. Besides, it must be observed, that what is here said about blasphemy does not refer merely to the essence of the Spirit, but to the grace which He has bestowed upon us. Those who are destitute of the light of the Spirit, however much they may detract from the glory of the Spirit, will not be held guilty of this crime. ¹²⁸ We do not maintain, that those persons are said to pour contempt on the Spirit of God, who oppose his grace and power by hardened malice; and farther we maintain, that this kind of sacrilege is committed only when we knowingly endeavor to extinguish the Spirit who dwells in us.

The reason why contempt is said to be poured on the Spirit, rather than on the Son or the Father, is this. By detracting from the grace and power of God, we make a direct attack on the Spirit, from whom they proceed, and in whom they are revealed to us. Shall any unbeliever curse God? It is as if a blind man were dashing against a wall. But no man curses the Spirit who is not enlightened by him, and conscious of ungodly rebellion against him; for it is not a superfluous distinction. that all other blasphemies shall be forgiven, except that one blasphemy which is directed against the Spirit. If a man shall simply blaspheme against God, he is not declared to be beyond the hope of pardon; but of those who have offered outrage to the Spirit, it is said that God will never forgive them. Why is this, but because those only are blasphemers against the Spirit, who slander his gifts and power, contrary to the conviction of their own mind? Such also is the import of the reason assigned by Mark for the extreme severity of Christ’s threatening against the Pharisees; because they had said that he had the unclean spirit; for in this manner they purposely and maliciously turned light into darkness; and, indeed, it is in the manner of the giants, ¹²⁹ as the phrase is, to make war against God.

But here a question arises. Do men proceed to such a pitch of madness as not to hesitate, knowingly and willfully, to rush against God? for this appears to be monstrous and incredible. I reply: Such audacity does indeed proceed from mad blindness, in which, at the same time, malice and virulent rage predominate. Nor is it without reason that Paul says, that though he was

a blasphemer, he obtained pardon, because he had done it ignorantly in his unbelief,
(1Ti 1:13;)

for this term draws a distinction between his sin and voluntary rebellion. This passage refutes also the error of those who imagine that every sin which is voluntary, or which is committed in opposition to the conscience, is unpardonable. On the contrary, Paul expressly limits that sin to the First Table of the Law; ¹³⁰ and our Lord not less plainly applies the word blasphemy to a single description of sin, and at the same time shows, that it is of a kind which is directly opposed to the glory of God. ¹³¹

From all that has been said, we may conclude that those persons sin and blaspheme against the Holy Spirit, who maliciously turn to his dishonor the perfections of God, which have been revealed to him by the Spirit, in which His glory ought to be celebrated, and who, with Satan, their leader, are avowed enemies of the glory of God. We need not then wonder, if for such sacrilege there is no hope of pardon; for they must be desperate who turn the only medicine of salvation into a deadly venom. Some consider this to be too harsh, and betake themselves to the childish expedient, that it is said to be unpardonable, because the pardon of it is rare and difficult to be obtained. But the words of Christ are too precise to admit of so silly an evasion. It is excessively foolish to argue that God will be cruel if he never pardon a sin, the atrocity of which ought to excite in us astonishment and horror. ¹³² Those who reason in that manner do not sufficiently consider what a monstrous crime it is, not only to profane intentionally the sacred name of God, but to spit in his face when he shines evidently before us. It shows equal ignorance to object, that it would be absurd if even repentance could not obtain pardon; for blasphemy against the Spirit is a token of reprobation, and hence it follows, that whoever have fallen into it, have been delivered over to a reprobate mind, (Rom 1:28.) As we maintain, that he who has been truly regenerated by the Spirit cannot possibly fall into so horrid a crime, so, on the other hand, we must believe that those who have fallen into it never rise again; nay, that in this manner God punishes contempt of his grace, by hardening the hearts of the reprobate, so that they never have any desire towards repentance.

Calvin: Mat 12:32

32.Neither in the present life What these words mean, Mark briefly explains by saying, that those who have spoken against the Spirit are exposed to eternal judgment Every day we ask from God the forgiveness of sins, and every day he reconciles us to Him; and, finally, at death, he takes away all our sins, and declares that he is gracious to us. The fruit of this mercy will appear at the last day. The meaning therefore is: — “There is no reason to expect that those who shall have blasphemed against the Spirit will obtain pardon in this life, or will be acquitted in the last judgment.”

With regard to the inference drawn by the Papists, that the sins of men are forgiven after death, there is no difficulty in refuting their slander. First, they act foolishly in torturing the expression, future life, to mean an intermediate period, while any one may perceive that it denotes “the last judgment.” But it is likewise a proof of their dishonesty; for the objection which they sophistically urge is inconsistent with their own doctrine. Who knows not their distinction, that sins are freely pardoned in respect of guilt, but that punishment and satisfaction are demanded? This is an acknowledgment, that there is no hope of salvation to any one whose guilt is not pardoned before death. To the dead, therefore, there remains no forgiveness, except as regards punishment; and surely they will not venture to deny that the subject of this discourse is guilt. Let them now go and light their fire of purgatory with these cold materials, if ice can kindle a flame. ¹³³

Defender: Mat 12:26

See note on Mat 9:34."

Defender: Mat 12:32

The unforgivable sin of speaking against the Holy Spirit has been interpreted in various ways, but the true meaning cannot contradict other Scripture. It is unequivocally clear that the one unforgivable sin is permanently rejecting Christ (Joh 3:18; Joh 3:36). Thus, speaking against the Holy Spirit is equivalent to rejecting Christ with such finality that no future repentance is possible. "My spirit shall not always strive with man," God said long ago (Gen 6:3). Jesus added: "No man can come to me, except the Father which hath sent me draw him" (Joh 6:44). In the context of this particular passage (Mat 12:22-32), Jesus had performed a great miracle of creation, involving both healing and casting out a demon, but the Pharisees rejected this clear witness of the Holy Spirit. Instead they attributed His powers to Satan, thus demonstrating an attitude permanently resistant to the Spirit, and to the deity and saving Gospel of Christ."

TSK: Mat 12:22

was : Mat 9:32; Mar 3:11; Luk 11:14

he healed : Mar 7:35-37, Mar 9:17-26

blind : Psa 51:15; Isa 29:18, Isa 32:3, Isa 32:4, Isa 35:5, Isa 35:6; Act 26:18

TSK: Mat 12:23

the people : Mat 9:33, Mat 15:30,Mat 15:31

Is not : Mat 9:27, Mat 15:22, Mat 21:9, Mat 22:42, Mat 22:43; Joh 4:29, Joh 7:40-42

TSK: Mat 12:24

when : Mat 9:34; Mar 3:22; Luk 11:15

Beelzebub : Gr. Beelzebul, and so, Mat 12:27

TSK: Mat 12:25

Jesus : Mat 9:4; Psa 139:2; Jer 17:10; Amo 4:13; Mar 2:8; Joh 2:24, Joh 2:25, Joh 21:17; 1Co 2:11; Heb 4:13; Rev 2:23

Every kingdom : Isa 9:21, Isa 19:2, Isa 19:3; Mar 3:23-26; Luk 11:17, Luk 11:18; Gal 5:15; Rev 16:19; Rev 17:16, Rev 17:17

TSK: Mat 12:26

his : Joh 12:31, Joh 14:30, Joh 16:11; 2Co 4:4; Col 1:13; 1Jo 5:19; Rev 9:11; Rev 12:9, Rev 16:10, Rev 20:2, Rev 20:3

TSK: Mat 12:27

Beelzebub : Mat 12:24

by whom : Mar 9:38, Mar 9:39; Luk 9:49, Luk 9:50, Luk 11:19; Act 19:13-16

they : Mat 12:41, Mat 12:42; Luk 19:22; Rom 3:19

TSK: Mat 12:28

I cast : Mat 12:18; Mar 16:17; Luk 11:20; Act 10:38

then : Mat 6:33, Mat 21:31, Mat 21:43; Isa 9:6, Isa 9:7; Dan 2:44, Dan 7:14; Mar 1:15, Mar 11:10; Luk 1:32, Luk 1:33, Luk 9:2, Luk 10:11, Luk 11:20, Luk 16:16, Luk 17:20,Luk 17:21; Rom 14:17; Col 1:13; Heb 12:28

TSK: Mat 12:29

Isa 49:24, Isa 53:12; Mar 3:27; Luk 11:21, Luk 11:22; 1Jo 3:8, 1Jo 4:4; Rev 12:7-10; Rev 20:1-3, Rev 20:7-9

TSK: Mat 12:30

that is : Mat 6:24; Jos 5:13, Jos 24:15; 1Ch 12:17, 1Ch 12:18; Mar 9:40; Luk 9:50, Luk 11:23; 2Co 6:15, 2Co 6:16; 1Jo 2:19; Rev 3:15, Rev 3:16

gathereth : Gen 49:10; Hos 1:11; Joh 11:52

TSK: Mat 12:31

All : Isa 1:18, Isa 55:7; Eze 33:11; 1Ti 1:13-15; Heb 6:4 *etc: Heb 10:26, Heb 10:29; 1Jo 1:9, 1Jo 2:1, 1Jo 2:2

blasphemy : Blasphemy, βλασφημια [Strong’ s G988], either from βλαπειν [Strong’ s G984], την φημην , to hurt, or blast the reputation, or from βαλλειν [Strong’ s G906], ταις φημαις , to smite with words, or reports, when applied to men denotes injurious speaking, or calumny, and when used in reference to God signifies speaking impiously of his nature, attributes, and works.

but : Mar 3:28-30; Luk 12:10; Act 7:51; 1Jo 5:16

TSK: Mat 12:32

whosoever : Mat 11:19, Mat 13:55; Luk 7:34, Luk 23:34; Joh 7:12, Joh 7:52; Act 3:14, Act 3:15, Act 3:19; Act 26:9-11; 1Ti 1:13, 1Ti 1:15

but : Joh 7:39; Heb 6:4-6, Heb 10:26-29

it shall not : Job 36:13; Mar 3:29; Luk 16:23-26

Commentary -- Word/Phrase Notes (per Verse)

Barnes: Mat 12:22-30

Then was brought unto him one possessed with a devil - See the notes at Mat 4:24. The same account, substantially, is found in Mar 3:22-27, and Luk 11:14-26.

Mat 12:23

Is not this the Son of David? - That is, Is not this the promised "descendant"of David, the Messiah? They were acquainted with the prophecy in Isa 35:5, "Then the eyes of the blind shall be opened, and the ears of the deaf shall be unstopped,"and they inferred that he must be the promised Messiah who was able to do this. This inference was drawn by the common people, and not by the proud and haughty Pharisees. It is not uncommon that people of plain common sense, though unlearned, see the true meaning of the Bible, while those who are filled with pride and science, falsely so called, are blinded.

Mat 12:24

But when the Pharisees heard it ... - It was necessary for the Pharisees, who had determined to reject Jesus of Nazareth, to account in "some"way for the miracles he had performed.

Here was a manifest miracle, an exertion of power unquestionably superior to what people could put forth. The common people were fast drawing the proper inference from it, and coming into the belief that this was the Messiah. The authority and power of the Pharisees were declining. Unless, therefore, some way should be devised of accounting for these facts, their influence would be at an end. Whatever way of accounting for them was adopted, it was necessary that they should acknowledge that there was "superhuman power."The people were fully persuaded of this, and no man could deny it. They therefore ascribed it to the prince of the devils - to Beelzebub. In this they had two objects:

1.    To concede to the people that here was a "miracle,"or a work above mere human power.

2.    To throw all possible contempt on Jesus. Beelzebub, or Beelzebul, as it is in the Greek, and correctly rendered in the margin, was an opprobrious name given to the leader of the devils as an expression of supreme contempt. See the notes at Mat 10:25.

Mat 12:25, Mat 12:26

And Jesus knew their thoughts ... - To know the thoughts of the heart belongs only to God, Psa 139:2; Jer 17:10.

Every kingdom ... - Their subtle and cunning device was completely foiled, and Jesus made their argument recoil on their own heads. A kingdom or a family can prosper only by living in harmony. The different parts and members must unite in promoting the same objects. If divided - if one part undoes what the other does - it must fall. So with the kingdom of Satan. It is your doctrine that Satan has "possessed"these whom I have cured. It is also your doctrine that he has helped me to cure them. If so, then he has helped me to undo what he had done. He has aided me to cast himself out - that is, to oppose and discomfit himself. At this rate, how can there be any stability in his kingdom? It must fall, and Satan must have less than human prudence.

Mat 12:27

By whom do your children cast them out? - Your disciples; your followers.

See the notes at Mat 1:1. Christ was not satisfied by showing them the intrinsic absurdity of their argument. He showed them that it might as well be applied to them as to him. your disciples, taught by you and encouraged by you, pretend to cast out devils. If your argument be true that a man who casts out devils must be in league with the devil, then "your disciples"have made a covenant with him also. You must therefore either give up this argument, or admit that the working of miracles is proof of the assistance of God.

Therefore they shall be your judges - They condemn you and your argument. They are conclusive witnesses against the force of your reasoning.

Mat 12:28

But if I cast out devils by the Spirit of God ... - The Spirit of God, here, means the "power"of God - in Luke, by the "finger"of God.

Compare Exo 8:19; Psa 8:3. If this work is not by the aid of Satan, then it is by the aid of God. Then his kingdom, or "reign,"is come, Mat 3:2. The reign of Satan over people, and the reign of God are in opposition. If God expels Satan from his dominion over people, then his reign has come.

Mat 12:29

Or else ... - The Saviour makes use of a new illustration to confute the Pharisees, drawn from breaking into a house.

A man could not break into the house of a strong man and take his property unless he had rendered the man himself helpless. If he had taken his goods, it would therefore be sufficient proof that he had bound the man. So I, says he, have taken this "property - this possessed person"- from the dominion of Satan. It is clear proof that I have subdued "Satan himself,"the "strong"being that had him in possession. The words "or else"mean "or how:""How, or in what way, can one, etc."

Spoil his goods - The word "spoil"commonly means, now, to corrupt, injure, or destroy. Here it means "to plunder,"to take with violence, as it commonly does in the Bible. See Col 2:8, Col 2:15; Exo 3:22.

Mat 12:30

He that is not with me ... - In addition to his other arguments, Jesus urges this general principle, that there can be but two parties in the universe.

If anyone did not act with him, he was against him. If he gathered not with him, he scattered. This is taken from the practice of persons in harvest. He that did not gather with him, or "aid"him, scattered abroad, or opposed him. The application of this was, "As I have not united with Satan, but opposed him, there can be no league between us."The charge, therefore, is a false one.

Barnes: Mat 12:31-32

In this place, and in Mar 3:28-30, Jesus states the awful nature of the sin of which they had been guilty. That sin was the sin against the Holy Spirit. It consisted in charging him with being in league with the devil, or accusing him of working his miracles, not by the "spirit"or "power"of God, but by the aid of the prince of the devils. It was therefore a direct insult, abuse, or evil speaking against the Holy Spirit - the spirit by which Jesus worked his miracles. That this was what he intended by this sin, at that time, is clear from Mar 3:30, "because they said he had an unclean spirit."All other sins - all speaking against the Saviour himself - might be remitted. But this sin was clearly against the Holy One; it was alleging that the highest displays of God’ s mercy and power were the work of the devil; and it argued, therefore, the deepest depravity of mind. The sin of which he speaks is therefore clearly stated. It was accusing him of working miracles by the aid of the devil, thus dishonoring the Holy Spirit.

All manner of sin and blasphemy shall be forgiven - That is, only on condition that people repent and believe. If they continue in this sin they cannot be forgiven, Mar 16:16; Rom 2:6-9.

Blasphemy - Injurious or evil speaking of God. See the notes at Mat 9:3.

A word against the Son of man - The Jews were offended at the humble life and appearance of the Saviour. They reproached him as being a Nazarene - sprung from Nazareth, a place from which no good was expected to proceed; with being a Galilean, from Galilee, a place from which no prophet came, Joh 7:52. Jesus says that reproaches of this kind could be pardoned. Reflections on his poverty, on his humble birth, and on the lowliness of his human nature might be forgiven; but for those which affected his divine nature, accusing him of being in league with the devil, denying his divinity, and attributing the power which manifestly implied divinity to the prince of fallen spirits, there could be no pardon. This sin was a very different thing from what is now often supposed to be the sin against the Holy Spirit. It was a wanton and blasphemous attack on the divine power and nature of Christ. Such a sin God would not forgive.

Speaketh against the Holy Ghost - The word "ghost"means "spirit,"and probably refers here to the "divine nature"of Christ - the power by which he performed his miracles. There is no evidence that it refers to the third person of the Trinity; and the meaning of the whole passage may be: "He that speaks against me as a man of Nazareth - that speaks contemptuously of my humble birth, etc., may be pardoned; but he that reproaches my divine nature, charging me with being in league with Satan, and blaspheming the power of God manifestly displayed "by me,"can never obtain forgiveness."

Neither in this world, nor in that which is to come - That is, as Mark expresses it, "hath never forgiveness, but is in danger of eternal damnation."This fixes the meaning of the phrase. It means, then, not the future age or dispensation, known among the Jews as the world to come, but it means that the guilt will be unpardoned forever; that such is the purpose of God that he will not forgive a sin so direct, presumptuous, and awful. It cannot be inferred from this that any sins will be forgiven in hell. The Saviour meant simply to say that there were "no possible circumstances"in which the offender could obtain forgiveness. He certainly did "not"say that any sin unpardoned here would be pardoned hereafter.

Poole: Mat 12:22

Some think this person was the same mentioned Luk 11:14 , I presume, because the following discourse there is much the same with what followeth here; but others are of another mind; and it is certain Luke speaketh of no blindness in him. We heard before a discourse of such as were possessed by devils, so as this verse affords nothing new.

Poole: Mat 12:23

This is the first conviction we meet with, from the miracles wrought by our Saviour, that he was the Messiah, unless that of the two blind men, mentioned Mat 9:27 ; and their faith in it appears but weak, for they do not plainly affirm it, only ask the question, like the faith of those mentioned Joh 7:31 , When Christ cometh, will he do more miracles than these which this man hath done?

Poole: Mat 12:24

We met with the same blasphemous calumny from the same persons, Mat 9:34 . The Pharisees, not acknowledging the Deity of Christ, nor that he was the Messiah, were for their interest concerned not to acknowledge, and as much as in them lay to keep others from believing, that he did that from his own power which God alone could do. But yet they might have allowed him to have by a power derived from God done these miraculous things, as Elijah and Elisha of old did. But they blaspheme at the highest rate imaginable, ascribing that to the devil which was proper to God alone. Christ’ s miracles were exceeding many, and it was a time when the Messiah was expected. The sceptre was departed from Judah, and, as it appears from Joh 7:31 , (whatever the Jews now say impudently), they heard that when the Messiah did come he should work many miracles. These things put them into a rage. This remarkable piece of history is recorded by three evangelists: by Matthew in this place; by Mark, Mar 3:22-30 ; and by Luke, Luk 11:15-20 .

Poole: Mat 12:25-26

Ver. 25,26. This is our Lord’ s first argument. Mark relates it, Mar 3:23-26 , with little alteration in the phrase; so doth Luke, Luk 11:17,18 . The sum of the argument is, The devil is so wise, that he will look to the upholding of his own kingdom in the world. This will require an agreement of the devils amongst themselves, for if they be divided they cannot uphold their kingdom, nor stand, any more than a house, city, or kingdom in the world so divided can stand; therefore the prince of devils will not forcibly cast out the inferior devils. There is but one imaginable objection to this: Do we not see the contrary to this in people’ s going to cunning men for help against those that are bewitched, to get help for them? And is there no truth in those many stories we have of persons that have found help against the devil for some that have traded with the devil? I answer, It is one thing for the devils to play one with another, another thing for them to cast out one another. One devil may yield and give place to another, to gain a greater advantage for the whole society, but one never quarrels with another. The first may be for the enlarging of Satan’ s kingdom. This must be to destroy it. When a poor wretched creature goeth to one who dealeth with the devil for help for one who is vexed with some effect of the devil, one devil here doth but yield and give place to another by compact, voluntarily, and for the devil’ s greater advantage; for it is more advantage to the devil (who seeks nothing so much as a divine homage) to gain the faith of one soul, than to exercise a power to afflict many bodies. In such cases as these, the devil, for the abatement of a little bodily pain, gains a power over the soul of him or her who cometh to implore his help, and exerciseth a faith in him. This is an establishing, promoting, and enlarging his kingdom. But Christ forced the devils out of persons; they did not yield voluntarily, for a greater advantage, but forcibly, for no advantage. He did not pray the devils to come out, nor make use of any of the devil’ s sacraments, upon the use of which, by some original compact, he was obliged to come out upon a soul’ s surrender of itself by faith to him; but they came out unwillingly, upon the authoritative words of Christ, without the use of any magical rites and ceremonies testifying the least homage done to him.

Poole: Mat 12:27

Our Saviour’ s argument is this, Where the case is the same the judgment ought to be the same, and the contrary judgment speaketh malice, and hatred of the person. Do I cast out devils? So do your children. You say they do it by the power of God; why do you say that I do it by a prince of devils? What appeareth in their casting of them out more than in mine, which can argue that they do it by the power of God, and I by the power of the prince of devils? The only question is who our Saviour here meaneth by their children . Some think that he meaneth his own apostles, who were all of them Jews, and to whom they might be more favourable than to him, because of their relation to them. Others think that he means some exorcists amongst the Jews; such they had, Act 19:13 . But concerning these there is a double opinion. Some think that they were such as themselves, acted by compact of the devil. Others think that they invocating the God of Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob, God might honour them so far, as upon that invocation to command the devil out of persons. Origen and Justin Martyr both tell us, that there were some that used that form with such success. But so they might do, and yet not obtain their effect from a Divine influence, nor so much cast as flatter out devils, upon a homage first paid to the devil. I find some difficulty to persuade myself that in those times, especially when God by this miraculous effect was demonstrating the Messias, God should so far concur with any but him, and those that did it by his express name and authority; and I observe, that when the seven sons of Sceva attempted such a thing, Act 19:13 , they called over them which had evil spirits the name of the Lord Jesus, saying, We adjure you by Jesus, whom Paul preacheth, ( which they, being the sons of the chief of the priests, would not have done if the more grateful form of, The God of Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob, would have done it), yet could they not prevail, as you read there, Act 19:14-16 . Our Saviour’ s meaning therefore must certainly be either,

1. You do not say so of your children, my apostles, who do, and profess to do, what they do by a power derived from me; why do you say this of me, not of them? Or,

2. There are some of you who seem to cast out devils, whereas the devil only plays with them, and yields to their magical arts for his own advantage, and abates some more external effects on people’ s bodies, upon the surrender of their souls to him, by believing he is able to cure them, and imploring his help; yet you think these men endowed with the power of God: why are you so unequal to me?

I observe, though we read of exorcists amongst the Jews, Act 19:13 , yet they are called periercomenoi , vagrants. They were an idle, vagabond sort of persons, (such probably as we call gypsies), with whom, or by whom; it is not probable God would work such effects, especially at such a time, though they used the names of Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob. Nay, it is plain from the story of the Acts, that though they used the name Jesus, God would not work by them; Mat 12:16 , the demoniac leaped on them, overcame them, prevailed against them, so that they fled out of that house naked and wounded .

Poole: Mat 12:28

Luke hath the same, Luk 11:20 , only for the Spirit of God he hath the finger of God. By the kingdom of God he here meaneth the coming of the Messiah, which is so called, Dan 2:44 . The time is come, when the Lord begins his kingdom of grace, setting up his King upon his holy hill of Zion, Psa 2:6 ; whence we may observe, that Christ giveth in his casting out of devils by a Divine power, as an argument to prove himself the Messiah; for saith he, By this you may know the kingdom of God is come amongst you, that there is one come among you who by the finger, power, or Spirit of God casts out devils. But where had the force of this argument been, if the Jews had had exorcists whom God had so honoured, though vagabonds, as to cast out devils, upon their calling upon the God of Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob, while in the mean time they derided and contemned Christ?

Poole: Mat 12:29

Mark hath the same words, with little variation, Mar 3:27 ; Luke saith, Luk 11:21,22 , When a strong man armed keepeth his palace, his goods are in peace: but when a stronger than he shall come upon him and overcome him, he taketh from him all his armour wherein he trusted, and divideth his spoil. The sense is the same, though the words be multiplied. Our Saviour showeth how his casting out of devils by the Spirit and power of God argued that the Messiah was come, and the time come when God would set up his kingdom amongst men. The devil, (saith he), who is the god of the world, and the prince of the power of the air, is very strong; there is none, save God only, who is stronger than he. If I were not God, I could never cast out this strong man, who reigns in the world as in his house; as you see amongst men, the strong man is not overcome but by one stronger. He by this also lets them know, that he was so far from any covenant or compact with Beelzebub, that he came into the world a professed enemy to him, to dispossess him of that tyrannical power he exercised amongst men, by his keeping them in darkness, blinding them with error and superstition, and seducing them to sinful practices, till God, for their prodigious sins, had also given him a power over their bodies, variously to vex, afflict, and torment them. Christ took from this strong man all his armour: by scattering the darkness which was in the world by the full revelation of gospel truth: by expelling error and superstition, teaching people the truths of God, and the right way of his worship: by taking away the guilt, and destroying the power of sin and death, ignorance, error, profaneness; the sense of the guilt of sin, and the power of lusts within us, being the devil’ s armour, by which he kept up his power, and doth yet keep up what dominion he hath in the world.

Poole: Mat 12:30

Luke hath the same, Luk 11:23 . Some understand this concerning the devil, whom he was so far from favouring, that his work was quite opposite. Some understand it concerning some neuters, that would neither show themselves for Christ nor against him. Our Saviour tells them, that this cause would bear no neutrality, they must be either for him or against him. But possibly it is best understood concerning the scribes and Pharisees, whom he lets know, that he was one who showed men the true way of life and salvation, and those that complied not with him were his enemies, and instead of gathering, scattered the sheep of God.

Poole: Mat 12:31-32

Ver. 31,32. Mark repeateth the same, Mar 3:28,29, with no alteration as to the sense, and instead of neither in this world, neither in the world to come, he saith, but is in danger of eternal damnation. Luke hath something of it, Luk 12:10 , And whosoever shall speak a word against the Son of man, it shall be forgive him: but unto him that blasphemeth against the Holy Ghost it shall not be forgiven. It is a text (which) hath very much exercised great divines, and much more perplexed poor Christians in their fits of melancholy and under temptations. There is in it something asserted, that is, that all manner of sin and blasphemy shall be forgiven, Mat 12:32.

Whosoever speaketh a word against the Son of man, it shall be forgiven; that is, upon the terms other sins are forgiven, repentance and faith in Jesus Christ. By the Son of man here some would understand any ordinary man; but;

1. Christ never spake of any under the notion but himself.

2. It had been no great news for Christ to have told them, that ordinary evil speaking against men should be forgiven.

Doubtless by the Son of man here Christ meaneth himself. He declareth that sins of ignorance should be forgiven; though a man should blaspheme Christ, yet if he did it ignorantly, verily thinking he was no more than the son of man, it should, upon his repentance and faith in him, be forgiven: a text yielding exceeding great relief to souls labouring under the burden of their sins, and reflecting upon their aggravation.

But the difficulty lieth in the latter part of the text, which denieth forgiveness to any who blaspheme the Holy Ghost. Upon this arise several questions. First, What the sin against the Holy Ghost here specified was.

Answer: It is not hard to gather this from the context, and what Mark addeth, Mar 3:30, Because they said, He hath an unclean spirit. Christ was come amongst these persons to whom he speaketh; he had not only preached, but he had wrought many miraculous operations sufficient to convince them that he acted by the power and Spirit of God. They were not only convinced of it, so far as to acknowledge it, but they attributed these operations to the devil, and said he had a devil, and that he did what he did by the power of the devil. This, out of doubt, was their sin against the Holy Ghost, maliciously speaking to the highest reproach of the Holy Spirit, contrary to the rational conviction of their own consciences.

Hence ariseth a second question, Whether any such sin can be now committed.

Answer: If there were no other texts that seem to conclude, there may be such as those, Heb 6:4-6 10:26,27 1Jo 5:16 , where he speaketh of a sin unto death, for the forgiveness of which he would not have Christians pray. I should conclude that there is no such sin now to be committed, for we cannot have such means of conviction as the Pharisees had, Christ not being on the earth now working miracles; but it is plain from the texts before mentioned, that there is such a sin, that men and women may yet incur the guilt of. But now what that sin is hath exercised the judgment of the greatest divines to describe. I shall not repeat the various opinions about it, many of which are easily confuted; but shall determine from the guidance of the scriptures that mention it, so far as they will direct in the finding of it out.

1. It cannot be any sin that is committed ignorantly. Paul was a blasphemer, but forgiven, because he did it ignorantly.

2. It must be a sin knowingly committed against the operations of the Holy Ghost. So was this sin of the Pharisees.

3. Apostasy must be an ingredient in it: If they fall away, saith the apostle, Heb 6:6 . It is a sinning wilfully after the receiving the knowledge of the truth, Heb 10:26 .

4. It should seem by this text persecution is an ingredient in it: the Pharisees did not only say this, but they spake it out of malice, designing to destroy Christ.

5. Most certainly it is, that though impenitency cannot be called that sin, yet it must be an ingredient in it, for what sins we truly repent of shall be forgiven, 1Jo 1:9 ; and therefore the apostle saith of such sinners, It is impossible they should be renewed by repentance.

Upon the whole then, if any person hath been instructed in the things of God, and hath made a profession of religion and godliness, and afterwards falleth off from his profession, and becomes a bitter enemy to it; saying that those things are the effects of the devil in men, which his heart telleth him are the operations of the Holy Spirit, and be so hardy as to persecute and seek to destroy such persons for such profession: the interpretation be to those that hate us and to the enemies of our God: if they have not committed this unpardonable sin, they have done what is very like it; and I know no way they have, but by a timely and hearty repentance to satisfy the world, or their own consciences, that they are not under this dreadful guilt. And that which confirms me in this opinion is, that we rarely hear of such persons renewed by repentance (if any instances of that nature at all can be produced). I know some have thought that this sin might be committed by words, without other overt acts, and indeed blaspheming (properly taken) can signify nothing else but evil or reproachful speaking. But these words must proceed from a malicious heart, full of rancour and revenge; for it is not every word, nor every blasphemy, that is here meant, it is (as Augustine saith) quoddam dictum, quaedam blasphemia, a certain word, a certain blasphemy; not words spoken ignorantly or hastily, or according to our real judgment and opinion; but words spoken maliciously, in order to destroy God or Christ, if it were possible, after sufficient means of light and conviction, that the things which we speak evil of are not from the evil, but, probably at least, from the Holy Spirit of God, and yet we will impute them to the devil, in order to the defaming or destruction of those servants of God who do them, or in whom they are found. We can define nothing certain in the case, but this cometh nearest to the sin here mentioned, that shall never be forgiven in this world, or the world to come; that is, as Mark expounds it, the persons guilty shall be in danger of eternal damnation, by which he hath spoiled the papists’ argument from this text for their purgatory.

Lightfoot: Mat 12:24

But when the Pharisees heard it; they said, This fellow doth not cast out devils, but by Beelzebub the prince of the devils.   

[By Beelzebub; the prince of the devils.] For the searching out the sense of this horrid blasphemy, these things are worthy observing:   

I. Among the Jews it was held, in a manner, for a matter of religion, to reproach idols, and to give them odious names.   

"R. Akibah saith, Idolatry pollutes, as a menstruous woman pollutes: as it is said, 'Thou shalt cast away the [idol] as something that is menstruous, and thou shalt say to it, Get thee hence' (Isa 30:22). R. Lazar saith, Thou shalt say to it, Get thee hence: that which they call the face of God; let them call the face of a dog; that which they call the fountain of a cup; let them call the fountain of toil [or of flails]: that which they call fortune; let them call a stink; etc. That town which sometimes was called Beth-el; was afterward called Beth-aven." See also the tract Schabbath; where these same words are.   

All jeering is forbidden, except the jeering of idolatry. This also is repeated in the tract Megillah; where this is added, "It is lawful for a Jew to say to a Cuthite, Take your idol, and put it under your buttocks."   

II. Among the ignominious names bestowed upon idols, the general and common one was Zebul, dung; or a dunghill. "Even to them who have stretched out their hands in a dunghill [that is, in an idol-temple, or in idolatry], there is hope. Thou canst not bring them [into the church], because they have stretched forth their hands in a dunghill; but yet you cannot reject them, because they have repented." And a little after, " He that sees them 'dunging' [that is, 'sacrificing'] to an idol, let him say, Cursed be he that sacrifices to a strange god."   

Let them therefore, who dare, form this word in Matthew into Beelzebub. I am so far from doubting that the Pharisees pronounced the word Beelzebul; and that Matthew so wrote it, that I doubt not but the sense fails if it be writ otherwise.   

III. Very many names of evil spirits or devils occur in the Talmudists, which it is needless here to mention. Among all the devils, they esteemed that devil the worst, the foulest, and, as it were, the prince of the rest, who ruled over the idols, and by whom oracles and miracles were given forth among the heathens and idolaters. And they were of this opinion for this reason, because they held idolatry above all other things chiefly wicked and abominable, and to be the prince and head of evil. This demon they called Baal-zebul; not so much by a proper name, as by one more general and common; as much as to say, the lord of idolatry; the worst devil, and the worst thing: and they called him the "prince of devils," because idolatry is the prince (or chief) of wickedness.   

We meet with a story, where mention is made of the prince of spirits. Whether it be in this sense, let the reader consult and judge. Also in the Aruch we meet with these words, the demon Asmodeus, the prince of spirits.   

IV. The Talmudists, being taught by these their fathers, do give out, horribly blaspheming, that Jesus of Nazareth our Lord was a magician, a broacher of strange and wicked worship; and one that did miracles by the power of the devil, to beget his worship the greater belief and honour.   

"Ben Satda brought magic out of Egypt, by cuttings which he had made in his flesh." By Ben Satda; they understand Jesus of Nazareth, as we have said before; whom they dishonour by that name, that they might, by one word and in one breath, reproach him and his mother together. For Satda; or Stada; sounds as much as an adulterous wife; which the Gemara shews after a few lines, She went aside from her husband. They feign that Jesus travelled with Joshua Ben Perachiah into Egypt, when the said Joshua fled from the anger and sword of Janneus the king, which we have mentioned at the second chapter; and that he brought thence magical witchcrafts with him, but under the cutting of his flesh, that he might not be taken by the Egyptian magicians, who strictly examined all that went out of that land, that none should transport their magic art into another land. And in that place they add these horrid words, Jesus practised magic, and deceived, and drove Israel to idolatry. Those whelps bark, as they were taught by these dogs.   

To this, therefore, does this blasphemy of the Pharisees come; as if they should say, "He casts out devils indeed; but he doth this by the help of the devil, the lord of idols, that dwells in him; by him, that is the worst of all devils, who favours him and helps him, because it is his ambition to drive the people from the worship of the true God to strange worship."

Lightfoot: Mat 12:25

And Jesus knew their thoughts, and said unto them, Every kingdom divided against itself is brought to desolation; and every city or house divided against itself shall not stand:   

[But Jesus knowing their thoughts.] Behold, O Pharisee, a sign of the true Messias, for a sign you would have: he smells out a wicked man.   

"It is written of Messias, The Spirit of the Lord shall rest upon him, and shall make him smell in the fear of the Lord. Rabba said, he shall smell and judge; as it is said, he shall not judge by the sight of his eyes, etc. Ben Cozba reigned two years and a half, and said to the Rabbins, I am the Messias: they said to him, It is written of Messias that he shall smell and judge (the Gloss is, he shall smell out the man, and shall judge and know whether he be guilty). Let us see whether thou canst smell and judge. And when they saw that he could not smell and judge, they slew him."

Lightfoot: Mat 12:27

And if I by Beelzebub cast out devils, by whom do your children cast them out? therefore they shall be your judges.   

[By whom do your children cast them out?] by your children; Christ seems to understand some disciples of the Pharisees; that is, some of the Jews, who using exorcisms seemed to cast out devils such as they, Act 19:13; and yet they said not to them, "Ye cast out devils by Beelzebul." It is worthy marking, that Christ presently saith, "If I by the Spirit of God cast out devils, then the kingdom of God is come among you." For what else does this speak, than that Christ was the first who should cast out devils? which was an undoubted sign to them that the kingdom of heaven was now come. But that which was performed by them by exorcisms was not so much a casting out of devils, as a delusion of the people; since Satan would not cast out Satan, but by compact with himself and with his company he seemed to be cast out, that he might the more deceive.   

The sense, therefore, of Christ's words comes to this: "That your disciples cast out devils, ye attribute not to Beelzebul, no nor to magic; but ye applaud the work when it is done by them: they, therefore, may in this matter be your judges, that you pronounce these words of my actions out of the rankness and venom of your minds."   

In the Gloss mention is made of a devil cast out by a Jew at Rome.

Lightfoot: Mat 12:32

And whosoever speaketh a word against the Son of man, it shall be forgiven him: but whosoever speaketh against the Holy Ghost, it shall not be forgiven him, neither in this world, neither in the world to come.   

[It shall not be forgiven him, neither in this world, nor in that which is to come.] They that endeavour hence to prove the remission of some sins after death, seem little to understand to what Christ had respect when he spake these words. Weigh well this common and most known doctrine of the Jewish schools, and judge:   

"He that transgresses an affirmative precept, if he presently repent, is not moved until the Lord pardon him. And of such it is said, 'Be ye converted, O backsliding children, and I will heal your backslidings.' He that transgresses a negative precept and repents, his repentance suspends judgment, and the day of expiation expiates him; as it is said, 'This day shall all your uncleannesses be expiated to you.' He that transgressed to cutting off [by the stroke of God;] or to death by the Sanhedrim, and repents, repentance, and the day of expiation do suspend judgment, and the strokes that are laid upon him wipe off sin; as it is said, 'And I will visit their transgression with a rod, and their iniquity with scourges.' But he by whom the name of God is profaned [or blasphemed], repentance is of no avail to him to suspend judgment, nor the day of expiation to expiate it, nor scourges [or corrections inflicted] to wipe it off, but all suspend judgment, and death wipes it off." Thus the Babylonian Gemara writes: but the Jerusalem thus; "Repentance and the day of expiation expiate as to the third part, and corrections as to the third part, and death wipes it off: as it is said, and your iniquities shall not be expiated to you until ye die. Behold, we learn that death wipes off." Note this, which Christ contradicts, concerning blasphemy against the Holy Ghost; "It shall not be forgiven, (saith he,) neither in this world, nor in the world to come"; that is, neither before death, nor, as you dream, by death.   

[In the world to come.] I. Some phrases were received into common use, by which in common speech they opposed the heresy of the Sadducees, who denied immortality. Of that sort were the world to come: paradise: hell; etc.   

"At the end of all the prayers in the Temple" (as we observed before) "they said for ever. But when the heretics brake in and said, 'There was no age but one,' it was appointed to be said, for ever and ever."   

This distinction of this world; and of the world to come; you may find almost in every page of the Rabbins.   

"The Lord recompense thee a good reward for this thy good word in this world; and let thy reward be perfected in the world to come."   

"It [that is, the history of the creation and of the Bible] begins therefore with the letter Beth [in the word Bereshith], because two worlds were created, this world and a world to come."   

II. The world to come; hints two things especially (of which see Rambam): 1. The times of the Messias: "Be mindful of the day wherein thou camest out of Egypt, all the days of thy life. The wise men say, By 'the days of thy life,' is intimated 'this world': by 'all the days of thy life,' the days of the Messias are superinduced." In sense the apostle seems to speak, Heb 2:5 and Heb 6:5. 2. The state after death, The world to come is, when a man is departed out of this world.

Haydock: Mat 12:25

Every kingdom. Strong as a kingdom may appear, it is easily overturned by divisions; and lest it should be objected, that ruin was brought upon it by a multiplicity of clashing affairs, it is added that cities and families share the same fate, if subject to similar divisions. (St. John Chrysostom, hom. xlii). ---

The Pharisees, on a former occasion, had laid a similar accusation against him. Then indeed he did not correct them, wishing them to discover his virtue from the miracles he performed, and the dignity of his character from the doctrines he delivered; but as they still continue the old accusation, he now wishes to convince them of their error. Envy does not so much seek how to speak, as what to speak. Yet Christ does not despise them, but answers them in the most meek and humble manner, teaching us to be charitable to our enemies, though they behave to us in the most inimical manner. By this also, our divine Saviour evidently demonstrates the falsity of the accusation; for it is never in the power of a possessed person to know another's thoughts, nor give so mild an answer. And as his enemies did not dare, from fear of the people, openly to broach this base calumny, seeing their thoughts, he answered them; still he does not expose to public infamy the malice of their hearts, but gives them a private solution of their difficulty. (St. John Chrysostom in St. Thomas Aquinas)

Haydock: Mat 12:27

Your children, &c. Some by their children understand, exorcists, that were among the Jews, that sometimes cast out devils; but it is more commonly taken for Christ's disciples and apostles, who were of the Jewish nation, to whom he had given power to cast out devils: as if he had said, If you allow them to cast out devils by divine power, why do not you also believe this of me, their master? (Witham) ---

St. John Chrysostom says the apostles and disciples of Christ are here meant, for they had already cast out devils in virtue of the power conferred upon them by their divine Master, without ever having it said of them, that in the prince of devils they cast out devils. Thus he shews that envy was the origin and cause of their persecuting spirit, and that not his actions but his person gave them such great umbrage. (hom. xlii). ---

If Christ alludes here to their own exorcists, who drove out devils by the invocation of the adorable name of God, he confounds the unjust malice and prevention of the Pharisees; if to the apostles, he constitutes them his umpires. (St. Thomas Aquinas)

Haydock: Mat 12:28

Kingdom of God. Christ either calls himself and his coming the kingdom of God, because it was the beginning of the kingdom of God, and laid open the way to us: or the sense may be, If I, as proved in an argument above, cast out devils by the spirit of God, therefore what I, my apostles, and John preach, is true, viz. that the kingdom of God is at hand; because the Holy Ghost, who worketh miracles by us, proveth that our preaching is true. (Maldonatus)

Haydock: Mat 12:29

How can any one enter; how can I drive Satan from his possession? i.e. cast him out from the bodies of men, unless I am stronger than he, and first unarm him. (Maldonatus)

Haydock: Mat 12:30

He that is not with me. This sentence is not to be understood as directly spoken of heretics and schismatics, although at first sight it may appear so, but of the devil, who wishes to dead the souls of men captive, whilst Christ wishes to free them. He entices men to wickedness, Jesus Christ draws them to virtue: how therefore can the works of Christ be compared with those of Satan! (St. Jerome) ---

There is no medium. We must either be with Christ, or against Christ: if we are not of Christ, whose then must we be, when nothing but sin can separate us from Christ and God? Oh, where will the generality of Christians, who shew themselves so indifferent with regard to salvation, find themselves at the last day? Can they say they are with Christ?

Haydock: Mat 12:31

The blasphemy [2] against the Spirit, or against the Spirit and the Holy Ghost. St. Augustine takes notice, that this is one of the most difficult places in the Scriptures. According to the common exposition, here is not meant a sin committed by speaking against the third person of the blessed Trinity, the Holy Ghost, but that sin by which the obstinate Jews wilfully opposed Christ, and attributed those miracles to Beelzebub, which he performed by the Spirit of God, of which they could not be ignorant, but by a wilful blindness. (Witham) ---

The sin here spoken of is that blasphemy, by which the Pharisees attributed the miracles of Christ, wrought by the Spirit of God, to Beelzebub, the prince of devils. Now this kind of sin is usually accompanied with so much obstinacy, and such wilful opposing the Spirit of God, and the known truth, that men who are guilty of it are seldom or ever converted; and therefore are never forgiven, because they will not repent. Otherwise there is no sin which God cannot, or will not forgive to such as sincerely request, and have recourse to the keys of the Church. (Challoner) ---

Therefore I say: this therefore is not referred to what immediately precedes, but to what is said in verse 24. (Maldonatus) ---

Whosoever he be, says St. Augustine, that believeth not man's sins to be remitted in the Church of God, and therefore despiseth the bounteous mercies of God, in so mighty a work, if he continue in his obstinate mind till death, he is guilty of sin against the Holy Ghost. (Euchir. lxxxiii. ep. 50. in fine.)

===============================

[BIBLIOGRAPHY]

Spiritus blasphemia, Greek: e de tou pneumatos blasphemia. St. Augustine (serm. lxxxi. de verbis Evang. Matt. chap. v. p. 388. tom. v.) says of this place: Forte in omnibus Scripturis Sanctis, nulla major quæstio, nulla difficilior. And again, (chap. xii. page. 394) he give this interpretation: ipsa ergo impœnitentia, est Spiritus blasphemia. See also St. Jerome on this place. St. John Chrysostom's exposition is more easy, when he thinks the sense is, that such a sin shall scarcely be forgiven. Greek: uper part e amartia asuggnostos dm. ma. p. 274.

Haydock: Mat 12:32

Whosoever, &c. It was their duty to have a knowledge of the Holy Ghost, and they obstinately refused to admit what was clear and manifest. Though they were ignorant of the divinity of Jesus Christ, and might take him to be merely the son of a poor artizan, they could not be ignorant that the expelling of demons, and miraculous healing of all diseases, were the works of the Holy Ghost. If, therefore, they refused to do penance for the insult offered to the Spirit of God, in the person of Christ, they could not hope to escape condign punishment. (St. John Chrysostom, hom. xlii). ---

Against the Son of man, it shall be forgiven him; i.e. they who for want of sufficient instruction, were invincibly ignorant that Christ was God, might more easily be brought to the true knowledge and faith of Christ, and so receive forgiveness of their sins: but if he shall speak against the Holy Ghost, i.e. against the Spirit of God in Christ, and shall oppose the known truth, by attributing to the devil that doctrine, and those miracles, which evidently were from the Spirit and the hand of God, that sin shall never be forgiven him. But how is this consistent with the Catholic doctrine and belief, that there is no sin any man commits of which he may not obtain pardon in this life? To this I answer, that in what manner soever we expound this place, it is an undoubted point of Christian faith, that there is no sin which our merciful God is not ready to pardon; no sin, for the remission of which, God hath not left a power in his Church, as it is clearly proved by those words, Whose sins you shall forgive, they are forgiven them, &c. St. John Chrysostom therefore expounds these words, shall not be forgiven them, to imply no more, than shall scarcely, or seldom be forgiven; that is, it is very hard for such sinners to return to God, by a true and sincere repentance and conversion; so that this sentence is like that (Matthew xix. 26.) where Christ seems to call it an impossible thing for a rich man to be saved. In the same place St. John Chrysostom tells us, that some of those who had blasphemed against the Holy Ghost, repented, and had their sins forgiven them. St. Augustine, by this blasphemy against the Spirit, understands the sin of final impenitence, by which an obstinate sinner refuseth to be converted, and therefore lives and dies hardened in his sins. (Witham) ---

Nor in the world to come. From these words St. Augustine (De Civ. lib. xxi. chap. 13.) and St. Gregory (Dial. iv, chap. 39.) gather, that some sins may be remitted in the world to come; and consequently that there is a purgatory, or a middle place. (Challoner) ---

St. Augustine says these words would not be true, if some sins were not forgiven in the world to come; and St. Gregory says, we are to believe from these words in the existence of the fire of purgatory, to expiate our smaller offences, before the day of judgment. St. Isidore and Ven. Bede say the same. St. Bernard, speaking of heretics, says, they do not believe in purgatory: let them then inquire of our Saviour, what he meant by these words. ---

It is well known that Ven. Bede, on his death-bed, bestowed several small tokens to the monks who were present, that they might remember to pray for his soul in the holy sacrifice of the mass. (Haydock)

Gill: Mat 12:22

Then was brought unto him one possessed with a devil,.... About this time, or some little time after, when he was returned from the sea of Galilee, and was come into a certain house; see Mar 3:19 some persons brought him a demoniac, in compassion to the possessed man, and being persuaded of the power of Christ to heal him by the late cures he had performed. A like instance we have in Mat 9:32, which had a like effect upon the people, and cavilled at by the Pharisees in much the same way; and which cavils were answered in much the same words; and yet the case is not the same; for that man was only dumb, but this both

blind and dumb; not by birth, or through the defect of nature, or by any natural distemper that had attended him, but through the malice of Satan, by divine permission; his blindness, and dumbness, were the effects of his being possessed with a devil, who had deprived him of his sight, and speech. The word rendered "dumb", signifies both deaf and dumb, and answers to the Hebrew word חרש, which sometimes ^m is used of a deaf man only, who can speak, but not hear; and often of one that can neither speak, nor hear; which is the case of such as are born deaf: it seems as if this man could hear, though he could not speak; since no mention is made of his want of hearing, or of Christ's restoring it to him; for it follows,

and he healed him, insomuch that the blind and dumb, both spake and saw. This he did, not by making use of medicines, but by a word speaking, dispossessing Satan; so that the cause of blindness and dumbness being removed, the effects ceased, and the man was restored to his sight, and speech, as before. He had his sight to behold his Saviour, and a tongue to praise his name: so when men are turned from Satan unto God, and are delivered from his thraldom and bondage, they are brought into marvellous light, and put into a capacity of showing forth the praises of God.

Gill: Mat 12:23

And all the people were amazed,.... At the cure; it was such an instance of divine power, and so glaring a proof, that the person who wrought it was more than a man, and must be the Messiah. This is to be understood of the greater part of the people, not of every individual, and of the common people only; for it had a different effect upon the Pharisees, as hereafter appears; but in these it not only produced admiration, but conviction, faith, and confession:

and said, is not this the son of David? or the Messiah; for בן דוד, "the son of David", is a character of the Messiah, well known among the Jews; See Gill on Mat 1:1 because he was promised to David, was to be raised up of his seed, and to spring from his loins. This question they put, not as doubting of it, but as inclining, at least, to believe it, if not as expressing their certainty of it: and is, as if they had said, who can this person be but the true Messiah, that has wrought such a miracle as this? for from his miracles they rightly concluded who he was; though the Jews since, in order to deprive Jesus of this true characteristic of the Messiah, deny that miracles are to be performed by him ⁿ.

Gill: Mat 12:24

But when the Pharisees heard it,.... Very probably not the same that went out, and held a council against Christ to destroy him, Mat 12:14 but others that were come from Judea and Jerusalem, and were with him in the house, and saw the miracle: these, when they heard what the people said, and how ready they were to believe, and own Jesus to be the Messiah, in order to prevent it, being filled with envy and malice,

they said, this fellow doth not cast out devils but by Beelzebub, the prince of devils. They could not deny the miracle, or that it was one; but to deprive him of the glory of it, and even reproach him for it, and to bring him into contempt with the people, they not only speak of him in a scornful manner, ουτος, "this" sorry man, "this" vile fellow; but ascribe the miracle he wrought to familiarity with the devil, to diabolical influence and skill in magic art: they pretended he was in confederacy with Satan, and was carrying on his interest: and therefore, that he might gain credit and reputation, the prince of devils suffered the inferior ones to remove at his word: and of these their ancestors, the Jews have learnt to fix this vile imputation, and blasphemous piece of slander upon Christ; who, they say ^o, brought enchantments, or witchcrafts, out of Egypt, in the cuttings of his flesh, whereby he performed the things he did. Concerning Beelzebub; see Gill on Mat 10:25 here called "the prince of devils"; it being a prevailing notion among the Jews, that there is one devil who is the head of all the rest, and who is by them sometimes called Asmodeus: they say ^p, when Solomon sinned against the Lord, he sent to him אשמדאי מלכא דשידי, "Asmodeus the king of the devils", and drove him from his throne, and so elsewhere ^q: and sometimes Samael, who is styled ^r Samael the prince, מלכא דשדים, "the king of devils"; and the angel Samael, the wicked, ראש כל השטנים, "the head of all the Satans", or devils ^s: and we often read ^t of שר הגיהנם, "the prince of hell"; by whom the same is meant, as here, by Beelzebub; for if anyone devil is more wicked, odious, and execrable than the rest, the chief of them may be thought to be so; for which reason he is here mentioned.

Gill: Mat 12:25

And Jesus knew their thoughts,.... He not only heard their blasphemous words, but was privy to their secret thoughts; he knew their vile malicious intentions and designs, with what view they expressed themselves in this manner, on purpose to reproach him, and set the people against him, contrary to the inward light of their minds, and dictates of their consciences; who must, and did know the contrary of what they said: and regarding the inward frame of their minds, as well as their words, and which is a proof of his omniscience, and so of his deity, and consequently of his Messiahship,

said unto them the following parables, as Mark calls them, Mar 3:23 or proverbial expressions:

every kingdom divided against itself is brought to desolation; a government, in which there is a disagreement between the chiefs of it, and the body of the people, or where one part is opposed to the other, or in which a civil and intestine war is begun and prosecuted, cannot continue in any comfortable situation, and flourishing state, but must come to nothing: this is a maxim that has been so often fatally verified, that no one will doubt the truth of it; and the same holds true of lesser communities, of cities, and families:

and every city, or house, divided against itself, shall not stand. If citizens fall out with their magistrates, or one with another, and turn out, and disfranchise each other; and if the heads of families, and the respective branches thereof, quarrel with, and divide from one another, a dissolution of the whole must ensue; and the same may be said of the kingdom and government of Satan. These, it is very likely, were common sayings among the Jews, and they might be very easily understood by them; and are very appropriately produced by Christ to illustrate the present case, and confute the vile and blasphemous suggestions of the Pharisees: a proverbial expression, much like to these, is to be read in the writings of the Jews, כל בית שיש בו מחלוקת סופו ליחרב, "every house, in which there is a division, at the end shall come to desolation" ^u.

Gill: Mat 12:26

And if Satan cast out Satan,.... That is, if Satan, the same with Beelzebub, casts out the rest of the Satans, or other devils, of which he is the prince and head,

he is divided against himself; he acts contrary to his own interest, which is to keep possession of the bodies and souls of men; and consequently it must, in course, be subversive of his power and dominion:

how shall then his kingdom stand? he will never be able to maintain his authority, and keep up the show of a government, as he does: for these words suggest, that there is a form of government among the devils, who are united in one body, under one head; and whose unity and concord are their greatest strength, as in all other governments. Our Lord's argument, and which is his first, for others follow, is, that since Satan, who is so cunning and crafty, can never be thought to act such an opposite part to himself, subversive of his kingdom and government; and which would give so much credit to Christ, and serve so much to strengthen his interest, as to assist him in the casting out of devils; the weakness, and maliciousness of such a suggestion, must be clear and evident to all.

Gill: Mat 12:27

And if I by Beelzebub cast out devils,.... As the Pharisees asserted, and would have the people believe; for this is not allowed, only for argument sake supposed:

by whom do your children cast them out? meaning not the apostles and disciples of Christ, the children of the Jews, to whom Christ gave power of casting out devils, and who had exercised it in his name; and therefore argues, if they in his name cast out devils, why could he not do it himself, without the help of Satan? wherefore these would be judges against them: but, no doubt, the Pharisees had no better opinion of the disciples, and of their ejection of devils, than of Christ; wherefore, it is not likely, that our Lord should argue with them from hence: but rather, he means, some among themselves, who pretended to have a power of exorcising and ejecting of devils, either in the name of Jesus, as some of them did, Mar 9:38 or in the name of their kings, righteous men, prophets and patriarchs, as Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob ^w; and which practice, perhaps, they took up and made pretensions to, in imitation of Christ and his apostles; so as Christ healed men possessed of devils, they also affected to do the same. A story is reported ^x,

"concerning Ben Talmion, that a miracle was wrought by R. Eleazar bar Jose, who healed a king's daughter at Rome, in whose body the devil entered, whose name was Ben Talmion; and they brought him (the Jew) to the king's treasury, to take what he would, but he would take nothing from thence, but letters, in which were written the decrees they had decreed against Israel; and when he found them, he tore them to pieces, and there he saw the vessels of the house of the sanctuary, in the treasury.''

Now since the Jews pretended to do these things, Christ asks them, by whom they cast out devils? Whether by the Spirit of God, or by Beelzebub? They would doubtless say by the former, and not the latter, which would show their great partiality; for admitting that the like actions were done by them, as by him, why not by the same power? Why should their ejection of devils be ascribed to God, and his to Beelzebub?

Therefore they shall be your judges; who will rise up against you, and condemn you one day, for this unequal judgment you now pass; and which was just the reverse of the true state of the case: for he cast out devils by the Spirit of God, which they imputed to the assistance of Beelzebub; their children cast out devils, or pretended to do so, and it was by the help of Satan; and yet they ascribed it to a divine power, even though they made use of the name of Satan, under that of Beelzebub, or Asmodeus, their exorcising, of which take the following form ^y.

"By the authority of the glorious and fearful name, I adjure thee Asmodeus, "king of the devils", and all thy company, &c. that ye hurt not, nor put in fear, nor trouble such an one, the son of such an one, but that ye help him, and sustain him (or deliver him) out of every distress and anguish, and from every evil thing, and from all diseases, that enter into the two hundred and forty eight members, &c.''

Gill: Mat 12:28

But if I cast out devils by the Spirit of God,.... As it was certain he did, from the nature, use, and design of such miracles; and it could not be reasonably thought, that Satan would assist in what was so very opposite to his kingdom and interest, and was so serviceable to the cause and glory of Christ. All the three persons had an hand in the miracles of the Messiah; they were done by Christ, in his Father's name, and by the power of the Spirit of God; from which the following inference may be justly deduced,

then the kingdom of God is come unto you: meaning, either the Messiah himself; or rather, his kingdom, the Gospel dispensation, which both Christ and John had declared to be at hand; of which the performing of miracles, particularly the casting out of devils, whereby the kingdom of Satan was so much weakened, was a clear proof.

Gill: Mat 12:29

Or else, how can anyone enter into a strong man's house,.... This is another argument of Christ's proving that his casting out of devils could not be by Satan, but by the Spirit of God; for if he did not act by any superior power to Satan's, and such by which he was able to master, overcome, and bind him, he could never

spoil his goods, as he did; or dispossess devils out of the bodies or souls of men: just as if a man should enter into another man's house, who is strong and robust, with a design to spoil his goods, who would never make use of the man himself to do it, and can never be thought to effect it, unless he has a power superior to his, and uses it;

except he first bind the strong man, and then he will spoil his house: by the "strong man", is meant the devil, see Isa 49:24 who is powerful and mighty, as appears from his nature, being an angel, though a fallen one, excelling in strength human creatures; from his names, such as the roaring lion, the great red dragon, leviathan, &c. from the extent of his dominion, here called "his house"; which reaches to the whole posse of devils, and world of men; whence he is called the prince of the power of the air, and the prince of this world, and the god of it; and from his works and actions, in and over the bodies and estates of men, by divine permission; which might be exemplified in the case of Job, and the demoniacs in the time of Christ; and in and over the souls of men, not only over wicked men, but men under a show of religion, as antichrist and his followers; yea, saints themselves, and even over Adam in a state of innocence; but Christ is stronger than he, and attacked him, and dispossessed him of the bodies of men; and restraining him from doing them any hurt, enters into the souls of men, dethrone him, and leads him captive, who led others; and keeps him from doing them any damage; as he will in the latter day "bind" him and shut him up in prison a thousand years; and also "spoils his goods", or "vessels", and "his house"; the palace of Satan, by taking bodies and souls out of his possession; by awakening the conscience, enlightening the mind, working upon the affections, subduing the will, and implanting principles of grace and holiness in the heart; and so making it a fit habitation for God, which spoils it for the devil: in all which, Satan can never be thought to have any hand; and therefore the suggestion that Christ casts out devils by his assistance, even out of the bodies of men, has no show of reason in it.

Gill: Mat 12:30

He that is not with me, is against me,.... These words chiefly refer to Satan, and are a further proof, that Christ did not cast out devils by him; since they two are as much opposites, as can possibly be; Satan is not on the side of Christ, but an adversary to him; there is an original, and implacable enmity, between the serpent and the seed of the woman; there is an open war between them, and therefore one cannot be thought to lend assistance to the other. They were concerned in different things, had different views and interests, and so took different methods;

and he that gathereth not with me, scattereth: Christ is the good shepherd, that gathers his sheep to himself, and into his fold, by the external ministry of the word, and internal efficacy of his grace; Satan is the wolf, that catches and scatters the sheep, and seeks to kill and destroy them: and since there is such an open war proclaimed and carried on between Christ and the devil, none ought to be neutral; whoever is not on the side of Christ, is reckoned as an enemy; and whoever is not concerned by prayer or preaching, or other means to gather souls to his word and ordinances, and to his church, and to himself, is deemed by him a scatterer of them.

Gill: Mat 12:31

Wherefore I say unto you,.... This shows, that what follows is occasioned by what the Pharisees had said, concerning the miracles of Christ; imputing them to diabolical influence and assistance, when they were done by the Spirit of God, of which they themselves were conscious;

all manner of sin and blasphemy shall be forgiven unto men: not unto all men, for there are some, who, as they are never truly convinced of sin, and brought to repentance for it, so they never have the remission of it; but to such to whom God of his free grace has promised, and for whom he has provided this blessing, in the covenant of his grace; for whom the blood of Christ was shed, for the remission of their sins; and who, by the Spirit of God, are made sensible of them, and have repentance unto life given them, and faith in Christ, by which they receive the forgiveness of them: the sense is, that all kind of sin, whether committed more immediately against God, or man, the first or second table of the law, or against any of the divine precepts; be they sins small or great, secret or open, sins of heart, lip, or life, or attended with whatsoever aggravating circumstances; and all kind of blasphemy, or evil speaking of men, or of angels, or of the name of God, but what is hereafter excepted, there is forgiveness of in the grace of God, through the blood of Christ, even for all sorts of men and sinners whatever. The Jews have a saying ^z, that God pardons all sins,

חוץ מן הזמה, "except lasciviousness".''

But this is not excepted by Christ, only what follows,

but the blasphemy against the Holy Ghost, shall not be forgiven unto men: by which is meant, not every ignorant denial of, and opposition to his deity and personality; nor all resistance of him in the external ministry of the word; nor every sin that is knowingly and wilfully committed; but it is a despiteful usage of the Spirit of grace, an opposing, contradicting, and denying the operations wrought, or doctrines revealed by him, against a man's own light and conscience, out of wilful and obstinate malice, on purpose to lessen the glory of God, and gratify his own lusts: such was the sin of the Scribes and Pharisees; who, though they knew the miracles of Christ were wrought by the Spirit of God, yet maliciously and obstinately imputed them to the devil, with a view to obscure the glory of Christ, and indulge their own wicked passions and resentments against him; which sin was unpardonable at that present time, as well as under that dispensation then to come, when the Spirit of God was poured down in a more plenteous manner.

Gill: Mat 12:32

And whosoever speaketh a word against the son of man,.... By whom is meant, not any man, as Grotius thought, but the Lord Jesus Christ, so often called "the son of man", on account of his human nature, in which he appeared in great meanness and obscurity. Now many might, through ignorance of him, thinking him to be a mere man, and taking up with common fame, speak evil of him, deny him to be the Messiah, reproach him for the meanness of his parentage and education, and for the freedom of his conversation with publicans and sinners; and do many things contrary to his name, as Saul, whilst a Pharisee did, and thought he ought to do; and yet be afterwards convinced of their mistakes, and be brought to a sense and acknowledgment of them, and obtain pardoning grace and mercy, as Saul did, though a blasphemer; and who is an instance of what is here promised,

it shall be forgiven him through the grace of God, the blood and mediation of Christ, under the application of the blessed Spirit.

But whosoever speaketh against the Holy Ghost, in the sense before declared,

it shall not be forgiven him: not because the Holy Ghost is greater than Christ; or for want of efficacy in the blood of Christ; or because God cannot pardon it; but because such persons wilfully, maliciously, and obstinately oppose the Spirit of God, without whom there can be no application of pardon made; and remain in hardness of heart, are given up to a reprobate mind, and die in impenitence and unbelief, and so there is no forgiveness for them,

neither in this world, nor in the world to come; that is; they shall never be forgiven, see Mar 3:29. The distinction here used, does not refer to a common one among the Jews, of the Jewish state and the times of the Messiah; but to the present state of life, and that which will be after, or upon death: and it does not suppose there may be forgiveness of other sins, though not of this, in the other world; but strikes at a notion the Jews had, that there are some sins, which repentance and the day of atonement expiate in this life; but there are others, which repentance and the day of atonement do not expiate; and these a man's death expiates, or makes atonement for ^a. The form of confession used by sick persons is the following ^b;

"I confess before thee, O Lord our God, and the God of our fathers, that my cure is in thy hands, and my death is in thy hands; if it be thy good pleasure, heal me with a perfect healing: but if I die, תהא מיתתי סליחה, "let my death be for the pardon", forgiveness, and atonement of all the sins, iniquities, and transgressions, which I have sinned, acted perversely in, and transgressed before thee; and give me my portion in paradise, and justify me "in the world to come", which is hidden for the righteous.''

But the sin against the Holy Ghost is such, as is not forgiven, neither before, nor at, nor after death, nor by it: all sins that are forgiven, are forgiven in this world, and that perfectly and at once; and all that are forgiven in this world, there will be a manifestation and declaration of the pardon of them in another; but such sins as are not forgiven here, there will be no declaration of the pardon of them hereafter. In short, the sense is, that the sin against the Holy Ghost never has forgiveness; it is not pardoned now, and consequently there will be no declaration of the pardon of it hereafter. The Jews use the phrase in the same sense ^c; a certain sick man said to his son,

"give me water, and such certain food; but if not, I will not "forgive thee, neither in this world, nor in the world to come".''

That is, I will never forgive thee.

Commentary -- Verse Notes / Footnotes

NET Notes: Mat 12:22

¹ tn Grk “And he”; the referent (Jesus) has been specified in the translation for clarity.

² tn Grk “demoniac, and he healed him, so that the mute man spoke and saw.”

NET Notes: Mat 12:24

¹ sn See the note on Pharisees in 3:7.

² tn Grk “except by Beelzebul.”

sn Beelzebul is another name for Satan. So some people recognized Jesus’ work as supernatural, but called it diabolical.

³ tn Or “prince.”

NET Notes: Mat 12:25

¹ tc The majority of mss read ὁ ᾿Ιησοῦς (Jo Ihsous, “Jesus”), which clarifies who is the subject of the sentence. Although the shorter text is attested in far fewer witnesses (̲¹ א B D 892* sy^s,c sa bo), both the pedigree of the mss and the strong internal evidence (viz., scribes were not prone to intentionally delete the name of Jesus) argue for the omission of Jesus’ name. The name has been included in the translation, however, for clarity.

² sn Jesus here demonstrated the absurdity of the thinking of the religious leaders who maintained that he was in league with Satan and that he actually derived his power from the devil. He first teaches (vv. 25-28) that if he casts out demons by the ruler of the demons, then in reality Satan is fighting against himself, with the result that his kingdom has come to an end. He then teaches (v. 29) about tying up the strong man to prove that he does not need to align himself with the devil because he is more powerful. Jesus defeated Satan at his temptation (4:1-11) and by his exorcisms he clearly demonstrated himself to be stronger than the devil. The passage reveals the desperate condition of the religious leaders, who in their hatred for Jesus end up attributing the work of the Holy Spirit to Satan (a position for which they will be held accountable, 12:31-32).

³ tn Or “is left in ruins.”

NET Notes: Mat 12:26

¹ tn This first class condition, the first of three “if” clauses in the following verses, presents the example vividly as if it were so. In fact, all three conditions in these verses are first class. The examples are made totally parallel. The expected answer is that Satan’s kingdom will not stand, so the suggestion makes no sense. Satan would not seek to heal.

NET Notes: Mat 12:27

¹ sn Most read your sons as a reference to Jewish exorcists (cf. “your followers,” L&N 9.4), but more likely this is a reference to the disciples of Jesus themselves, who are also Jewish and have been healing as well (R. J. Shirock, “Whose Exorcists are they? The Referents of οἱ υἱοὶ ὑμῶν at Matthew 12:27/Luke 11:19,” JSNT 46 [1992]: 41-51). If this is a reference to the disciples, then Jesus’ point is that it is not only him, but those associated with him whose power the hearers must assess. The following reference to judging also favors this reading.

² tn The pronoun “them” is not in the Greek text, but is implied. Direct objects were frequently omitted in Greek when clear from the context.

NET Notes: Mat 12:28

¹ sn The kingdom of God is a major theme of Jesus. It is a realm in which Jesus rules and to which those who trust him belong.

² tn The phrase ἔφθασεν ἐφ᾿ ὑμᾶς (efqasen ef’ Juma") is quite important. Does it mean merely “approach” (which would be reflected in a translation like “has come near to you”) or actually “come upon” (as in the translation given above, “has already overtaken you,” which has the added connotation of suddenness)? Is the arrival of the kingdom merely anticipated or already in process? Two factors favor arrival over anticipation here. First, the prepositional phrase ἐφ᾿ ὑμᾶς (ef’ Jumas, “upon you”) in the Greek text suggests arrival (Dan 4:24, 28 Theodotion). Second, the following illustration in v. 29 looks at the healing as portraying Satan being overrun. So the presence of God’s authority has arrived. See also L&N 13.123 for the translation of φθάνω (fqanw) as “to happen to already, to come upon, to come upon already.”

NET Notes: Mat 12:29

¹ tn Grk “Or how can.”

² sn The strong man here pictures Satan.

³ sn Some see the imagery here as similar to Eph 4:7-10, although no opponents are explicitly named in that passage. Jesus has the victory over Satan. Jesus’ acts of healing mean that the war is being won and the kingdom is coming.

NET Notes: Mat 12:30

¹ sn Whoever is not with me is against me. The call here is to join the victor. Failure to do so means that one is being destructive. Responding to Jesus is the issue.

² sn For the image of scattering, see Pss. Sol. 17:18.

NET Notes: Mat 12:31

¹ tn Grk “every sin and blasphemy will be forgiven men.”

NET Notes: Mat 12:32

¹ tn Grk “it will be forgiven him.”

² tn Grk “it will not be forgiven him.”

sn Whoever speaks against the Holy Spirit will not be forgiven. This passage has troubled many people, who have wondered whether or not they have committed this sin. Three things must be kept in mind: (1) the nature of the sin is to ascribe what is the obvious work of the Holy Spirit (e.g., releasing people from Satan’s power) to Satan himself; (2) it is not simply a momentary doubt or sinful attitude, but is indeed a settled condition which opposes the Spirit’s work, as typified by the religious leaders who opposed Jesus; and (3) a person who is concerned about it has probably never committed this sin, for those who commit it here (i.e., the religious leaders) are not in the least concerned about Jesus’ warning.

Geneva Bible: Mat 12:22

^{( 4 )} Then was brought unto him one possessed with a devil, blind, and dumb: and he healed him, insomuch that the blind and dumb both spake and saw.

^{( 4 )} A truth, be it ever so obvious, is subject to the slander of the wicked: however, it ought to be resolutely defended.

Geneva Bible: Mat 12:25

^{( 5 )} And Jesus knew their thoughts, and said unto them, Every kingdom divided against itself is brought to desolation; and every city or house divided against itself shall not stand:

^{( 5 )} The kingdom of Christ and the kingdom of the devil cannot abide together.

Geneva Bible: Mat 12:32

And whosoever speaketh a word against the Son of man, it shall be forgiven him: ^{( 6 )} but whosoever speaketh against the Holy Spirit, it shall not be forgiven him, neither in this world, neither in the [world] to come.

^{( 6 )} Of blasphemy against the Holy Spirit.

Commentary -- Verse Range Notes

TSK Synopsis: Mat 12:1-50

1 Christ reproves the blindness of the Pharisees concerning the breach of the sabbath,

3 by scripture,

9 by reason,

13 and by a miracle.

22 He heals a man possessed that was blind and dumb;

24 and confuting the absurd charge of casting out devils by Beelzebub, he shows that blasphemy against the Holy Ghost shall never be forgiven.

36 Account shall be made of idle words.

38 He rebukes the unfaithful, who seek after a sign,

46 and shows who is his brother, sister, and mother.

Maclaren: Mat 12:24

An Attempt To Account For Jesus

But when the Pharisees heard it, they said, This man doth not cast out demons, but by Beelzebub, the prince of the demons.'--Matt. 12:24.

MARK'S Gospel tells us that this astonishing explanation of Christ and His work was due to the ingenious malice of an ecclesiastical deputation, sent down from Jerusalem to prevent the simple folk in Galilee from being led away by this new Teacher. They must have been very hard put to it to explain undeniable but unwelcome facts, when they hazarded such a preposterous theory.

Formal religionists never know what to make of a man who is in manifest touch with the unseen. These scribes, like Christ's other critics, judged themselves in judging Him, and bore witness to the very truths that they were eager to deny. For this ridiculous explanation admits the miraculous, recognises the impossibility of accounting for Christ on any naturalistic hypothesis, and by its very outrageous absurdity indicates that the only reasonable explanation of the facts is the admission of His divine message and authority. So we may learn, even from such words as these, how the glory of Jesus Christ shines, though distorted and blurred, through the fogs of prejudice and malice.

I. Note, Then, First, The Unwelcome And Undeniable Facts That Insist Upon Explanation.

I have said that these hostile critics attest the reality of the miracles. I know that it is not fashionable at present to attach much weight to the fact that none of all the enemies that saw them ever had a doubt about the reality of Christ's miracles. I know quiet well that in an age that believed in the possibility of the supernatural, as this age does not, credence would be more easy, and that such testimony is less valuable than if it had come from a jury of scientific twentieth century sceptics. But I know, on the other hand, that for long generations the expectation of the miraculous had died out before Christ came; that His predecessor, John the Baptist, made no such claims; and that, at first, at all events, there was no expectation of Jesus working miracles, to lead to any initial ease of acceptance of His claims. And I know that there were never sharper and more hostile eyes brought to bear upon any man and his work than the eyes of these ecclesiastical triers.' It would have been so easy and so triumphant a way of ending the whole business if they could have shown, what they were anxious to be able to show, that the miracle was a trick. And so I venture to think that not without some weight is the attestation from the camp of the enemy, This man casteth out demons.'

But you have to remember that amongst the facts to be explained is not only this one of Christ's works having passed muster with His enemies, but the other of His own reiterated and solemn claim to have the power of working what we call miracles. Now, I wish to dwell on that for one moment, because it is fashionable to put one's thumb upon it nowadays. It is not unusual to eliminate from the Gospel narrative all that side of it, and then to run over in eulogiums about the rest. But what we have to deal with is this fact, that the Man whom the world admits to be the consummate flower of humanity, meek, sane, humble, who has given all generations lessons in self-abnegation and devotion, claimed to be able to raise the dead, to cast out demons, and to do many wonderful works. And though we should be misrepresenting the facts if we said that He did what His followers have too often been inclined to do, i.e. rested the stress of evidence upon that side of His work, yet it is an equal exaggeration in the other direction to do, as so many are inclined to do to-day, i.e. disparage the miraculous evidence as no evidence at all. Go and tell John the things that ye see and hear,'--that is His own answer to the question, Art Thou He that should come?' And though I rejoice to believe that there are far loftier and more blessed answers to it than these outward signs and tokens, they are signs and tokens; and they are part of the whole facts that have to be accounted for.

I would venture to widen the reference of my text for a moment, and include not only the actual miracles of our Lord's earthly life, but all the beneficent, hallowing, elevating, ennobling, refining results which have followed upon the proclamation of His truth in the world ever since. I believe, as I think Scripture teaches me to believe, that in the world today Christ is working; and that it is a mistake to talk about the results of Christianity,' meaning thereby some abstract system divorced from Him. It is the working of Jesus Christ in the world that has brought nobler manners, purer laws'; that has given a new impulse and elevation to art and literature; that has lifted the whole tone of society; that has suppressed ancient evils; that has barred the doors of old temples of devildom, of lust, and cruelty, and vice; and that is still working in the world for the elevation and the deifying of humanity. And I claim the whole difference between B.C. and A.D.'--the whole difference between Christendom and Heathendom--as being the measure of the continuous power with which Jesus Christ has grappled with and throttled the snakes that have fastened on men. That continuous operation of His in delivering from the powers of evil has, indeed, not yielded such results as might have been expected. But just as on earth He was hindered in the exercise of His supernatural power by men's unbelief, so that He could do no mighty works, save that He laid His hands on a few sick folk' here and there, and healed them,' so He has been thwarted by His Church, and hindered in the world, from manifesting the fulness of His power. But yet, sorrowfully admitting that, and taking as deserved the scoffs of the men that say, Your Christianity does not seem to do so very much after all,' I still venture to allege that its record is unique; and that these are facts which wise men ought to take into account, and have some fairly plausible way of explaining.

II. Secondly, Note The Preposterous Explanation.

This man doth not cast out demons, but by Beelzebub, the prince of the demons.' That is the last resort of prejudice so deep that it will father an absurdity rather than yield to evidence. And Christ has no difficulty in putting it aside, as you may remember, by a piece of common sense: If Satan cast out Satan, he is divided against himself, and his kingdom cannot stand.' There is an old play which has for its title, The Devil as an Ass. He is not such an ass as that, to build up with one hand and cast down with the other. As the proverb has it, Hawks do not pick out hawks' eyes.' But this plainly hopeless attempt to account for Christ and His work may be turned into a witness for both, and yield not unimportant lessons.

This explanation witnesses to the insufficiency of all explanations which omit the supernatural. These men felt that they had to do with a Man who was in touch with a whole world of unseen powers; and that they had here to deal with something to which ordinary measuring lines were palpably inapplicable. And so they fell back upon by Beelzebub'; and they thereby admitted that humanity without something more at the back of it never made such a man as that. And I beg you to lay that to heart. It is very easy to solve an insoluble problem if you begin by taking all the insoluble elements out of it. And that is how a great deal of modern thinking does with Christianity. Knock out all the miracles; pooh-pooh all Christ's claims; say nothing about Incarnation; declare Resurrection to be entirely unhistorical, and you will not have much difficulty in accounting for the rest; and it will not be worth the accounting for. But here is the thing to be dealt with, that whole life, the Christ of the Gospels. And I venture to say that any explanation professing to account for Him which leaves out His coming from an unseen world, and His possession of powers above this world of sense and nature, is ludicrously inadequate. Suppose you had a chain which for thousands of years had been winding on to a drum, and link after link had been rough iron, and all at once there comes one of pure gold, would it be reasonable to say that it had been dug from the same mine, and forged in the same fires, as its black and ponderous companions? Generation after generation has passed across the earth, each begetting sons after its own likeness; and lo! in the midst of them starts up one sinless Man. Is it reasonable to say that He is the product of the same causes which have produced all the millions, and never another like Him? Surely to account for Jesus without the supernatural is hopeless.

Further, this explanation may be taken as an instance showing the inadequacy of all theories and explanations of Christ and Christianity from an unbelieving point of view. It was the first attempt of unbelievers to explain where Christ's power came from. Like all first attempts, it was crude, and it has been amended and refined since. Earlier generations did not hesitate to call the Apostles liars, and Christ's contemporaries did not hesitate to call Him this deceiver.' We have got beyond that; but we still are met by explanations of the power of the Gospel and of Christ, its subject and Author, which trace these to ignoble elements, and do not shrink from asserting that a blunder or a hallucination lies at the foundation.

Now, I am not going to enter upon these matters at any length, but I would just recall to you our Lord's broad, simple principle: A corrupt tree cannot bring forth good fruit, neither doth a good tree bring forth evil fruit.' And I would apply that all round. Christian teachers have often made great mistakes, as it seems to me, by tracing the prevalence of the power of some heathen religions to their vices and lies. No system has ever had great moral power in this world but by reason of its excellences and truths. Mohammedanism, for instance, swept away, and rightly, a mere formal superstition which called itself Christianity, because it grasped the one truth: There is no God but God'; and it had faith of a sort. Monasticism held the field in Europe, with all its faults, for centuries, because it enshrined the great Christian truth of self-sacrifice and absolute obedience. And you may take it as a fixed rule, that howsoever some mixture of falsehood doth ever please,' as Bacon says, in his cynical way, the reason for the power of any great movement has been the truth that was in it and not the lie; and the reason why great men have exercised influence has been their greatness and their goodness, and not their smallnesses and their vices.

I apply that all round, and I ask you to apply it to Christianity; and in the light of such plain principles to answer the question: Where did this Man, so fair, so radiant, so human and yet so superhuman, so universal and yet so individual--where did He come from? and where did the Gospel, which flows from Him, and which has done such things in the world as it has done--where did it come from? Do men gather grapes of thorns, or figs of thistles?' If it is true that Jesus Christ is either mistakenly represented in the Gospels, or that He made enthusiastic claims which cannot be verified; and if it is true that the faith in a Resurrection on which Christianity is suspended, and which has produced such fruits as we know have been produced, is a delusion; then all I can say is that the noblest lives that ever were lived in the world have found their impulse in a falsehood or a dream; and that the richest clusters that ever have yielded wine for the cup have grown upon a thorn. If like produces like, you cannot account for Christ and Christianity by anything short of the belief in His Divine mission. Serpents' eggs do not hatch out into doves. This Man, when He claimed to be God's Son and the world's Saviour, was no brain-sick enthusiast; and the results show that the Gospel which His followers proclaim rests upon no lie.

Again, this explanation is an instance of the credulity of unbelief. Think of the mental condition which could swallow such an explanation of such a Worker and such work. It is more difficult to believe the explanation than the alternative which it is framed to escape. So it is always. The difficulties of faith are small by comparison with those of unbelief, gnats beside camels, and that that is so is plain from the short duration of each unbelieving explanation of Jesus. One can remember in the compass of one's own life more than one assailant taking the field with much trumpeting and flag-waving, whose attack failed and is forgotten. The child's story tells of a giant who determined to slay his enemy, and belaboured an empty bed with his club all night, and found his foe untouched and fresh in the morning. The Gospel is here; what has become of its assailants? They are gone, and the limbo into which the scribes' theory has passed will receive all the others. So we may be quite patient, and sure that the sieve of time, which is slowly and constantly working, will riddle out all the rubbish, and cast it on the dunghill where so many exploded theories rot forgotten.

III. And Now, One Word About The Last Point; And That Is, The True Explanation.

Now, at this stage of my sermon, I must not be tempted to say a word about the light which our Lord throws, in these declarations in the context, into that dim unseen world. His words seem to me to be too solemn and didactic to be taken as accommodations to popular prejudice, and a great deal too grave to be taken as mere metaphor. And I, for my part, am not so sure that, apart from Him, I know all things in heaven and earth, as to venture to put aside these solemn words of His--which lift a corner of the yell which hides the unseen--and to dismiss them as unworthy of notice. Is it not a strange thing that a world which is so ready to believe in spiritual communications when they are vouched for by a newspaper editor, is so unwilling to believe them when they are in the Bible? And is it not a strange thing that scientists, who are always taunting Christians With the importance they attach to man in the plan of the universe, and ask if all these starry orbs were built for him, should be so incredulous of teachings which fill the waste places with loftier beings But that is by the way.

What does Christ say in the context? He tells the secret of His power. I, by the Spirit of God, cast out demons.' And then He goes on to speak about a conflict that He wages with a strong man; and about His binding the strong man, and spoiling his house. All, which, being turned into modern language, is just this, that the Lord, by His incarnation, life, death, resurrection, ascension, and government at the right hand of God, has broken the powers of evil in their central hold. He has crushed the serpent's head; and though He may still, as Milton puts it, swinge the scaly horror of his folded tail,' it is but the flurries of the dying brute. The conquering heel is firm on his head. So, brethren, evil is conquered, and Christ is the Conqueror; and by His work in life and death He has delivered them that were held captive of the devil. And you and I may, if we will, pass into the liberty wherewith Christ has made us free.'

That is the only explanation of Him--in His person, in His character, in His work, and in the effects of that work in the world--that covers all the facts, and will hold water. All others fail, and they mostly fail by boldly eliminating the very facts that need to be accounted for. Let us rather look to Him, thankful that our Brother has conquered; and let us put our trust in that Saviour. For, if His explanation is true, then a very solemn personal consideration arises for each of us, If I, by the Spirit of God, cask out demons, then the Kingdom of God is come unto you,' it stands beside us; it calls for our obedience. Jesus Christ, and Jesus Christ alone, can cast the evils out of our natures. It is the Incarnate Christ, the Divine Christ, the crucified Christ, the ascended Christ, the indwelling Christ, who will so fill our hearts that there shall be no aching voids there to invite the return of the expelled tyrants. If any other reformation pass upon us than the thorough one of receiving Him by faith into our hearts, then, though they may be swept and garnished, they will be empty; and the demons will come back. With Jesus inside--they will be outside,

MHCC: Mat 12:22-30

A soul under Satan's power, and led captive by him, is blind in the things of God, and dumb at the throne of grace; sees nothing, and says nothing to the purpose. Satan blinds the eyes by unbelief, and seals up the lips from prayer. The more people magnified Christ, the more desirous the Pharisees were to vilify him. It was evident that if Satan aided Jesus in casting out devils, the kingdom of hell was divided against itself; how then could it stand! And if they said that Jesus cast out devils by the prince of the devils, they could not prove that their children cast them out by any other power. There are two great interests in the world; and when unclean spirits are cast out by the Holy Spirit, in the conversion of sinners to a life of faith and obedience, the kingdom of God is come unto us. All who do not aid or rejoice in such a change are against Christ.

MHCC: Mat 12:31-32

Here is a gracious assurance of the pardon of all sin upon gospel terms. Christ herein has set an example to the sons of men, to be ready to forgive words spoken against them. But humble and conscientious believers, at times are tempted to think they have committed the unpardonable sin, while those who have come the nearest to it, seldom have any fear about it. We may be sure that those who indeed repent and believe the gospel, have not committed this sin, or any other of the same kind; for repentance and faith are the special gifts of God, which he would not bestow on any man, if he were determined never to pardon him; and those who fear they have committed this sin, give a good sign that they have not. The trembling, contrite sinner, has the witness in himself that this is not his case.

Matthew Henry: Mat 12:22-37

In these verses we have,

I. Christ's glorious conquest of Satan, in the gracious cure of one who, by the divine permission, was under his power, and in his possession, Mat 12:22. Here observe,

1. The man's case was very sad; he was possessed with a devil. More cases of this kind occurred in Christ's time than usual, that Christ's power might be the more magnified, and his purpose the more manifested, in opposing and dispossessing Satan; and that it might the more evidently appear, that he came to destroy the works of the devil. This poor man that was possessed was blind and dumb; a miserable case! he could neither see to help himself, nor speak to others to help him. A soul under Satan's power, and led captive by him, is blind in the things of God, and dumb at the throne of grace; sees nothing, and says nothing to the purpose. Satan blinds the eye of faith, and seals up the lips of prayer.

2. His cure was very strange, and the more so, because sudden; he healed him. Note, The conquering and dispossessing of Satan is the healing of souls. And the cause being removed, immediately the effect ceased; the blind and dumb both spake and saw. Note, Christ's mercy is directly opposite to Satan's malice; his favours, to the devil's mischiefs. When Satan's power is broken in the soul, the eyes are opened to see God's glory, and the lips opened to speak his praise.

II. The conviction which this gave to the people to all the people: they were amazed. Christ had wrought divers miracles of this kind before; but his works are not the less wonderful, nor the less to be wondered at, for their being often repeated. They inferred from it, " Is not this the Son of David? The Messiah promised, that was to spring from the loins of David? Is not this he that should come?"We may take this, 1. As an enquiring question; they asked, Is not this the Son of David? But they did not stay for an answer: the impressions were cogent, but they were transient. It was a good question that they started; but, it should seem, it was soon lost, and was not prosecuted. Such convictions as these should be brought to a head, and then they are likely to be brought to the heart. Or, 2. as an affirming question; Is not this the Son of David? "Yes, certainly it is, it can be no other; such miracles as these plainly evince that the kingdom of the Messiah is now setting up."And they were the people, the vulgar sort of the spectators, that drew this inference from Christ's miracles. Atheists will say, "That was because they were less prying than the Pharisees;"no, the matter of fact was obvious, and required not much search: but it was because they were less prejudiced and biassed by worldly interest. So plain and easy was the way made to this great truth of Christ being the Messiah and Saviour of the world, that the common people could not miss it; the wayfaring men, though fools, could not err therein. See Isa 35:8. It was found of them that sought it. It is an instance of the condescensions of divine grace, that the things that were hid from the wise and prudent were revealed unto babes. The world by wisdom knew not God, and by the foolish things the wise were confounded.

III. The blasphemous cavil of the Pharisees, v. 24. The Pharisees were a sort of men that pretended to more knowledge in, and zeal for, the divine law, than other people; yet they were the most inveterate enemies to Christ and his doctrine. They were proud of the reputation they had among the people; that fed their pride, supported their power, and filled their purses; and when they heard the people say, Is not this the Son of David? they were extremely irritated, more at that than at the miracle itself; this made them jealous of our Lord Jesus, and apprehensive, that as his interest in the people's esteem increased, theirs must of course be eclipsed and diminished; therefore they envied him, as Saul did his father David, because of what the women sang of him, 1Sa 18:7, 1Sa 18:8. Note, Those who bind up their happiness in the praise and applause of men, expose themselves to a perpetual uneasiness upon every favourable word that they hear said of any other. The shadow of honour followed Christ, who fled from it, and fled from the Pharisees, who were eager in the pursuit of it. They said, " This fellow does not cast out devils, but by Beelzebub the prince of the devils, and therefore is not the Son of David."Observe,

1. How scornfully they speak of Christ, this fellow; as if that precious name of his, which is as ointment poured forth, were not worthy to be taken into their lips. It is an instance of their pride and superciliousness, and their diabolical envy, that the more people magnified Christ, the more industrious they were to vilify him. It is a bad thing to speak of good men with disdain because they are poor.

2. How blasphemously they speak of his miracles; they could not deny the matter of fact; it was as plain as the sun, that devils were cast out by the word of Christ; nor could they deny that it was an extraordinary thing, and supernatural. Being thus forced to grant the premises, they had no other way to avoid the conclusion, that this is the Son of David, than by suggesting that Christ cast out devils by Beelzebub; that there was a compact between Christ and the devil; pursuant to that, the devil was not cast out, but did voluntarily retire, and give back by consent and with design: or as if, by an agreement with the ruling devil, he had power to cast out the inferior devils. No surmise could be more palpably false and vile than this; that he, who is Truth itself, should be in combination with the father of lies, to cheat the world. This was the last refuge, or subterfuge rather, or an obstinate infidelity, that was resolved to stand it out against the clearest conviction. Observe, Among the devils there is a prince, the ringleader of the apostasy from God and rebellion against him; but this prince is Beelzebub - the god of a fly, or a dunghill god. How art thou fallen, O Lucifer! from an anger of light, to be a lord of flies! Yet this is the prince of the devils too, the chief of the gang of infernal spirits.

IV. Christ's reply to this base insinuation, Mat 12:25-30. Jesus knew their thoughts. Note, Jesus Christ knows what we are thinking at any time, knows what is in man; he understands our thoughts afar off. It should seem that the Pharisees could not for shame speak it out, but kept it in their minds; they could not expect to satisfy the people with it; they therefore reserved it for the silencing of the convictions of their own consciences. Note, Many are kept off from their duty by that which they are ashamed to own, but which they cannot hide from Jesus Christ: yet it is probable that the Pharisees had whispered what they thought among themselves, to help to harden one another; but Christ's reply is said to be to their thoughts, because he knew with what mind, and from what principle, they said it; that they did not say it in their haste, but that it was the product of a rooted malignity.

Christ's reply to this imputation is copious and cogent, that every mouth may be stopped with sense and reason, before it be stopped with fire and brimstone. Here are three arguments by which he demonstrates the unreasonableness of this suggestion.

1. It would be very strange, and highly improbably, that Satan should be cast out by such a compact, because then Satan's kingdom would be divided against itself; which, considering his subtlety, is not a thing to be imagined, Mat 12:25, Mat 12:26.

(1.) Here is a known rule laid down, that in all societies a common ruin is the consequence of mutual quarrels: Every kingdom divided against itself is brought to desolation; and every family too: Quae enim domus tam stabilis est, quae tam firma civitas, quae non odiis atque dissidiis funditus everti possit ? - For what family is so strong, what community so firm, as not to be overturned by enmity and dissension? Cic. Lael. 7. Divisions commonly end in desolations; if we clash, we break; if we divide one from another, we become an easy prey to a common enemy; much more if we bite and devour one another, shall we be consumed one of another, Gal 5:15. Churches and nations have known this by sad experience.

(2.) The application of it to the case in hand (Mat 12:26), If Satan cast out Satan; if the prince of the devils should be at variance with the inferior devils, the whole kingdom and interest would soon be broken; nay, if Satan should come into a compact with Christ, it must be to his own ruin; for the manifest design and tendency of Christ's preaching and miracles was to overthrow the kingdom of Satan, as a kingdom of darkness, wickedness, and enmity to God; and to set up, upon the ruins of it, a kingdom of light, holiness, and love. The works of the devil, as a rebel against God, and a tyrant over the souls of men, were destroyed by Christ; and therefore it was the most absurd thing imaginable, to think that Beelzebub should at all countenance such a design, or come into it: if he should fall in with Christ, how should then his kingdom stand? He would himself contribute to the overthrow of it. Note, The devil has a kingdom, a common interest, in opposition to God and Christ, which, to the utmost of his power, he will make to stand, and he will never come into Christ's interests; he must be conquered and broken by Christ, and therefore cannot submit and bend to him. What concord or communion can there be between light and darkness, Christ and Belial, Christ and Beelzebub? Christ will destroy the devil's kingdom, but he needs not do it by any such little arts and projects as that of a secret compact with Beelzebub; no, this victory must be obtained by nobler methods. Let the prince of the devils muster up all his forces, let him make use of all his powers and politics, and keep his interests in the closest confederacy, yet Christ will be too hard for his united force, and his kingdom shall not stand.

2. It was not at all strange, or improbable, that devils should be cast out by the Spirit of God; for,

(1.) How otherwise do your children cast them out? There were those among the Jews who, by invocation of the name of the most high God, or the God of Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob, did sometimes cast out devils. Josephus speaks of some in his time that did it; we read of Jewish exorcists (Act 19:13), and of some that in Christ's name cast out devils, though they did not follow him (Mar 9:38), or were not faithful to him, Mat 7:22. These the Pharisees condemned not, but imputed what they did to the Spirit of God, and valued themselves and their nation upon it. It was therefore merely from spite and envy to Christ, that they would own that others cast out devils by the Spirit of God, but suggest that he did it by compact with Beelzebub. Note, It is the way of malicious people, especially the malicious persecutors of Christ and Christianity, to condemn the same thing in those they hate, which they approve of and applaud in those they have a kindness for: the judgments of envy are made, not by things, but persons; not by reason, but prejudice. But those were very unfit to sit in Moses's seat, who knew faces, and knew nothing else in judgment: Therefore they shall be your judges; "This contradicting of yourselves will rise up in judgment against you at the last great day, and will condemn you."Note, In the last judgment, not only every sin, but every aggravation of it, will be brought into the account, and some of our notions that were right and good will be brought in evidence against us, to convict us of partiality.

(2.) This casting out of devils was a certain token and indication of the approach and appearance of the kingdom of God (Mat 7:28); "But if it be indeed that I cast out devils by the Spirit of God, as certainly I do, then you must conclude, that though you are unwilling to receive it, yet the kingdom of the Messiah is now about to be set up among you."Other miracles that Christ wrought proved him sent of God, but this proved him sent of God to destroy the devil's kingdom and his works. Now that great promise was evidently fulfilled, that the seed of the woman should break the serpent's head, Gen 3:15. "Therefore that glorious dispensation of the kingdom of God, which has been long expected, is now commenced; slight it at your peril."Note, [1.] The destruction of the devil's power is wrought by the Spirit of God; that Spirit who works to the obedience of faith, overthrows the interest of that spirit who works in the children of unbelief and disobedience. [2.] The casting out of devils is a certain introduction to the kingdom of God. If the devil's interest in a soul be not only checked by custom or external restraints, but sunk and broken by the Spirit of God, as a Sanctifier, no doubt but the kingdom of God is come to that soul, the kingdom of grace, a blessed earnest of the kingdom of the glory.

3. The comparing of Christ's miracles, particularly this of casting out devils, with his doctrine, and the design and tendency of his holy religion, evidenced that he was so far from being in league with Satan, that he was at open enmity and hostility against him (Mat 12:29); How can one enter into a strong man's house, and plunder his goods, and carry them away, except he first bind the strong man? And then he may do what he pleases with his goods. The world, that sat in darkness, and lay in wickedness, was in Satan's possession, and under his power, as a house in the possession and under the power of a strong man; so is every unregenerate soul; there Satan resides, there he rules. Now, (1.) The design of Christ's gospel was to spoil the devil's house, which, as a strong man, he kept in the world; to turn the people from darkness to light, from sin to holiness, from this world to a better, from the power of Satan unto God (Act 26:18); to alter the property of souls. (2.) Pursuant to this design, he bound the strong man, when he cast out unclean spirits by his word: thus he wrested the sword out of the devil's hand, that he might wrest the sceptre out of it. The doctrine of Christ teaches us how to construe his miracles, and when he showed how easily and effectually he could cast the devil out of people's bodies, he encouraged all believers to hope that, whatever power Satan might usurp and exercise in the souls of men, Christ by his grace would break it: he will spoil him, for it appears that he can bind him. When nations were turned from the service of idols to serve the living God, when some of the worst of sinners were sanctified and justified, and became the best of saints, then Christ spoiled the devil's house, and will spoil it more and more.

4. It is here intimated, that this holy war, which Christ was carrying on with vigour against the devil and his kingdom, was such as would not admit of a neutrality (Mat 12:30), He that is not with me is against me. In the little differences that may arise between the disciples of Christ among themselves, we are taught to lessen the matters in variance, and to seek peace, by accounting those who are not against us, to be with us (Luk 9:50); but in the great quarrel between Christ and the devil, no peace is to be sought, nor any such favourable construction to be made of any indifference in the matter; he that is not hearty for Christ, will be reckoned with as really against him: he that is cold in the cause, is looked upon as an enemy. When the dispute is between God and Baal, there is no halting between two (1Ki 18:21), there is no trimming between Christ and Belial; for the kingdom of Christ, as it is eternally opposite to, so it will be eternally victorious over, the devil's kingdom; and therefore in this cause there is no sitting still with Gilead beyond Jordan, or Asher on the sea-shore, (Jdg 4:16, Jdg 4:17), we must be entirely, faithfully, and immovably, on Christ's side; it is the right side, and will at last be the rising side. See Exo 32:26.

The latter clause is to the same purport: He that gathereth not with me scattereth. Note, (1.) Christ's errand into the world was to gather, to gather in his harvest, to gather in those whom the Father had given him, Joh 11:52; Eph 1:10. (2.) Christ expects and requires from those who are with him, that they gather with him; that they not only gather to him themselves, but do all they can in their places to gather others to him, and so to strengthen his interest. (3.) Those who will not appear, and act, as furtherers of Christ's kingdom, will be looked upon, and dealt with, as hinderers of it; if we gather not with Christ, we scatter; it is not enough, not to do hurt, but we must do good. Thus is the breach widened between Christ and Satan, to show that there was no such compact between them as the Pharisees whispered.

V. Here is a discourse of Christ's upon this occasion, concerning tongue-sins; Wherefore I say unto you. He seems to turn from the Pharisees to the people, from disputing to instructing; and from the sin of the Pharisees he warns the people concerning three sorts of tongue-sins; for others' harms are admonitions to us.

1. Blasphemous words against the Holy Ghost are the worst kind of tongue-sins, and unpardonable, Mat 12:31, Mat 12:32.

(1.) Here is a gracious assurance of the pardon of all sin upon gospel terms: this Christ says to us, and it is a comfortable saying, that the greatness of sin shall be no bar to our acceptance with God, if we truly repent and believe the gospel: All manner of sin and blasphemy shall be forgiven unto men. Though the sin has been as scarlet and crimson (Isa 1:18), though ever so heinous in its nature, ever so much aggravated by its circumstances, and ever so often repeated, though it reach up to the heavens, yet with the Lord there is mercy, that reacheth beyond the heavens; mercy will be extended even to blasphemy, a sin immediately touching God's name and honour. Paul obtained mercy, who had been a blasphemer, 1Ti 1:13. Well may we say, Who is a God like unto thee, pardoning iniquity? Mic 7:18. Even words spoken against the Son of man shall be forgiven; as theirs were who reviled him at his death, many of whom repented and found mercy. Christ herein has set an example to all the sons of men, to be ready to forgive words spoken against them: I, as a deaf man, heard not. Observe, They shall be forgiven unto men, not to devils; this is love to the whole world of mankind, above the world of fallen angels, that all sin is pardonable to them.

(2.) Here is an exception of the blasphemy against the Holy Ghost, which is here declared to be the only unpardonable sin. See here,

[1.] What this sin; it is speaking against the Holy Ghost. See what malignity there is in tongue-sins, when the only unpardonable sin is so. But Jesus knew their thoughts, Mat 12:25. It is not all speaking against the person or essence of the Holy Ghost, or some of his more private operations, or merely the resisting of his internal working in the sinner himself, that is here meant; for who then should be saved? It is adjudged in our law, that an act of indemnity shall always be construed in favour of that grace and clemency which is the intention of the act; and therefore the exceptions in the act are not to be extended further than needs must. The gospel is an act of indemnity; none are excepted by name, nor any by description, but those only that blaspheme the Holy Ghost; which therefore must be construed in the narrowest sense: all presuming sinners are effectually cut off by the conditions of the indemnity, faith and repentance; and therefore the other exceptions must not be stretched far: and this blasphemy is excepted, not for any defect of mercy in God or merit in Christ, but because it inevitably leaves the sinner in infidelity and impenitency. We have reason to think that none are guilty of this sin, who believe that Christ is the Son of God, and sincerely desire to have part in his merit and mercy: and those who fear they have committed this sin, give a good sign that they have not. The learned Dr. Whitby very well observes, that Christ speaks not of what should be (Mar 3:28; Luk 12:10); Whosoever shall blaspheme. As for those who blasphemed Christ when he was here upon earth, and called him a Winebibber, a Deceiver, a Blasphemer, and the like, they had some colour of excuse, because of the meanness of his appearance, and the prejudices of the nation against him; and the proof of his divine mission was not perfected till after his ascension; and therefore, upon their repentance, they shall be pardoned: and it is hoped that they may be convinced by the pouring out of the Spirit, as many of them were, who had been his betrayers and murderers. But if, when the Holy Ghost is given, in his inward gifts of revelation, speaking with tongues, and the like, such as were the distributions of the Spirit among the apostles, if they continue to blaspheme the Spirit likewise, as an evil spirit, there is no hope of them that they will ever be brought to believe in Christ; for First, Those gifts of the Holy Ghost in the apostles were the last proof that God designed to make use of for the confirming of the gospel, and were still kept in reserve, when other methods preceded. Secondly, This was the most powerful evidence, and more apt to convince than miracles themselves. Thirdly, Those therefore who blaspheme this dispensation of the Spirit, cannot possibly be brought to believe in Christ; those who shall impute them to a collusion with Satan, as the Pharisees did the miracles, what can convince them? This is such a strong hold of infidelity as a man can never be beaten out of, and is therefore unpardonable, because hereby repentance is hid from the sinner's eyes.

[2.] What the sentence is that is passed upon it; It shall not be forgiven, neither in this world, nor in the world to come. As in the then present state of the Jewish church, there was no sacrifice of expiation for the soul that sinned presumptuously; so neither under the dispensation of gospel grace, which is often in scripture called the world to come, shall there be any pardon to such as tread underfoot the blood of the covenant, and do despite to the Spirit of grace: there is no cure for a sin so directly against the remedy. It was a rule in our old law, No sanctuary for sacrilege. Or, It shall be forgiven neither now, in the sinner's own conscience, nor in the great day, when the pardon shall be published. Or, this is a sin that exposes the sinner both to temporal and eternal punishment, both to present wrath and the wrath to come.

2. Christ speaks here concerning other wicked words, the products of corruption reigning in the heart, and breaking out thence, Mat 12:33-35. It was said (Mat 12:25) that Jesus knew their thoughts, and here he spoke with an eye to them, showing that it was not strange that they should speak so ill, when their hearts were so full of enmity and malice; which yet they often endeavoured to cloak and cover, by feigning themselves just men. Our Lord Jesus therefore points to the springs and heals them; let the heart be sanctified and it will appear in our words.

(1.) The heart is the root, the language is the fruit (Mat 12:33); if the nature of the tree be good, it will bring forth fruit accordingly. Where grace is the reigning principle in the heart, the language will be the language of Canaan; and, on the contrary, whatever lust reigns in the heart it will break out; diseased lungs make an offensive breath: men's language discovers what country they are of, so likewise what manner of spirit they are of: " Either make the tree good, and then the fruit will be good; get pure hearts and then you will have pure lips and pure lives; or else the tree will be corrupt, and the fruit accordingly. you may make a crab-stock to become a good tree, by grafting into it a shoot from a good tree, and then the fruit will be good; but if the tree be still the same, plant it where you will, and water it how you will, the fruit will be still corrupt."Note, Unless the heart be trans formed, the life will never be thoroughly re formed. These Pharisees were shy of speaking out their wicked thoughts of Jesus Christ; but Christ here intimates, how vain it was for them to seek to hide that root of bitterness in them, that bore this gall and wormwood, when they never sought to mortify it. Note, It should be more our care to be good really, than to seem good outwardly.

(2.) The heart is the fountain, the words are the streams (Mat 12:34); Out of the abundance of the heart the mouth speaks, as the streams are the overflowings of the spring. A wicked heart is said to send forth wickedness, as a fountain casts forth her waters, Jer 6:7. A troubled fountain, and a corrupt spring, such as Solomon speaks of (Pro 25:26), must needs send forth muddy and unpleasant streams. Evil words are the natural, genuine product of an evil heart. Nothing but the salt of grace, cast into the spring, will heal the waters, season the speech, and purify the corrupt communications. This they wanted, they were evil; and how can ye, being evil, speak good things? They were a generation of vipers; John Baptist had called them so (Mat 3:7), and they were still the same; for can the Ethiopian change his skin? The people looked upon the Pharisees as a generation of saints, but Christ calls them a generation of vipers, the seed of the serpent, that had an enmity to Christ and his gospel. Now what could be expected from a generation of vipers, but that which is poisonous and malignant? Can the viper be otherwise than venomous? Note, Bad things may be expected from bad people, as said the proverb of the ancients, Wickedness proceedeth from the wicked, 1Sa 24:13. The vile person will speak villany, Isa 32:6. Those who are themselves evil, have neither skill nor will to speak good things, as they should be spoken. Christ would have his disciples know what sort of men they were to live among, that they might know what to look for. They are as Ezekiel among scorpions (Eze 2:6), and must not think it strange if they be stung and bitten.

(3.) The heart is the treasury, the words are the things brought out of that treasury (Mat 12:35); and from hence men's characters may be drawn, and may be judged of.

[1.] It is the character of a good man, that he has a good treasure in his heart, and from thence brings forth good things, as there is occasion. Graces, comforts, experiences, good knowledge, good affections, good resolutions, these are a good treasure in the heart; the word of God hidden there, the law of God written there, divine truths dwelling and ruling thee, are a treasure there, valuable and suitable, kept safe and kept secret, as the stores of the good householder, but ready for use upon all occasions. A good man, thus furnished, will bring forth, as Joseph out of his stores; will be speaking and doing that which is good, for God's glory, and the edification of others. See Pro 10:11, Pro 10:13, Pro 10:14, Pro 10:20, Pro 10:21, Pro 10:31, Pro 10:32. This is bringing forth good things. Some pretend to good expenses that have not a good treasure - such will soon be bankrupts: some pretend to have a good treasure within, but give no proof of it: they hope they have it in them, and thank God, whatever their words and actions are, they have good hearts; but faith without works is dead: and some have a good treasure of wisdom and knowledge, but they are not communicative, they do not bring forth out of it: they have a talent, but know not how to trade with it. The complete Christian in this bears the image of God, that he both is good, and does good.

[2.] It is the character of an evil man, that he has an evil treasure in his heart, and out of it bringeth forth evil things. Lusts and corruptions dwelling and reigning in the heart are an evil treasure, out of which the sinner brings forth bad words and actions, to the dishonour of God, and the hurt of others. See Gen 6:5, Gen 6:12; Mat 15:18-20; Jam 1:15. But treasures of wickedness (Pro 10:2) will be treasures of wrath.

3. Christ speaks here concerning idle words, and shows what evil there is in them (Mat 12:36, Mat 12:37); much more is there in such wicked words as the Pharisees spoke. It concerns us to think much of the day of judgment, that that may be a check upon our tongues; and let us consider,

(1.) How particular the account will be of tongue-sins in that day: even for every idle words, or discourse, that men speak, they shall give account. This intimates, [1.] That God takes notice of every word we say, even that which we ourselves do not notice. See Psa 139:4. Not a word in my tongue but thou knowest it: though spoken without regard or design, God takes cognizance of it. [2.] That vain, idle, impertinent talk is displeasing to God, which tends not to any good purpose, is not good to any use of edifying; it is the product of a vain and trifling heart. These idle words are the same with that foolish talking and jesting which is forbidden, Eph 5:4. This is that sin which is seldom wanting in the multitude of words, unprofitable talk, Job 15:3. [3.] We must shortly account for these idle words; they will be produced in evidence against us, to prove us unprofitable servants, that have not improved the faculties of reason and speech, which are part of the talents we are entrusted with. If we repent not of our idle words, and our account for them be not balanced by the blood of Christ, we are undone.

(2.) How strict the judgment will be upon that account (Mat 12:37); By thy words thou shall be justified or condemned; a common rule in men's judgments, and here applied to God's. Note, The constant tenour of our discourse, according as it is gracious or not gracious, will be an evidence for us, or against us, at the great day. Those who seemed to be religious, but bridled not their tongue, will then be found to have put a cheat upon themselves with a vain religion, Jam 1:26. Some think that Christ here refers to that of Eliphaz (Job 15:6), Thine own mouth condemneth thee, and not I; or, rather, to that of Solomon (Pro 18:21), Death and life are in the power of the tongue.

Barclay: Mat 12:22-29

In the eastern world it was not only mental and psychological illness which was ascribed to the influence of demons and devils; all illness was ascribed to their malignant power. Exorcism was therefore very commonly practised; and was in fact frequently completely effective.

There is nothing in that to be surprised at. When people believe in demon-possession, it is easy to convince themselves that they are so possessed; when they come under that delusion, the symptoms of demon-possession immediately arise. Even amongst ourselves anyone can think himself into having a headache, or can convince himself that he has the symptoms of an illness. When a person under such a delusion was confronted with an exorcist in whom he had confidence, often the delusion was dispelled and a cure resulted. In such cases if a man was convinced he was cured, he was cured.

In this instance Jesus cured a man who was deaf and dumb and whose infirmity was attributed to demon-possession. The people were amazed. They began to wonder if this Jesus could be the Son of David, so long promised and so long expected, the great Saviour and Liberator. Their doubt was due to the fact that Jesus was so unlike the picture of the Son of David in which they had been brought up to believe. Here was no glorious prince with pomp and circumstance; here was no rattle of swords nor army with banners; here was no fiery cross calling men to war; here was a simple carpenter from Galilee, in whose words was wisdom gentle and serene, in whose eyes was compassion, and in whose hands was mysterious power.

All the time the Scribes and Pharisees were looking grimly on. They had their own solution of the problem. Jesus was casting out devils because he was in league with the prince of devils. Jesus had three unanswerable replies to that charge.

(i) If he was casting out devils by the help of the prince of devils, it could only mean that in the demonic kingdom there was schism. If the prince of devils was actually lending his power to the destruction of his own demonic agents, then there was civil war in the kingdom of evil, and that kingdom was doomed. Neither a house nor a city nor a district can remain strong when it is divided against itself. Dissension within is the end of power. Even if the Scribes and Pharisees were right, Satan's days were numbered.

(ii) We take Jesus' third argument second, because there is so much to be said about the second that we wish to take it separately. Jesus said, "If I am casting out devils--and that you do not, and cannot, deny--it means that I have invaded the territory of Satan, and that I am actually like a burglar despoiling his house. Clearly no one can get into a strong man's house until the strong man is bound and rendered helpless. Therefore the very fact that I have been able so successfully to invade Satan's territory is proof that he is bound and powerless to resist." The picture of the binding of the strong man is taken from Isa 49:24-26.

There is one question which this argument makes us wish to ask. When was the strong man bound? When was the prince of the devils fettered in such a way that Jesus could make this breach in his defences? Maybe there is no answer to that question; but if there is, it is that Satan was bound during Jesus' temptations in the wilderness.

It sometimes happens that, although an army is not completely put out of action, it suffers such a defeat that its fighting potential is never quite the same again. Its losses are so great, its confidence is so shaken, that it is never again the force it was. When Jesus faced the Tempter in the wilderness and conquered him, something happened. For the first time Satan found someone whom not all his wiles could seduce, and whom not all his attacks could conquer. From that time the power of Satan has never been quite the same. He is no longer the all-conquering power of darkness; he is the defeated power of sin. The defences are breached; the enemy is not yet conquered; but his power can never be the same again and Jesus can help others win the victory he himself won.

Barclay: Mat 12:22-29

(iii) Jesus' second argument, to which we now come, was that the Jews themselves practised exorcism; there were Jews who expelled demons and wrought cures. If he was practising exorcism by the power of the prince of devils, then they must be doing the same, for they were dealing with the same diseases and they had at least sometimes the same effect. Let us then look at the customs and the methods of the Jewish exorcists, for they were a remarkable contrast to the methods of Jesus.

Josephus, a perfectly reputable historian, says that the power to cast out demons was part of the wisdom of Solomon, and he describes a case which he himself saw (Josephus: Antiquities 8. 2. 5.): "God also enabled Solomon to learn that skill which expels demons, which is a science useful and health-bringing to men. He composed such incantations also, by which distempers are alleviated. And he left behind him also the manner of using exorcisms, by which they drive away demons so that they never return, and this method of cure is of great force unto this day; for I have seen a certain man of my own country, whose name was Eleazar, releasing people who were demoniacal in the presence of Vespasian, and his sons, and his captains, and the whole multitude of his soldiers. The manner of the cure was this. He put a ring that had a root which was one of those sorts mentioned by Solomon in the nostrils of the demoniac, after which he drew out the demon through his nostrils; and when the man fell down immediately, he adjured the demon to return into him no more, making still mention of Solomon, and reciting the incantations which he composed. And when Eleazar would persuade and demonstrate to the spectators that he had such a power, he set a little way off a cup or basin full of water, and commanded the demon, as he went out of the man, to overturn it, and thereby to let the spectators know that he had left the man; and when this was done, the skill and wisdom of Solomon was shown very manifestly." Here was the Jewish method; here was the whole paraphernalia of magic. How different the serene word of power which Jesus uttered!

Josephus has further information about how the Jewish exorcists worked. A certain root was much used in exorcism. Josephus tells about it: "In the valley of Macherus there is a certain root called by the same name. Its colour is like to that of flame, and towards evening it sends out a certain ray like lightning. It is not easily taken by such as would do so, but recedes from their hands, nor will it yield itself to be taken quietly until either the urine of a woman, or her menstrual blood, be poured upon it; nay, even then it is certain death to those who touch it, unless anyone take and hang the root itself down from his hand, and so carry it away. It may also be taken another way without danger, which is this: they dig a trench all round about it, till the hidden part of the root be very small; they then tie a dog to it, and when the dog tries hard to follow him that tied him, this root is easily plucked up, but the dog dies immediately, as if it were instead of the man that would take the plant away; nor after this need anyone be afraid of taking it into their hands. Yet after all these pains in getting it, it is only valuable on account of one virtue which it possesses, that if it be brought to sick persons, it drives away those called demons" (Josephus: Wars of the Jews 7. 6. 3.). What a difference between Jesus' word of power, and this witch-doctoring which the Jewish exorcist used!

We may add one more illustration of Jewish exorcism. It comes from the apocryphal book of Tobit. Tobit is told by the angel that he is to marry Sara, the daughter of Raguel. She is a beautiful maiden with a great dowry, and she herself is good. She has been in turn married to seven different men, all of whom perished on their wedding night, because Sara was loved by a wicked demon, who would allow none to approach her. Tobit is afraid, but the angel tells him, "On the night when thou shalt come into the marriage chamber, thou shalt take the ashes of perfume, and shalt lay them upon some of the heart and liver of the fish, and shalt make a smoke with it; and the devil shall smell it and flee away, and never come again any more" (Tob 6:16). So Tobit did and the devil was banished for ever (Tob 8:1-4).

These were the things the Jewish exorcists did, and, as so often, they were a symbol. Men sought their deliverance from the evils and the sorrows of humanity in their magic and their incantations. Maybe even these things for a little while, in the mercy of God, brought some relief; but in Jesus there came the word of God with its serene power to bring to men the perfect deliverance which they had wistfully and even desperately sought, and which, until he came, they had never been able to find.

One of the most interesting things in the whole passage is Jesus' saying, "If it is by the Spirit of God that I cast out demons, then the Kingdom of God has come upon you" (Mat 12:28). It is significant to note that the sign of the coming of the Kingdom was not full churches and great revival meetings, but the defeat of pain.

Barclay: Mat 12:30

The picture of gathering and scattering may come from either of two backgrounds. It may come from harvesting; he who is not sharing in gathering the harvest is scattering the grain abroad, and is therefore losing it to the wind. It may come from shepherding; he who is not helping to keep the flock safe by bringing it into the fold is driving it out to the dangers of the hills.

In this one piercing sentence Jesus lays down the impossibility of neutrality. W. C. Allen writes: "In this war against Satan's strongholds there are only two sides, for Christ or against him, gathering with him or scattering with Satan." We may take a very simple analogy. We may apply this saying to ourselves and to the Church. If our presence does not strengthen the Church, then our absence is weakening it. There is no halfway house. In all things a man has to choose his side; abstention from choice, suspended action, is no way out, because the refusal to give one side assistance is in fact the giving of support to the other.

There are three things which make a man seek this impossible neutrality.

(i) There is the sheer inertia of human nature. It is true of so many people that the only thing they desire is to be left alone. They automatically shrink away from anything which is disturbing, and even choice is a disturbance.

(ii) There is the sheer cowardice of human nature. Many a man refuses the way of Christ because he is afraid to take the stand which Christianity demands. The basic thing that stops him is the thought of what other people will say. The voice of his neighbours is louder in his ears than the voice of God.

(iii) There is the sheer flabbiness of human nature. Most people would rather have security than adventure, and the older they grow the more that is so. A challenge always involves adventure; Christ comes to us with a challenge, and often we would rather have the comfort of selfish inaction than the adventure of action for Christ.

The saying of Jesus--"He who is not with me is against me"--presents us with a problem, for both Mark and Luke have a saying which is the very reverse, "He that is not against us is for us" (Mar 9:40; Luk 9:50). But they are not so contradictory as they seem. It is to be noted that Jesus spoke the second of them when his disciples came and told him that they had sought to stop a man from casting out devils in his name, because he was not one of their company. So a wise suggestion has been made. "He that is not with me is against me," is a test that we ought to apply to ourselves. Am I truly on the Lord's side, or, am I trying to shuffle through life in a state of cowardly neutrality? "He that is not against us is for us," is a test that we ought to apply to others. Am I given to condemning everyone who does not speak with my theology and worship with my liturgy and share my ideas? Am I limiting the Kingdom of God to those who think as I do?

The saying in this present passage is a test to apply to ourselves; the saying in Mark and Luke is a test to apply to others; for we must ever judge ourselves with sternness and other people with tolerance.

Barclay: Mat 12:31-33

It is startling to find words about an unforgivable sin on the lips of Jesus the Saviour of men. So startling is this that some wish to take away the sharp definiteness of the meaning. They argue that this is only another example of that vivid Eastern way of saying things, as, for example, when Jesus said that a man must hate father and mother truly to be his disciple, and that it is not to be understood in all its awful literalness, but simply means that the sin against the Holy Spirit is supremely terrible.

In support certain Old Testament passages are quoted. "But the person who does anything with a high hand, whether he is native or a sojourner, reviles the Lord, and that person shall be cut off from among his people. Because he has despised the word of the Lord, and has broken his commandment, that person shall be entirely cut off" (Num 15:30-31). "Therefore I swear to the house of Eli that the iniquity of Eli's house shall not be expiated by sacrifice or offering for ever" (1Sa 3:14). "The Lord of hosts has revealed himself in my ears. 'Surely this iniquity will not be forgiven you till you die,' says the Lord God of hosts" (Isa 22:14).

It is claimed that these texts say much the same as Jesus said, and that they are only insisting on the grave nature of the sin in question. We can only say that these Old Testament texts do not have the same air nor do they produce the same impression. There is something very much more alarming in hearing words about a sin which has no forgiveness from the lips of him who was the incarnate love of God.

There is one section in this saying which is undoubtedly puzzling. In the Revised Standard Version Jesus is made to say that a sin against the Son of man is forgivable, whereas a sin against the Holy Spirit is not forgivable. If that is to be taken as it stands, it is indeed a hard saying. Matthew has already said that Jesus is the touchstone of all truth (Mat 10:32-33); and it is difficult to see what the difference between the two sins is.

But it may well be that at the back of this there is a misunderstanding of what Jesus said. We have already seen (compare notes on Mat 12:1-8) that the Hebrew phrase a son of man means simply a man, and that the Jews used this phrase when they desired to speak of any man. When we would say, "There was a man. . .," the Jewish Rabbi would say, "There was a son of man...." It may well be that what Jesus said was this: "If any man speaks a word against a man, it will be forgiven; but if any man speaks a word against the Holy Spirit it will not be forgiven."

It is quite possible that we may misunderstand a merely human messenger from God; but we cannot misunderstand--except deliberately--when God speaks to us through his own Holy Spirit. A human messenger is always open to misconstruction; but the divine messenger speaks so plainly that he can only be wilfully misunderstood. It certainly makes this passage easier to understand, if we regard the difference between the two sins as a sin against God's human messenger, which is serious, but not unforgivable, and a sin against God's divine messenger, which is completely wilful, and which, as we shall see, can end by becoming unforgivable.

Barclay: Mat 12:31-33

Let us then try to understand what Jesus meant by the sin against the Holy Spirit. One thing is necessary. We must grasp the fact that Jesus was not speaking about the Holy Spirit in the full Christian sense of the term. He could not have been, for Pentecost had to come before the Holy Spirit came upon men in all his power and light and fulness. This must be interpreted in light of the Jewish conception of the Holy Spirit.

According to Jewish teaching the Holy Spirit had two supreme functions. First, the Holy Spirit brought God's truth to men; second, the Holy Spirit enabled men to recognize and to understand that truth when they saw it. So then a man, as the Jews saw it, needed the Holy Spirit, both to receive and to recognise God's truth. We may express this in another way. There is in man a Spirit-given faculty which enables him to recognize goodness and truth when he sees them.

Now we must take the next step in our attempt to understand what Jesus meant. A man can lose any faculty if he refuses to use it. This is true in any sphere of life. It is true physically; if a man ceases to use certain muscles, they will atrophy. It is true mentally; many a man at school or in his youth has acquired some slight knowledge of, for example, French or Latin or music; but that knowledge is long since gone because he did not exercise it. It is true of all kinds of perception. A man may lose all appreciation of good music, if he listens to nothing but cheap music; he may lose the ability to read a great book, if he reads nothing but ephemeral productions; he may lose the faculty of enjoying clean and healthy pleasure, if he for long enough finds his pleasure in things which are degraded and soiled.

Therefore a man can lose the ability to recognize goodness and truth when he sees them. If he for long enough shuts his eyes and ears to God's way, if he for long enough turns his back upon the messages which God is sending him, if he for long enough prefers his own ideas to the ideas which God is seeking to put into his mind, in the end he comes to a stage when he cannot recognize God's truth and God's beauty and God's goodness when he sees them. He comes to a stage when his own evil seems to him good, and when God's good seems to him evil.

That is the stage to which these Scribes and Pharisees had come. They had so long been blind and deaf to the guidance of God's hand and the promptings of God's Spirit, they had insisted on their own way so long, that they had come to a stage when they could not recognize God's truth and goodness when they saw them. They were able to look on incarnate goodness and call it incarnate evil; they were able to look on the Son of God and call him the ally of the devil. The sin against the Holy Spirit is the sin of so often and so consistently refusing God's will that in the end it cannot be recognized when it comes even full-displayed.

Why should that sin be unforgivable? What differentiates it so terribly from all other sins? The answer is simple. When a man reaches that stage, repentance is impossible. If a man cannot recognize the good when he sees it, he cannot desire it. If a man does not recognize evil as evil, he cannot be sorry for it, and wish to depart from it. And if he cannot, in spite of failures, love the good and hate the evil, then he cannot repent; and if he cannot repent, he cannot be forgiven, for repentance is the only condition of forgiveness. It would save much heartbreak if people would realize that the one man who cannot have committed the sin against the Holy Spirit is the man who fears he has, for the sin against the Holy Spirit can be truly described as the loss of all sense of sin.

It was to that stage the Scribes and Pharisees had come. They had so long been deliberately blind and deliberately deaf to God that they had lost the faculty of recognizing him when they were confronted with him. It was not God who had banished them beyond the pale of forgiveness; they had shut themselves out. Years of resistance to God had made them what they were.

There is a dreadful warning here. We must so heed God all our days that our sensitivity is never blunted, our awareness is never dimmed, our spiritual hearing never becomes spiritual deafness. It is a law of life that we will hear only what we are listening for and only what we have fitted ourselves to hear.

There is a story of a country man who was in the office of a city friend, with the roar of the traffic coming through the windows. Suddenly he said, "Listen!" "What is it?" asked the city man. "A grasshopper," said the country man. Years of listening to the country sounds had attuned his ears to the country sounds, sounds that a city man's ear could not hear at all. On the other hand, let a silver coin drop, and the chink of the silver would have immediately reached the ears of the money-maker, while the country man might never have heard it at all. Only the expert, the man who has made himself able to hear it, will pick out the note of each individual bird in the chorus of the birds. Only the expert, the man who has made himself able to hear it, will distinguish the different instruments in the orchestra and catch a lonely wrong note from the second violins.

It is the law of life that we hear what we have trained ourselves to hear; day by day we must listen to God, so that day by day God's voice may become, not fainter and fainter until we cannot hear it at all, but clearer and clearer until it becomes the one sound to which above an our ears are attuned.

So Jesus finishes with the challenge: "If I have done a good deed, you must admit that I am a good man; if I have done a bad deed, then you may think me a bad man. You can only tell a tree's quality by its fruits, and a man's character by his deeds." But what if a man has become so blind to God that he cannot recognize goodness when he sees it?

Constable: Mat 11:2--13:54

IV. The opposition to the King 11:2--13:53

Chapters 11-13 record Israel's rejection of her Messiah and its consequences. Opposition continued to build, but Jesus announced new revelation in view of hardened unbelief.

"The Evangelist has carefully presented the credentials of the king in relationship to His birth, His baptism, His temptation, His righteous doctrine, and His supernatural power. Israel has heard the message of the nearness of the kingdom from John the Baptist, the King Himself, and His disciples. Great miracles have authenticated the call to repentance. Now Israel must make a decision."⁴⁵²

"Thematically the three chapters (11-13) are held together by the rising tide of disappointment in and opposition to the kingdom of God that was resulting from Jesus' ministry. He was not turning out to be the kind of Messiah the people had expected."⁴⁵³

Constable: Mat 12:1-50

B. Specific instances of Israel's rejection of Jesus ch. 12

Matthew has shown that opposition to Jesus came from two main sources, the animosity of the religious leaders and the indifference of the common Israelites. In this chapter he presented five instances in which opposition manifested itself and increased. In each situation the approach to Jesus was negative, but Jesus responded positively.⁴⁸⁸

"Central to the plot of Matthew's story is the element of conflict. The principal conflict pits Israel against Jesus, and the death of Jesus constitutes the primary resolution of this conflict. On another level, Jesus also struggles with the disciples. Here the conflict is to bring them to understanding, or to enable them to overcome their little faith,' or to invite them to avail themselves of the great authority Jesus has given them, or, above all, to lead them to comprehend that the essence of discipleship is servanthood."⁴⁸⁹

Constable: Mat 12:22-24

Jesus' miracle and the response 12:22-24

12:22 "Then" (Gr. tote) does not demand a close chronological connection with what precedes (cf. 2:7; 11:20). The Greek text describes the man's afflictions in terms that show that his demon possession produced his blindness and dumbness. The miracle itself did not interest Matthew as much as the confrontation that it produced.

12:23-24 The astonishment of the crowd prompted their question. It expected a negative answer. Literally they said, "This cannot be the Son of David, can it?" They raised the faint possibility that Jesus might be the Messiah, but primarily their question reflected their amazed unbelief. The Jews expected Messiah to perform miracles (v. 38), but other things about Jesus, for example His servant characteristics, led them to conclude that He was not the Son of David.

The Pharisees again attributed Jesus' power to Satan (cf. 10:25). This time their accusation created an open breach between themselves and Jesus.

Constable: Mat 12:25-37

Jesus' reply in view of the response 12:25-37

12:25-26 Probably Jesus' knew His critics' thoughts as anyone else who had suffered such an attack would (cf. 9:4). Alternatively this may be a statement of Jesus' omniscience. Any kingdom, city, or household that experiences internal conflict will destroy itself eventually if the strife continues. This holds true for the domain over which Satan rules as well. For Satan to cast out demons would amount to his casting out himself since the demons do his work.

12:27 The Pharisees' "sons" cast out demons occasionally. These "sons" were probably their disciples or less likely the Jews more generally. In either case some Jews in Jesus' day could cast out demons (cf. Acts 19:13). If the Pharisees asserted that Jesus cast out demons by Satan's power, they would have to admit that their sons did so by the same power, something they would have denied.

12:28 The Spirit of God stands in stark contrast to Beelzebul. Matthew probably used "kingdom of God" here rather than "kingdom of heaven" to connect the kingdom with the Spirit.

"References to the Spirit occur only twelve times altogether in Matthew's gospel, with one-third of them in chapter 12. As might be expected in a gospel concerned to interpret the significance of the life and ministry of Jesus, most of the references describe the work of the Spirit in relation to Him."⁵⁰⁴

Jesus was claiming that He received His power from God's Spirit (cf. v. 18), a clear messianic claim.⁵⁰⁵ The kingdom was imminent because the King was present.

"Upon" you does not mean the kingdom had somehow entered the Jews or overtaken them and they were then in it. Jesus was addressing the Pharisees, and He did not mean the kingdom had come on them of all people. Moreover Jesus' concept of the kingdom was an earthly physical one, not a spiritual one. Furthermore everywhere else Jesus spoke of people entering the kingdom, not the kingdom entering them.⁵⁰⁶

12:29 Jesus encouraged the Pharisees to look at the same issue another way. Only a stronger person can bind a homeowner and ransack his house. On a deeper level Jesus was speaking of Himself binding Satan and spoiling his house by casting out demons (cf. Mark 3:27; Luke 11:21-22). Thus Jesus was claiming power superior to Satan that could only be divine. Jesus will really bind Satan for 1, 000 years when the kingdom begins (Rev. 20:2). Jewish pseudepigraphal literature predicted that Messiah would do this (Assumption of Moses 10:1).⁵⁰⁷

12:30 Jesus' point in this statement was that there can be no neutrality in one's relationship to Him. Those who do not side with Jesus side with Satan. This put the Pharisees in undesirable company. The Old Testament viewed man's judgment as a harvest that God would conduct. Jesus claimed that He would be the harvesting Judge. Jesus' statement here would have rebuked the Pharisees and warned the undecided in the crowd. Apparently they were not only refusing to come to Jesus themselves but were even scattering the disciples that Jesus was gathering.

12:31-32 Jesus followed up His statement about the impossibility of being neutral (v. 30) with this further warning. The "therefore" (Gr. dia touto) indicates this relationship. Blasphemy is extreme slander (cf. 9:3). God would forgive any sin including extreme slander of Jesus when a person trusted in Jesus. However, He would not forgive blasphemy against the Holy Spirit.

Blasphemy against the Holy Spirit, in view of the context (vv. 24-28), involved attributing Jesus' works to Satan rather than to the Spirit. God would not forgive this sin because the person who committed it in Jesus' day was thereby strongly rejecting Jesus as the Messiah. Even today the only sin one can commit that God will not forgive and that will result in his or her eternal damnation is rejection of Jesus Christ. Attributing Jesus' works to Satan was blasphemy of the Spirit in Jesus' day and this resulted in damnation.

Can a person commit this sin today? One can reject Jesus Christ, but one cannot blaspheme the Spirit in the same sense in which Jesus' contemporaries could. To do so one would have to observe Jesus doing His works and attribute them to Satan.⁵⁰⁸ One could say therefore that blasphemy against the Spirit was an unforgivable sin during Jesus' earthly ministry. The unforgivable sin at any time since Jesus began His earthly ministry to the present day is rejection of Jesus Christ.

Speaking a word against is the same as blasphemy. Extreme slander of Jesus was forgivable in His day provided it did not go as far as attributing His works to Satan. That constituted blasphemy of the Holy Spirit. Jesus gave this warning to the professedly neutral person who might attribute His works to Satan (v. 30). Such a person needed to realize that even though he or she was not speaking against Jesus that one was doing something with much graver consequences.

"Given Matthew's christological interests and the unique and central position held by Jesus throughout the Gospel, one may understandably be surprised that Matthew has not said the reverse of what stands in the text, i.e., that blasphemy against the Spirit is forgivable but not that against the Son of Man. The gravity of the blasphemy against the Spirit, however, depends upon the Holy Spirit as the fundamental dynamic that stands behind and makes possible the entire messianic ministry of Jesus itself . . ."⁵⁰⁹

12:33 Jesus proceeded to point out that conduct typically reflects character (vv. 33-37; cf. 7:16-19). To have good fruit one must make the tree good, for example by cultivating, grafting, fertilizing, etc. If one makes a tree rotten by neglect and abuse, for example, one will get bad fruit. A good tree produces good fruit, and a bad tree yields bad fruit. Jesus' works were good, so He must be good.

12:34-35 Everywhere else in Matthew where the "brood of vipers" figure occurs it refers to the Pharisees and other religious leaders (3:7; 23:33). That is undoubtedly whom Jesus addressed here too. The figure pictures deadly antagonists. Jesus' point was that a person's character determines what he or she says and does. The mouth usually reveals what is in the heart. The Pharisees' extreme slander of Jesus revealed their rejection of Him. They needed a change of attitude toward Him, not just a change in their speech about Him.

It is going beyond what Jesus said to interpret this statement as meaning that no true believer will ever say or do what is contrary to the nature of a believer to say or do. All good people say and do some things that are good and some things that are bad. Likewise all bad people say and do some things that are good and some things that are bad. We are not exactly like trees.

12:36-37 Jesus did not want His critics to gain any satisfaction from what He had just said. Their externally righteous appearance did not excuse them from speaking as they did. Rather people's words are what God will use to judge them eventually. The "careless" word is the word spoken without deliberation. One might think it insignificant except that it reveals character. Every word spoken reflects the heart's overflow, and God knows about it. Therefore words are very important (cf. Eph. 5:3-4, 12; Col. 3:17; James 1:19; 3:1-12).⁵¹⁰

Verse 37 sounds as though it may have been proverbial, or perhaps Jesus made it a proverb here. The context clarifies that the justification and condemnation in view deal with God's passing judgment on everyone. Obviously Jesus did not mean that if a person was able to say all the right words he or she could deceive God and win salvation by clever speech. The basis of justification and condemnation is character, but words reveal character and so become the instruments by which God judges.

Jesus' critics thought they were assessing Him when they said He did His works by Satan's power (v. 24). Jesus pointed out that they were really assessing themselves. They thought they were judging Him with their words, but really God would judge them with their words.

The break between Jesus and the religious leaders was now final.

"It is worth noting that in Mt. the breach between Jesus and the authorities is not definite until the Beelzebub charge."⁵¹¹

College: Mat 12:1-50

MATTHEW 12

E. SABBATH CONTROVERSY:

INCIDENT IN THE GRAINFIELD (12:1-8)

As noted earlier, the following two conflict scenes provide concrete illustrations of Jesus' " easy yoke" in contrast to the heavy burdens placed on the people by the religious authorities. The phrase " at that time," connects with 11:25, and " is not intended to supply chronological information but to serve as a thematic bridge." The one who supplies the " weary and burdened" with " rest," now challenges the way the Pharisaic legal concerns have reduced the " day of rest" (=Sabbath) to a burden, thus nullifying its original intention.

Essentially, public conflict between Jesus and his critics centered largely on fundamental differences concerning how one determines and observes God's will as expressed in Scripture. Sabbath observance was considered a fundamental expression of covenantal faithfulness. The sacredness of the seventh day was linked both to creation motifs (Gen 2:1-2; Exod 20:11), and Israel's liberation from Egypt (Deut 5:15). Its observance was basic to Israel's ethnic identity, and was considered a clear " boundary marker" distinguishing the Jew from the Gentile. Because its strict observance was integrally bound up with Jewish self-understanding and identity, legal experts sought to stipulate in precise terms what constituted violations of Sabbath observance. Since Scripture was emphatic that no " work" was to be done on the Sabbath (Exod 20:10; 31:14; Deut 5:14) legal discussion centered on the question, " what actions constitute work and hence a violation of Sabbath regulations?" The OT Scriptures offered only minimal restrictions: no fire in your dwellings on the Sabbath (Exod 35:3); no plowing or harvesting (Exod 34:21); do not carry a load on the Sabbath (Jer 17:21-22); and excessive travel was prohibited (Isa 58:13; cf. Acts 1:12). However, scribal concerns for exact compliance to God's Law, felt compelled to greatly expand explicit legislation by further defining and categorizing precisely what kind of activities constituted " work." Eventually, their discussions were collected in the Mishna, resulting in thirty-nine distinct categories, with sub-groupings, of activities prohibited on the Sabbath (see the three tractates, Shabbath [Sabbath], Erubin [Sabbath limits], and Betzah [festival days]. It is precisely this tradition (= halakah ) that Jesus opposes as burdensome and a distortion of God's true intent with respect to the Sabbath.

¹ At that time Jesus went through the grainfields on the Sabbath. His disciples were hungry and began to pick some heads of grain and eat them. ² When the Pharisees saw this, they said to him, " Look! Your disciples are doing what is unlawful on the Sabbath."

³ He answered, " Haven't you read what David did when he and his companions were hungry? ⁴ He entered the house of God, and he and his companions ate the consecrated bread - which was not lawful for them to do, but only for the priests. ⁵ Or haven't you read in the Law that on the Sabbath the priests in the temple desecrate the day and yet are innocent? ⁶ I tell you that one ^a greater than the temple is here. ⁷ If you had known what these words mean, 'I desire mercy, not sacrifice,' ^b you would not have condemned the innocent. ⁸ For the Son of Man is Lord of the Sabbath."

^a 6 Or something ; also in verses 41 and 42 ^b 7 Hosea 6:6

12:1-2. The setting for the first Sabbath controversy is described in verses 1-2. While going through the grainfields on the Sabbath (savbbasin, sabbasin , names of Jewish festivals are typically rendered by the plural), Jesus' disciples were hungry (only in Matthew; cf. Mark 2:23; Luke 6:1) and began to pick some heads of grain and eat them . The Pharisees interpret their actions as a violation of the prohibition of work on the Sabbath. Evidently, their charge was based on Exodus 34:21. Thus, they interpreted the disciples' " picking some heads of grain" as a form of harvesting (cf. m. Sabb. 7:2). Such a charge could not be passed off lightly.

12:3-4. Jesus responds first by chiding his opponents for their failure to perceive the implications of David's actions recorded in 1 Samuel 21. The rhetorical question, Haven't you read . . . , certainly has a element of sarcasm, as Jesus addresses those who prided themselves in their understanding and compliance to the literal words of Scripture. With respect to David, the actions of he and his men must technically be viewed as a violation of the strict provisions of the Law. The Law is clear (see Lev 24:9) that only Aaron and his sons were allowed to eat the bread " set out before the Lord." Jesus is asking why there is no condemnation of David and his men for their violation of the letter of the Law? The same grounds that legitimize David's actions also justify the conduct of Jesus' disciples. Given the special circumstances of David's predicament (his flight from Saul), along with the dignity of the special role he was to occupy on behalf of the nation (anointed king) his technical breach of the Law must be seen in the light of broader circumstances. For the sake of the greater good (i.e., the preservation of David) the letter of the Law cannot always be rigidly enforced. Not only must discernment of God's will take into consideration higher priorities, the Law of God cannot be interpreted in isolation, but must be understood in light of God's total will. With respect to David's actions, Jesus reasons in typical rabbinic fashion, i.e., from the " light to the weighty" ( qal wahomer ). If one can justify David's actions in the light of his special circumstances and the dignity of his person, how much more are the actions of Jesus' disciples justified in light of the eschatological circumstances surrounding Jesus' kingly presence? If David and his men were justified in transgressing the letter of the Law, how much more are Jesus and his disciples justified in ignoring mere scribal tradition?

12:5-6. Next, Jesus appeals directly to the priestly prerogative of offering sacrifices on the Sabbath. Such practice could technically be viewed as a violation of the prohibition of work on the Sabbath. Yet the fulfillment of priestly duties demands that the offering of sacrifices by given precedence over Sabbath regulations (Num 28:9-10). Hence, since the priests are performing their God-assigned tasks they are regarded as innocent , though the rigor of their priestly duties could easily be categorized as work. The priests are justified in their performance of their sacrificial duties because the temple cult takes precedence over the strict observance of the Sabbath. However, Jesus makes the startling claim that his disciples are justified in their actions because they are associated with " something" ( contra NIV one ) greater than the temple . While the use of the neuter mei'zon ( meizon ) can refer to a " person," its usage here is probably intended as a general reference to Jesus' ministry and the greater blessings associated with the new era being inaugurated in him. What God was doing in Jesus far surpasses what the temple cult could offer. In fact, the new locus of God's holy presence is to be found in Jesus (cf. 1:23; 21:12-14), and his merciful acts. It follows that Pharisaic criticism of the disciples is unjustified because by their association with Jesus they are involved in a sacrificial service that transcends anything connected to the temple cult.

12:7. By the second use of Hosea 6:6 (cf. 9:13), Jesus stresses that the Pharisees have failed to learn the lesson that God's will places a priority on mercy over sacrifice. Although they pride themselves in their mastery of Scripture, Jesus chides them for the failure to understand. They use the Law as " a blunt weapon . . . to condemn the untutored in the Law, people who are nevertheless the truly innocent ones, the poor and the meek." That is why their teaching constituted a heavy yoke burdening the people (11:28). In contrast, Jesus' view of God's will did not revolve around legal niceties designed to ensnare the innocent. Had the Pharisees truly understood Hosea's words they would not have been so hasty in their denunciation of the disciples. While they knew the letter of the Law, they failed miserably in the apprehension of the heart of the Lawgiver.

12:8. Jesus' climactic christological affirmation ( the Son of Man is Lord of the Sabbath ) builds on his previous claims (note gavr, gar ) and affirms the priority of his person and mission for determining behavior that is acceptable on the Sabbath. Such a view is anchored in his prior, more fundamental awareness of God's will and character, and his determination to manifest the presence of God in terms of a ministry of mercy. Ironically, the " Son of Man" who has no place to rest (8:20), and is rejected as a " friend of tax collectors and sinners" (11:19), possesses authority and glory greater than one of Israel's most sacred cultic expressions. He will demonstrate the true meaning of the Sabbath, and thereby bring " rest" to his people. As the next scene illustrates, Jesus is the revealer of God's merciful character, and will not be intimidated by Pharisaic threats or maneuvers.

F. SABBATH CONTROVERSY:

HEALING IN THE SYNAGOGUE (12:9-14)

⁹ Going on from that place, he went into their synagogue, ¹⁰ and a man with a shriveled hand was there. Looking for a reason to accuse Jesus, they asked him, " Is it lawful to heal on the Sabbath?"

¹¹ He said to them, " If any of you has a sheep and it falls into a pit on the Sabbath, will you not take hold of it and lift it out? ¹² How much more valuable is a man than a sheep! Therefore it is lawful to do good on the Sabbath."

¹³ Then he said to the man, " Stretch out your hand." So he stretched it out and it was completely restored, just as sound as the other. ¹⁴ But the Pharisees went out and plotted how they might kill Jesus.

12:9-10. The transitional phrase " going on from that place" marks Jesus' movement from the grainfields to inside one of " their synagogues." The impression from Matthew's account is that this scene happens on the same day (i.e., the Sabbath) as the grainfield incident (cf. Luke 6:6, " on another Sabbath" ). As Kingsbury has observed, this scene represents a progression in the confrontational stance of the Pharisees: " In the first debate [12:1-8], the Pharisees confront Jesus, but the charge they raise is against the disciples . . . In the second debate, the Pharisees again confront Jesus, but this time, and indeed for the first time in Matthew's story, the accusation they make in the question they raise concerns an act Jesus himself intends to perform."

The scene opens with Jesus in their synagogue along with a man suffering with a paralyzed hand. It is not at all improbable to imagine Jesus' opponents staging the encounter by using the man's infirmity for their own evil intentions. Matthew provides an insight into their motivations by noting that they were Looking for a reason to accuse Jesus . Their question, Is it lawful to heal on the Sabbath , was not a genuine inquiry for information, but was calculated to put Jesus at odds with their tradition. It was the general consensus among most Jewish groups that unless one's life was in immediate danger, it was not lawful to heal on the Sabbath (cf. m.Yoma 8:6: " Every case where life is in danger supersedes the Sabbath" ). In this case, the man was not in immediate danger, thus respect for the Sabbath mandates that his healing be delayed, at least for another day.

12:11-12. Jesus' response indicates his refusal to have his mission stifled by legalistic discriminations that militate against the immediate expression of God's mercy. Once again, Jesus reasons a fortiori and thereby cuts through legalistic entrapments by going directly to the heart of God's intentions for the Sabbath. Most Jews would think nothing of rescuing a sheep that had fallen into a pit on the Sabbath. Jesus reasons, if it is right and proper to assist a sheep in trouble on the Sabbath, how much more should the plight of human beings be mercifully responded to. Their own practice with respect to animals justifies the affirmation, Therefore it is lawful to do good on the Sabbath . In Jesus' view the Sabbath presents an opportunity to do good (=God's will), while the religious authorities use the occasion to find fault (12:10) and to condemn the innocent (12:14).

12:13-14. Having established the appropriateness for doing good on the Sabbath, Jesus proceeds to do good by restoring the man's hand to a healthy wholeness (uJgihv", hygiçs). Once again, when Jesus' authoritative command is accepted in faith the seemingly impossible becomes a reality. The exhibition of Jesus' miraculous powers have provided sufficient evidence validating his words concerning what was permissible on the Sabbath. However, the Pharisees are only provoked to hostility and begin to plot their murderous intentions. The obsession with legalistic law keeping and the security it affords is not often open to alternative proposals and frequently responds by attempting to eliminate those who challenge their dependence on a rules-oriented form of religion. With this negative turn of events, " the conflict between Jesus and the Jewish leaders has intensified to the point of becoming irreconcilably hostile and will remain as such throughout the rest of the story."

G. THE CHARACTER AND MISSION OF GOD'S SERVANT (12:15-21)

¹⁵ Aware of this, Jesus withdrew from that place. Many followed him, and he healed all their sick, ¹⁶ warning them not to tell who he was. ¹⁷ This was to fulfill what was spoken through the prophet Isaiah:

¹⁸" Here is my servant whom I have chosen,

the one I love, in whom I delight;

I will put my Spirit on him,

and he will proclaim justice to the nations.

¹⁹ He will not quarrel or cry out;

no one will hear his voice in the streets.

²⁰ A bruised reed he will not break,

and a smoldering wick he will not snuff out,

till he leads justice to victory.

²¹ In his name the nations will put their hope." ^a

^a 21 Isaiah 42:1-4

Matthew now interrupts the flow of the narrative by comments designed to underscore Jesus' ongoing ministry as his response to Pharisaic intentions (v. 14; 12:15-16). Jesus' withdrawal in the face of his rejection, his continual therapeutic involvement with the people, and his order " not to tell who he was," all find their explanation in what was foretold by Isaiah (vv. 17-21). The immediate effect of Matthew's intrusive comment is to validate Jesus' claim that his actions are in fulfillment of God's will as expressed in Scripture. As such, the fulfillment citation functions thematically to reiterate certain points expressed earlier and to lead the reader to expect that they will be further developed in scenes that follow.

12:15-16. Matthew makes it clear that Jesus' knowledge of their deadly plot ( Aware of this ) prompted his withdrawal so as to avoid further provocation. Nevertheless, his tactical withdrawal was not an attempt to hide from his opponents, since large crowds had no trouble finding him. While he continues to heal the sick, it is clear that he does not seek undue publicity. The warning not to tell who he was is not motivated by fear of his opponents, but is reflective of the unassuming nature of his ministry, and the inability of the crowds to correctly interpret his therapeutic activity. The description also prepares the reader for the fulfillment citation where the character of God's Servant and the contours of his mission are described.

12:17-18. Matthew's independent translation of Isaiah 42:1-4 serves to align Jesus' character and ministry with Israel's depiction of Yahweh's Spirit-endowed Servant (cf. 3:16; 17:5). Contextually, Matthew uses the Isaianic quotation to emphasize that while the essential features of Jesus' ministry evoke God's good pleasure, these same elements have become a source of offense and rejection in Israel. While God delights in his servant, having chosen him and empowered him with his Spirit to carry out his redemptive mission, Israel's leaders have repudiated his authority by attributing his " powers" to the " prince of demons" (cf. 9:34; 10:25; 12:24). The ultimate goal of his ministry is described as to proclaim justice to the nations , to lead justice to victory with the result that In his name the nations will put their hope . However, it was precisely the character and extent of Jesus' outreach that stirred hostility and indignation within Israel (cf. 9:9-13, 16:19). The reference serves to anticipate the Gentile mission and to underscore that a fundamental feature of Jesus' compliance to the divine will becomes a major source of offense and conflict among the Jewish leaders.

12:19-21. The negatives that characterize the Servant's vocation remind the reader that the Son who is gentle and humble in heart (11:28-30) is compassionately responsive to the downtrodden in Israel; those elsewhere characterized as " oppressed and helpless" (9:36), and " weary and burdened" (11:28). The unobtrusive and judicious character of Jesus' ministry exhibited by his withdrawals (v. 15) and warnings " not to tell who he was" (v. 16), is in compliance to God's will which affirmed that he will not quarrel or cry out (v. 19). Matthew shows, by his longest OT citation, that both Jesus' incomparable authoritative power and the humble unassuming contours of his ministry are best understood in terms of his role as God's Servant, who sets his heart on fulfilling his Father's will. As such, it is he, not Israel's leadership, who truly understands and obeys God's will.

H. THE BEELZEBUB CONTROVERSY (12:22-37)

After demonstrating the correct evaluation of Jesus and his ministry as God's endowed Servant (12:17-21), the next narrative scene stands in stark contrast, as the Pharisees attribute the origin of his powers to Beelzebub (see 10:25). The setting for the controversy is reminiscent of 9:32-34 where an exorcism of a deaf-mute stirred differing assessments of Jesus' miraculous powers. In this instance, the crowds and Pharisees once again offer conflicting interpretations of Jesus' exorcism (12:22-24). But unlike the previous episode where Jesus does not respond to their charge, in this case Pharisaic accusations elicit a stinging rebuttal (vv. 25-37). Jesus first demonstrates why their evaluation is incorrect (vv. 25-29); he goes on to show the seriousness of their charge (vv. 30-32), and the external consequences of their evil intentions and hasty conclusions (vv. 33-37).

²² Then they brought him a demon-possessed man who was blind and mute, and Jesus healed him, so that he could both talk and see. ²³ All the people were astonished and said, " Could this be the Son of David?"

²⁴ But when the Pharisees heard this, they said, " It is only by Beelzebub, ^a the prince of demons, that this fellow drives out demons."

²⁵ Jesus knew their thoughts and said to them, " Every kingdom divided against itself will be ruined, and every city or household divided against itself will not stand. ²⁶ If Satan drives out Satan, he is divided against himself. How then can his kingdom stand? ²⁷ And if I drive out demons by Beelzebub, by whom do your people drive them out? So then, they will be your judges. ²⁸ But if I drive out demons by the Spirit of God, then the kingdom of God has come upon you.

²⁹" Or again, how can anyone enter a strong man's house and carry off his possessions unless he first ties up the strong man? Then he can rob his house.

³⁰" He who is not with me is against me, and he who does not gather with me scatters. ³¹ And so I tell you, every sin and blasphemy will be forgiven men, but the blasphemy against the Spirit will not be forgiven. ³² Anyone who speaks a word against the Son of Man will be forgiven, but anyone who speaks against the Holy Spirit will not be forgiven, either in this age or in the age to come.

³³" Make a tree good and its fruit will be good, or make a tree bad and its fruit will be bad, for a tree is recognized by its fruit. ³⁴ You brood of vipers, how can you who are evil say anything good? For out of the overflow of the heart the mouth speaks. ³⁵ The good man brings good things out of the good stored up in him, and the evil man brings evil things out of the evil stored up in him. ³⁶ But I tell you that men will have to give account on the day of judgment for every careless word they have spoken. ³⁷ For by your words you will be acquitted, and by your words you will be condemned."

^a 24 Greek Beezeboul or Beelzeboul ; also in verse 27

12:22-24. The conflict scene comprising 12:22-37 opens with a brief narration of Jesus healing a blind and mute demoniac. Although there are similarities with the episode described in 9:32-34, the differences should not be downplayed.

In this instance the demoniac is blind and mute, whereas the previous scene involved a deaf mute (9:32-34). The crowd's earlier response was the affirmation that " nothing like this has ever been seen in Israel" (9:33), while in 12:23, they entertain the possibility that Jesus may be the Davidic Messiah, though they do expect a negative response to their question (mhvti, mçti). But like the previous episode (9:34), the mere suggestion of a positive response to Jesus' ministry evokes a swift response from the religious establishment (note ajkouvsante", akousantes , v. 23). Any suggestion of a royal Davidic claim is countered once again by attributing Jesus' power to Beelzebub, the prince of demons (cf. 9:34; 10:25). The desperate attempt to counter any positive assessment of Jesus results in the bizarre notion that the source of Jesus' powers is Satanic. It is probably no accident that healings of blindness juxtapose scenes highlighting the blindness of Israel's leaders. It should also be observed that they never question the reality of Jesus' supernatural power, but find their only recourse (other than faith) to attribute them to evil forces.

12:25-26. This time instead of remaining silent (9:34-35) or withdrawing (12:15), Jesus, who knows their hearts, counters their charge by demonstrating the logical absurdity of their assessment (vv. 25-27). No kingdom , city , or household can survive if there are internal divisions or dissensions that undermine their solidarity. The same applies to the " kingdom of Satan," which assumes some sort of structure or organization under the ruling authority of Satan. If the agents of Satan's rule are opposing one another by a relentless war against demonic influence, it would seem that Satanic influence is being undermined and his influence diminished. Thus, assuming their charge against Jesus to be accurate, it logically follows that Satan's kingdom is being seriously weakened by Jesus' activity. The question remains, does Jesus function as an agent of Satan in his assault against evil, or should his efforts be understood radically differently?

12:27. Jesus reasons that both he and other Jewish exorcists ( your people , lit., " your sons" ) have been active in expelling demons, yet they attribute the same activity of exorcism to radically different sources: God is at work in their people, but Beelzebub in Jesus' activity. If they would vehemently deny that the exorcisms performed by their own colleagues prove they are in league with Satan, by what logic do they attribute evil forces to Jesus' exorcisms? Jesus concludes that their own people will stand in judgment of them for hastily ascribing to Satanic forces that which obviously comes from God.

12:28-29. The proper assessment of Jesus' exorcisms is to see in them the presence of God's powerful reign. While others may exercise the power to cast out demons (v. 27), in Jesus, exorcisms are only one in a plethora of manifestations confirming the reality of God's mighty presence. Jesus is emphatic that the source of his power is the Spirit of God (cf. v. 18), not Beelzebub (v. 27; cf. Luke 11:20). The liberation of people from Satan's tyrannical hold is fundamental to the manifestation of God's kingdom. The presence of God's reign means a full frontal assault against the kingdom of Satan, resulting in many captives being liberated. The language of verse 29 graphically captures the notion of a direct assault against Satan and the plundering of his possessions. Far from being in league with Satan, Jesus describes his intentions as the complete overthrow of Satan and the liberation of all those under his authority. Jesus is stronger than the strong man and will render him powerless ( ties up ), thus effectively neutralizing his oppressive control over people. However, while the exorcisms signal Satan's ultimate defeat, he continues to wield considerable power and influence until the time of his total destruction (see Rev 20:2-15).

12:30. In the conflict against evil forces, neutrality is not an option. Those who do not see the presence of God and the mighty work of God's Spirit in Jesus' ministry stand diametrically opposed to him and do not contribute to the gathering of God's people, but to their scattering (cf. the harvest theme in 9:36-38). Simply put, there is no middle ground; one is either aligned with Jesus and his mission or one stands with Satan in opposition to the kingdom of God.

12:31-32. But opposition and repudiation of the power at work in Jesus carries with it serious eschatological consequences. While one can be forgiven for having difficulty with the humbled unpretentious role assumed by the Son of Man (cf. 11:2-3), attributing his divine power to a diabolical source constitutes a direct repudiation of God's Spirit at work in him, and as such, cannot be forgiven. It is unfortunate that Jesus' words have become a source of anxiety and concern for many Christians who have wondered if they may have committed the unpardonable sin. Notice that Jesus prefaces his remarks with the assurance that every sin and blasphemy will be forgiven men . Jesus makes it clear that the blasphemy that will not be forgiven is not the mere formation of words or thoughts, or deeds done in ignorance, but rather a hardened form of opposition that attributes the works of God's Spirit to Satan, and thereby rejects God's salvific offer in Jesus. With such a response one is cut off from any hope of forgiveness either in this age or in the age to come . The actions of the Pharisees and their slanderous rejection of God's Spirit at work in Jesus is the result of a willful, obstinate hardness that has therefore determined their eternal fate.

12:33-35. Jesus then offers an explanation for their blasphemous assessment of his ministry. Their words are simply the reflection of an evil heart which cannot say anything good . In words reminiscent of 7:16-20, Jesus illustrates the corruption of the Pharisees by noting that the fruit of a tree is ultimately determined by the health of the tree itself. The deeds and accusations (=fruits) of the Pharisees are simply indicative of an internal rottenness that has no chance of producing anything good. Since their hearts are fundamentally evil their words will necessarily reflect their basic character. Jesus makes it clear that one's deeds are always reflective of the core of one's inner being. As surely as a good man will produce that which is good, so the evil man can only produce evil. Jesus is not suggesting that change is impossible, only that as long as the heart remains corrupt, one's words and behavior will correspond accordingly.

12:36-37. Jesus concludes this section (vv. 22-37) with an indirect response to the verbal abuse he received from the Pharisees. Since words are reflective of one's basic character, even careless words are not to be taken lightly because of what they can reveal about a person. A critical factor in God's ultimate evaluation of one's life involves the very words that one utters. Since words are both an insightful indicator of character, and a powerful instrument to incite behavior patterns, it is critical that the Lord's disciples carefully weigh the worth and implications of every word spoken.

I. THE REQUEST FOR A SIGN (12:38-42)

³⁸ Then some of the Pharisees and teachers of the law said to him, " Teacher, we want to see a miraculous sign from you."

³⁹ He answered, " A wicked and adulterous generation asks for a miraculous sign! But none will be given it except the sign of the prophet Jonah. ⁴⁰ For as Jonah was three days and three nights in the belly of a huge fish, so the Son of Man will be three days and three nights in the heart of the earth. ⁴¹ The men of Nineveh will stand up at the judgment with this generation and condemn it; for they repented at the preaching of Jonah, and now one ^a greater than Jonah is here. ⁴² The Queen of the South will rise at the judgment with this generation and condemn it; for she came from the ends of the earth to listen to Solomon's wisdom, and now one greater than Solomon is here.

^a 41 Or something ; also in verse 42

12:38. The paragraph opens with words that indicate that the Pharisee's request for a sign comes as a response to Jesus' words in the preceding section (i.e., 12:25-38; tovte ajpekrivqhsan aujtw'/, tote apekrithçsan autô). Their words constitute a further indictment of their hardened hearts since they have already witnessed numerous convincing signs validating Jesus' message, but they refused to believe, and even attributed his works to Beelzebub. Perhaps they desire something more spectacular (cf. 11:4-6), geared especially to meet their expectations and approval. They were obviously not impressed with Jesus' healings and exorcisms, evidently being persuaded that such activity either could be duplicated by others or could be accounted for by factors other than that God was at work within him. They wanted an irrefutable sign that God was behind Jesus' miraculous deeds (cf. 16:1, where their request is identified as a " test" ). It is precisely this " signs on demand" performance for the sake of impressing others that Jesus has always resisted. His ministry will not be reduced to a mere circus performance calculated to win the applause of men (cf. 4:1-11).

12:39-40. Accordingly, Jesus responds that the only " sign" given this wicked and adulterous generation (cf. 11:16) is the sign of the prophet Jonah . Because of the evil character of " this generation" they will not be convinced by further miraculous exhibitions. There is only one irrefutable sign that will be offered this generation, i.e,. the sign of Jonah. Jesus immediately explains the meaning of his words (v. 40, gar ) by drawing a parallel between the experience of Jonah and the future experience of the Son of Man. Although Jonah was humbled and rendered powerless by his experience with a great fish, God's deliverance validated his commission and led to a successful campaign in Nineveh (v. 41). In like manner, the Son of Man will suffer humiliation and even death, and yet, God will validate the mission of his Son by raising him from the dead. Thus, this one remaining sign will be even more stunning than the return of Jonah from the belly of a fish. Jesus' death and subsequent return to life was heralded by the early church as the ultimate sign authenticating his person and mission (Acts 2:24, 32, 26; 3:15 etc.).

12:41-42. Once again, Jesus cites pagan examples to sharpen his criticism of his Jewish contemporaries (cf. 11:20-24). When the Ninevites were confronted with Jonah's preaching they responded by repenting (Jonah 3:3-5). The Queen of the South was so impressed by Solomon's wisdom that she traveled a great distance for the opportunity to listen to him (1 Kgs 10:1-10). If both Jonah and Solomon merit such a positive response how much more Jesus, since with him this generation has been introduced to something greater (see 12:6) than both Jonah and Solomon. The ministry of Jesus is greater than Jonah's because Jesus embodies God's divine will and therefore both his teachings and actions constitute a revelation of God in the midst of his people. The wisdom of Jesus is greater than Solomon because he speaks as one divinely endowed and empowered by God's Spirit (3:17; 12:28; cf. 10:19-20). Jesus' affirmation is remarkable in its content, and is calculated to enhance the guilt of this generation which has so adamantly opposed his ministry.

J. A CONCLUDING ANALOGY (12:43-45)

⁴³" When an evil ^a spirit comes out of a man, it goes through arid places seeking rest and does not find it. ⁴⁴ Then it says, 'I will return to the house I left.' When it arrives, it finds the house unoccupied, swept clean and put in order. ⁴⁵ Then it goes and takes with it seven other spirits more wicked than itself, and they go in and live there. And the final condition of that man is worse than the first. That is how it will be with this wicked generation."

^a 43 Greek unclean

12:43. Jesus' confrontation with the Pharisees began with their faulty assessment of Jesus' exorcism (12:23), and now the discussion ends with an illustration implying that they, not he, have been completely taken over by evil forces. Since the analogy is not intended to provide detailed information about the demonic world, one should be cautious about extrapolating from this text to general speculative theories about demonic activity. The illustration has the primary function of dispelling any notion that one can benefit from Jesus' divine powers and yet continue to live non-committal empty lives.

12:44-45. Once a demon is driven out of a man it searches for another suitable host. If it is unable to find one it returns to its previous host, where conditions have been made even more favorable ( unoccupied, swept clean, and put in order ). As a result, the host is susceptible to a new invasion, this time, however, the demon is accompanied by additional evil spirits (seven) even more wicked than itself. The parable concludes with a line highlighting its central thought: And the final condition of that man is worse than the first .

Jesus' words certainly indicate that once one has been liberated from an evil spirit, it is essential that the Spirit of God take up residence within. A mere vacuum will not stay vacant for long. Nevertheless, by the concluding words, That is how it will be with this wicked generation , Jesus applies the parable to his contemporaries, especially unrepentant Jews who have seen his powerful deeds. Although they have greatly benefitted from his cleansing powers they have not repented, thus leaving themselves open to an even greater deception and control by evil forces. If Jesus' ministry does not generate both moral reform and a new allegiance there is created a void which Satan will surely exploit. Thus the final condition of this generation will be worse than their former state.

K. JESUS' TRUE FAMILY (12:46-50)

⁴⁶ While Jesus was still talking to the crowd, his mother and brothers stood outside, wanting to speak to him. ⁴⁷ Someone told him, " Your mother and brothers are standing outside, wanting to speak to you." ^a

⁴⁸ He replied to him, " Who is my mother, and who are my brothers?" ⁴⁹ Pointing to his disciples, he said, " Here are my mother and my brothers. ⁵⁰ For whoever does the will of my Father in heaven is my brother and sister and mother."

^a 47 Some manuscripts do not have verse 47.

12:46. With the lengthy exchange between Jesus and the Pharisees concluded (vv. 22-45), Jesus now addresses a new audience ( the crowd ), and shifts the focus of his attention from his opponents to those who constitute his true family (vv. 49-50). The " crowd" is therefore confronted with an implicit invitation (cf. 11:29-30) to become part of the messianic family by embracing a common commitment with Jesus to do the will of the Father. Obviously, such a proposal constitutes a serious indictment of the Pharisaic claim to be doers of the divine will.

No explanation is provided by Matthew concerning why Jesus' mother and brothers wish to speak to him. The fact that they remain outside may indicate their reluctance to be directly associated with Jesus' activities. It does appear from Mark 3:21 that they were at least concerned about the implications of his activity. Nevertheless, they seem to be under the impression that because of family ties they can immediately summon a private meeting with Jesus. Mary has not been mentioned since chapter two, and this is the first reference to Jesus' extended family (cf. 13:55). However, their introduction here is not necessarily to cast Jesus' relatives in a negative light, they serve only as " a foil to highlight the true family of Jesus . . ." (cf. Mark 3:20-21).

12:47-49. When Jesus is made aware of their desire to speak with him he immediately poses a question designed to challenge the priority extended to earthly family ties: " Who is my mother, and who are my brothers?" Jesus answers his own question by Pointing to his disciples and identifying them as his true family. Old earthly ties have either been replaced or renewed by the presence of God's kingdom. The service of God and the work of the kingdom must be given priority over even the most intimate of human relationships (4:22; 8:21; 10:35-37). In fact, there are no structures of authority or basic relationships that are not radically effected by the dawn of God's reign in Jesus.

12:50. The essence of discipleship is defined as a wholehearted commitment to do the will of the Father. Those who follow Jesus and allow the Father's will to be the guiding principle controlling both actions and the way persons and events are evaluated are part of an extended family whose bonds transcend all earthly ties. This invitation is extended to whoever , thus shattering ethnic and gender restrictions characteristic of contemporary Judaism. The intimacy that Jesus experiences with God as his Father is offered to all who take seriously conformity to God's will. Jesus is therefore not repudiating family relationships or necessarily rejecting all of Israel. He is, however, equating following him with doing the will of God, and therefore intends his new family to emulate his sacrificial obedience to the will of the Father. Of course, Jesus' language seriously undermines and directly challenges the Pharisaic claim that they are representative of compliance to God's will. To the contrary, it is the Son's intimate knowledge of his Father's will and his conformity to it that constitute the basis of the new family of God.

-College Press New Testament Commentary: with the NIV

McGarvey: Mat 12:22-37

XLVIII.
BLASPHEMOUS ACCUSATIONS OF THE JEWS.
(Galilee.)
^aMATT. XII. 22-37; ^bMARK III. 19-30; ^cLUKE XI. 14-23.

   ^b19 And he cometh into a house. [Whose house is not stated.]  20 And the multitude cometh together again [as on a previous occasion -- Mar 2:1], so that they could not so much as eat bread. [They could not sit down to a regular meal. A wonderful picture of the intense importunity of people and the corresponding eagerness of Jesus, who was as willing to do as they were to have done.]  21 And when his friends heard it, they went out to lay hold on him: for they said, He is beside himself. [These friends were his brothers and his mother, as appears from Mar 3:31, Mar 3:32. They probably came from Nazareth. To understand their feelings, we must bear in mind their want of [298] faith. See Joh 7:3-9. They regarded Jesus as carried away by his religious enthusiasm (Act 26:24, 2Co 5:13), and thought that he acted with reckless regard for his personal safety. They foresaw the conflict with the military authorities and the religious leaders into which the present course of Jesus was leading, and were satisfied that the case called for their interference. Despite her knowledge as to Jesus, Mary sympathized with her sons in this movement, and feared for the safety of Jesus.]  ^a22 Then was brought unto him one possessed with a demon, blind and dumb: {^c14 And he was casting out a demon that was dumb.} aand he healed him, insomuch that cit came to pass, when the demon was gone out, athe dumb man spake and saw. [The man was brought because he could not come alone. While Luke does not mention the blindness, the similarity of the narratives makes it most likely that he is describing the same circumstances as Matthew and Mark, so we have combined the three accounts.]  23 And all the multitudes cmarvelled. awere amazed, and said, Can this be the son of David? [It was a time for amazement, for Jesus had performed a triple if not a quadruple miracle, restoring liberty, hearing and sight, and granting the power of speech. It wakened the hope that Jesus might be the Messiah, the son of David, but their hope is expressed in the most cautious manner, not only being stated as a question, but as a question which expects a negative answer. The question, however, was well calculated to arouse the envious opposition of the Pharisees.]  ^c15 But some of them said [that is, some of the multitude. Who these "some" were is revealed by Matthew and Mark, thus:],  ^a24 But when the Pharisees heard it, they  ^b22 and the scribes that came down from Jerusalem said, ^aThis man doth not cast out demons, but by Beelzebub the prince of the demons. ^bHe hath Beelzebub, and, By the prince of the demons casteth he out the demons. [Beelzebub is a corruption of Baalzebub, the god of the fly. There was a tendency among the heathen to name [299] their gods after the pests which they were supposed to avert. Thus Zeus was called Apomuios (Averter of flies), and Apollo Ipuktonos (Slayer of vermin). How Beelzebub became identified with Satan in the Jewish mind is not known. In opposing the influence of Jesus and corrupting the public mind, these Pharisees showed a cunning worthy of the cultivated atmosphere, the seat of learning whence they came. Being unable to deny that a miracle was wrought (for Celsus in the second century is the first recorded person who had the temerity to do such a thing), they sought to so explain it as to reverse its potency, making it an evidence of diabolical rather than divine power. Their explanation was cleverly plausible, for there were at least two powers by which demons might be cast out, as both were invisible, it might appear impossible to decide whether it was done in this instance by the power of God or of Satan. It was an explanation very difficult to disprove, and Jesus himself considered it worthy of the very thorough reply which follows.]  ^c16 And others, trying him, sought of him a sign from heaven. [These probably felt that the criticisms of the Pharisees were unjust, and wished that Jesus might put them to silence by showing some great sign, such as the pillar of cloud which sanctioned the guidance of Moses, or the descending fire which vindicated Elijah.]  ^b23 And he called them unto him [thus singling out his accusers],  ^a25 And {^c17 But} aknowing their thoughts he said unto them, bin parables [We shall find that Jesus later replied to those who sought a sign. He here answers his accusers in a fourfold argument. First argument:], How can Satan cast out Satan? ^aEvery kingdom divided against itself is brought to desolation; and every city or house [family] divided against itself shall not stand:  ^b24 And if a kingdom be divided against itself, that kingdom cannot stand. ^cA house divided against a house falleth. {^b25 And if a house be divided against itself, that house will not be able to stand.}  ^a26 And if Satan cast out Satan, he is divided against himself;  ^c18 And if Satan also is [300] divided against himself, ahow then shall his kingdom stand?  ^b26 And if Satan hath risen up against himself, and is divided, he cannot stand, but hath an end. cbecause ye say that I cast out demons by Beelzebub. [The explanation given by the Pharisees represented Satan as divided against himself; robbing himself of his greatest achievement; namely, his triumph over the souls and bodies of men. Jesus 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. We should note that Jesus here definitely recognizes two important truths: 1. That the powers of evil are organized into a kingdom with a head (Mat 13:29, Mat 25:41, Mar 4:15, Luk 22:31). 2. That division tends to destruction. His argument therefore, "constitutes an incidental but strong argument against sectarianism. See 1Co 1:13" (Abbott). Second argument:]  19 And if I by Beelzebub cast out demons, by whom do your sons cast them out? Therefore shall they be your judges. [The sons of the Pharisees were not their children, but their disciples (2Ki 2:3, Act 19:13, Act 19:14). Josephus mentions these exorcists (Ant. viii. 2, 5, and Wars vii. 6, 3), and there is abundant mention of them in later rabbinical books. Our Lord's reference to them was merely for the purpose of presenting an argumentum ad hominem, and in no way implies that they exercised any real power over the demons; nor could they have done so in any marked degree, else the similar work of Christ would not have created such an astonishment. The argument therefore is this, I have already shown you that it is against reason that Satan cast out Satan; I now show you that it is against experience. The only instances of dispossession which you can cite are those of your own disciples. Do they act by the power of Satan? They therefore shall be your judges as to whether you have spoken rightly in saying that Satan casts out Satan. Third argument:]  20 But if I with the finger {aby the Spirit} of God cast out demons, then is the kingdom of God come upon you. [The finger of God signifies the power of God [301] (Exo 8:19, Exo 31:18, Psa 8:3). [Jesus exercised this power in unison with the Spirit of God. Jesus here draws a conclusion from the two arguments presented. Since he does not cast out by Satan, he must cast out by the power of God, and therefore his actions demonstrated the potential arrival of the kingdom of God. The occasional accidental deliverance of exorcists might be evidence of the flow and ebb of a spiritual battle, but the steady, daily conquests of Christ over the powers of evil presented to the people the triumphant progress of an invading kingdom. It is an argument against the idea that there was a collusion between Christ and Satan. Fourth argument:]  ^c21 When the strong man fully armed guardeth his own court, his goods are in peace:  22 but when a stronger than he shall come upon him, and overcome him, he taketh from him his whole armor wherein he trusted, and divided his spoils.  ^b27 But no one can {^a29 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 will he spoil his house. [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 proved that, instead of being in league with Satan, he had overpowered Satan. Thus Jesus put to shame the Pharisees, and caused the divinity of his miracle to stand out in clearer light than ever. The power of Jesus to dispossess the demon was one of his most convincing credentials, and its meaning now stood forth in its true light.]  30 He that is not with me is against me; and he that gathereth not with me scattereth abroad. [Jesus here addresses the bystanders. In the spiritual conflict between Jesus and Satan, neutrality is impossible. There are only two kingdoms, and every soul is either in one or the other, for there is no third. Hence one who fought Satan in the name of Christ was for Christ (Luk 9:50). In the figure of gathering and scattering, the people are compared to a flock of sheep which Jesus would gather into the fold, but which Satan and all who aid him (such as the Pharisees) would [302] scatter and destroy.]  ^b28 Verily ^a31 Therefore I say unto you, Every sins and blasphemy {ball their sins} shall be forgiven unto the sons of men, and their blasphemies wherewith soever they shall blaspheme [Jesus here explains to the Pharisees the awful meaning of their enmity. Blasphemy is any kind of injurious speech. It is the worst form of sin, as we see by this passage. This does not declare that every man shall be forgiven all his sins, but that all kinds of sin committed by various men shall be forgiven. The forgiveness is universal as to the sin, not as to the men]: abut the blasphemy against the Spirit shall not be forgiven.  32 And whosoever shall speak a word against the Son of man, it shall be forgiven him; but whosoever shall speak {bblaspheme} against the Holy Spirit hath never forgiveness, but is guilty of an eternal sin: ait shall not be forgiven him, neither in this world, nor in that which is to come.  ^b30 because they said, He hath an unclean spirit. [Blasphemy against the Son may be a temporary sin, for the one who commits it may be subsequently convinced of his error by the testimony of the Holy Spirit and become a believer (1Ti 1:13). But blasphemy against the Holy Spirit is in its nature an eternal sin, for if one rejects the evidence given by the Holy Spirit and ascribes it to Satan, he rejects the only evidence upon which faith can be based; and without faith there is no forgiveness. The difference in the two sins is therefore in no way due to any difference in the Son and Spirit as to their degrees of sanctity or holiness. The punishment is naturally eternal because the sin is perpetual. The mention of the two worlds is, "just an extended way of saying 'never'" (Morison). Some assert that the Jews would not know what Jesus meant by the Holy Spirit, but the point is not so well taken. See Exo 31:3, Num 11:26, 1Sa 10:10, 1Sa 19:20; Psa 139:7, Psa 143:10, Isa 48:16, Eze 11:24. We see by Mark's statement that blasphemy against the Spirit consisted in saying that Jesus had an unclean spirit, that his works were due to Satanic influence, and hence wrought to [303] accomplish Satanic ends. We can not call God Satan, nor the Holy Spirit a demon, until our state of sin has passed beyond all hope of reform. One can not confound the two kingdoms of good and evil unless he does so maliciously and willfully.]  ^a33 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. [The meaning and connection are: "Be honest for once; represent the tree as good, and its fruit as good, or the tree as evil, and its fruit as evil; either say that I am evil, and that my works are evil, or, if you admit that my works are good, admit that I am good also and not in league with Beelzebub" -- Carr.]  34 Ye offspring of vipers, how can ye, being evil, speak good things? for out of the abundance of the heart the mouth speaketh. [Realizing the hopelessness of this attempt to get an honest judgment out of dishonest hearts, Jesus plainly informs them as to the condition of their hearts. Their very souls were full of poison like vipers. Their sin lay not in their words, but in a condition of heart which made such words possible. The heart being as it was, the words could not be otherwise. "What is in the well will be in the bucket" -- Trapp.]  35 The good man out of his good treasure bringeth forth good things: and an evil man out of the evil treasure bringeth forth evil things. [We have here a summary of the contrast given in the Mat 12:33, Mat 12:34. The good heart of Jesus brought forth its goodness, as the evil hearts of the Pharisees brought forth their evil.]  36 And I say unto you, That every idle word that men shall speak, they shall give account thereof in the day of judgment.  37 For by thy words thou shalt be justified, and by thy words thou shalt be condemned. [It may have seemed to some that Jesus denounced too severely a saying which the Pharisees had hastily and lightly uttered. But it is the word inconsiderately spoken which betrays the true state of the heart. The hypocrite can talk like an angel if he be put on notice that his words are heard. Jesus here makes words the basis of the judgment of God. Elsewhere [304] we find it is works (Rom 2:6, 2Co 5:10), and again we find it is faith (Rom 3:28). There is no confusion here. The judgment in its finality must be based upon our character. Our faith forms our character, and our words and works are indices by which we may determine what manner of character it is.]

[FFG 298-305]

Lapide: Mat 12:1-48

1-50

CHAPTER XII.

At that time Jesus went through the corn fields (Through the crops of corn becoming white, or ripe), &c. Luke adds that this Sabbath was the first from the second ( Vulg.); which I will explain in the proper place. Again there is here a Hysterologia; for these things appear to have happened after the Mission of the Apostles, and therefore before the Sermon on the Mount, as may be gathered from Mark ii. 22, and Luke vi. 1. That they rubbed the ears of corn in their hands, and satisfied their hunger is, says S. Jerome, a mark of their austere life.

But when the Pharisees saw it, &c. Luk 7:2, has, they said unto them, i.e., to the disciples of Christ, because they brought forward the objection first against the disciples, afterwards against Christ.

Observe, they do not find fault with the disciples for plucking ears of corn, or grapes; for this was permitted by the law, Deut. xxiii 25, but because they did it on the Sabbath. For to pluck ears seems a servile work, and therefore, a violation of the rest and sanctity of the Sabbath.

Allegorically. SS. Hilary, Ambrose, and Bede think that it is signified by this that the Apostles in the second Sabbath from the first, i.e., in the time of the gospel would gather grains from the seed and crops of preaching, i.e., the elect faithful, from among all nations, by whose faith and piety they should be fed, until they should lay them up with themselves in the heavenly barn. But the Pharisees seeing the Gentiles preferred to themselves in the Gospel envied them, and vainly murmured against the Apostles.

Tropologically : Bede says, "Those walk with the Lord, through the corn fields, who delight to meditate on the sacred oracles. They hunger, when they desire to find therein the bread of life; and that on the Sabbath, when they are glad to rest with a mind free from disturbing thoughts. They rub the ears, and purify them from the husks that they may reach the grain, when they take up the testimonies of Scripture, and dwell upon them until they find in them, as it were the marrow of love. But this refreshment of the mind is displeasing to fools, and is approved by the Lord."

But He said unto them, Have ye not read—And they that were with Him? This last seems to be at variance with 1Sa 21, where it is said, David was alone. I answer, David flying from Saul, went alone to Ahimelech, whom Mark calls Abiathar, the high priest; and asked, and received the loaves from him, which he brought to the companions of his flight, whom he had left, elsewhere, waiting for him, as is plain both from this passage, as well as from 1Sa 21:2, where David says to the priest, "I have appointed to the young men for such and such a place. So S. Jerome."

How he entered, &c. The shew-bread. The shew-bread were loaves always set forth in the Holy Place, before the Holy of Holies, which was, as it were, the throne of God, sitting upon the Mercy-seat; they were loaves, therefore, set forth before the face of God. Whence the LXX. has άρτους ε̉νωπίους, i.e., panes faciales, Syriac, the bread of the Lord's table. In Heb. they are called, לתסי פנים lachme panim, that is, loaves of faces. They were twelve, six on one side of the table and six on the other side, as there are two cheeks on a face. By these twelve loaves, the twelve tribes of Israel confessed that they were continually fed and nourished by God. Wherefore frankincense was put upon them (see Lev. xxiv.); for frankincense was the symbol that they were the Lord's, and were offered to Him. In return, God, from His satisfaction at the offering of these loaves made manifest that He always remembered the twelve tribes, and had them before His face continually. See what has been said on Exo 25:30. God had commanded these sacred loaves to be renewed every Sabbath. New loaves were placed upon the table, and the old were taken away. They were eaten by the priests only, and that only in the Tabernacle, as is plain from Lev 24:8-9. The force of the argument is this: David, a man after God's own heart, made use of the holy shew-bread, in the necessity of his hunger—loaves which it was not lawful for laymen to eat—because he wisely judged, that this positive law concerning laymen not eating them ought to yield to the law of nature, which dictates that in grave necessity of famine life ought to be preserved by eating any bread whatsoever, even loaves consecrated to God. Thus, SS. Paulinus and Laurence, and others, sold chalices and vessels consecrated to God, that by the money which they fetched they might afford help to the poor in their hunger and necessity. Therefore, saith Christ in effect, "Much rather is it lawful for Me and My disciples to pluck ears of corn on the Sabbath, that by the grains extracted from them we may relieve our hunger. For the sanctity of the Sabbath, forbidding servile work, such as plucking ears of corn, is a divine positive law, and ought to yield to the law of nature, which dictates that in hunger it is our duty to sustain life by any kind of food."

Or have ye not read, &c. Profane, viz., by slaying and skinning and cutting up the victims, by laying the wood in order, and by kindling a fire, by which the victims might be burnt in God's honour. These works, considered merely in themselves, are servile, and would profane the Sabbath unless piety excused them, and, instead of servile and profane, made them sacred and divine. The meaning is, As necessity excused David and piety the priests, so do both excuse My disciples from a breach of the Sabbath, for this plucking of the ears. For they follow Me as the Messiah, and are so intent upon My sacred doctrine that they have forgotten to prepare food. Observe the expression, have ye not read? The following words are nowhere found literally in Scripture, but they occur in sense in Numb. xxviii. and elsewhere, where the rites of sacrificing on the Sabbath are sanctioned. Hence it is an axiom of the Jews, "there is no Sabbath in the temple;" that is, no cessation from work, because of the slaying and burning the sacrifices.

But I say unto you, &c. For Christ, Who here speaks, allows His disciples to pluck the ears. Christ speaks of Himself in the third person out of modesty. The meaning is, If the sanctity of the temple frees from blame the sacrificing priests who break the Sabbath, a like cause excuses My disciples, for I am greater and holier than the temple. Yea, I am the Lord of the temple, to whom, in truth, all the victims in the temple were offered and sacrificed.

But if ye had known what that meaneth, &c. Syriac, ye would not have condemned them (my disciples), since they are guiltless. He cites Hosea vi. 6, which see. The force of the argument is, mercy is more powerful, and better than sacrifice or Sabbath, therefore for its sake it is lawful to violate the rest of the Sabbath. Wrongly, therefore, 0 ye Scribes, do ye condemn My disciples in this matter, for they are innocent, and free from all blame therein, because of the mercy which is here exercised. The mercy is that I have permitted My hungry servants to pluck these ears on the Sabbath. Moreover, I enjoin upon them by My word, as well as by My example, that they should have compassion upon so many wretched perishing souls, and should procure their salvation, by teaching, admonishing, and praying for them, with zeal and care. To this applies that golden sentence of Simeon the just (this is he who, as the Hebrews think, took Christ in His arms, and sang his last song, Lord now lettest thou thy servant depart in peace ) in Pirke Aboth, i.e., Tne sentences of the Fathers, "The world rests upon, and is supported by three things, 1. by the law, 2. by Divine worship, 3. by mercy."

For the Son of man, &c. I, who by nature am the Son of God, and have deigned to become the Son of Man, i.e., man, am by this very circumstance, the Lord, that is the author and lawgiver of the whole Mosaic Law, and consequently also of the Sabbath. Therefore I am able to give to My disciples a dispensation with respect to it.

And when he had passed over from thence, &c. Luke adds, that this was done on another Sabbath. For Christ designedly chose the Sabbath day for a fresh miracle, that he might, again and again, refute the error of the Scribes, that it was unlawful to heal sick persons on the Sabbath.

And behold a man having his hand withered, &c. S. Jerome adds, "in the Gospel, which the Nazareni and Ebionites use, which we have lately translated from Hebrew into Greek, and which is called by very many Persons the original ( authenticum ) of Matthew, this man, who had the withered hand, is called a mason. And he prayed for help in these words, I was a mason, gaining my livelihood by my hands: I beseech Thee, 0 Jesus, that Thou wouldst restore me to soundness, that I may not shamefully beg my bread." By the word hand understand arm : for χεὶρ, i.e., hand, is made by Hippocrates to extend from the shoulder to the fingers. This man's arm was affected by a double disease. 1. A convulsion of the nerves. 2. Atrophy, for it was dried up for want of aliment, and was therefore naturally incurable.

And they asked him, i.e., the Scribes and Pharisees asked Christ, whether it were lawful to heal on the Sabbath day? Then, as Mark relates (iii. 4), Christ in turn asked the Scribes another question, which was the solution of their own, i.e., whether it were lawful to do good on the Sabbath, and heal the withered hand; or to do evil, i.e., not to heal, and do harm? He intimates, not to do good to one who is in misery, when it is in your power, is to do him an injury; and not to save life, or a soul, when you can, is to destroy it. Since, therefore, this is a command of the law of nature, it is not forbidden by the positive law of the Sabbath; for that would be unreasonable.

That they might accuse Him, to the common people, as being either powerless, or unmerciful, if He did not heal the sick man; but to the chief priests, as a violator of the Sabbath, if He did heal him.

But he said unto them, &c. He means to say, ye Scribes teach the Sabbath is not broken, if any one pull out a sheep fallen into a ditch on the Sabbath day that the sheep may not remain in the ditch and suffer hunger, on the Sabbath. Much more therefore is it lawful to release on the Sabbath a man afflicted with sickness. Thus thought the Scribes in the time of Christ, but now some Jews observe the rest of the Sabbath so superstitiously that they are not willing on that day to pull a man out of a ditch or sewer, nor to suffer themselves, if they have fallen in, to be drawn out. Volater ( lib. 3, Geograph.) relates an amusing thing, which happened in the reign of Henry III. of England. A certain Jew fell into a drain at Tewkesbury on the Sabbath, and on account of his religion would not be drawn out. The Christian earl of the place, seeing it, would not allow him to be pulled out on the next day, through reverence for Sunday. Thus the man was choked, and died before he was drawn out. The Jew said—

"With putrid mud I'd rather choke,

 Than Jewish Sabbath should be broke."

To whom the earl replied,

"The Christian Sabbath keep thou too,

 Friend Solomon, thou faithless Jew."

How much rather is a man better (more worthy, noble, excellent), &c. If it is lawful to release a sheep from calamity on the Sabbath, why not a man? Especially since in lifting out the sheep there would be need of considerable labour; but Christ was about to effect the healing of the sick man by a single word. How could this be a servile work? Wherefore Mark adds, looking round about upon them with anger, being grieved at the hardness of their hearts.

Then He saith to the man, &c. Christ first by reason, now by a deed, viz., a miracle, confutes the ignorance of the Scribes, and makes manifest His own wisdom and goodness. Hear S. Athanas. ( Hom. de Semente, sub fin. tom.), "Then Jesus saith to him, Stretch forth thine hand, for I do not touch thee, lest the Jews should have wherewith to accuse Me, lest with them, to touch, should be the same as to work. I act by word alone, for it has not been forbidden by God to speak on the Sabbath. If, then, a word performs the work, let him who says this word be held in admiration by you. Observe, too, the different way in which miracles are wrought. When Peter healed the paralytic at the Beautiful Gate of the Temple, he took him by the right hand, and lifted him up. The Lord, on the other hand, only commands, saying, Stretch forth thine hand, I give thee power to be healed. Thus He spake, thus He did, and the hand was restored."

Allegorically. 1. Beda says, Adam plucking the forbidden fruit, dried up the hand of the human race, i.e., he deprived man of the power to be fruitful in good works. Christ restored that power by stretching forth His own hands upon the cross.

2. S. Jerome: "Until the coming of the Saviour, the hand of the Jews was withered in the synagogue, and the works of God were not done in it. Afterwards He came on earth, and the right hand of believers was restored by the Apostles, and rendered fit to do the first works."

Tropologically. Hear S. Anselm: "The hand that is withered, and is to be healed, is ordered to be stretched out, because the weakness of an unfruitful soul can be cured no better manner than by the liberality of alms-giving. Wherefore John the Baptist advised the multitudes who asked him what they should do that they should not like dried trees be cast into the fire, do this one thing, 'He who hath two coats, let him impart to him that hath none; and he who hath food, let him do likewise.' And in Eccluis. iv. 36, 'In vain does a man stretch forth his hands to God, to beg remission of his sins who does not extend the same hands to confer a benefit upon the poor man who asks him. '"

Going out, &c. The Pharisees went out of the synagogue and left the multitude, in whose presence they did not dare to murmur against Christ.

And He commanded them, that they should not make Him known. Commanded, Gr. ε̉πετίμησε, i.e., He rebuked, threatened, commanded with threats, that they should not make known the miracles which He did, as well that He might not offend the Scribes, and excite them to greater envy and wrath, as that He might show how far removed He was from seeking glory of men.

Behold My servant (Vulg. puer meus ) ( Messias, Chald.), &c. I will put my spirit &c. I will endow Him with the gifts of the Holy Ghost in His conception. The Heb. is, אכדי Abdi, i.e., My servant, from whence it is plain Isaiah here speaks of Christ, not as He is God, but as He is man, for as such He is God's servant.

It proves that Christ, by teaching and healing the sick, fulfilled the prophecy of Isaiah concerning Himself, and His modesty, mercy, and equity; and therefore showed that He was the very Messiah foretold by Isaiah, and renowned for these gifts as by certain marks. Instead of, whom I have chosen, the Hebrew is, I will receive Him; LXX., I will take Him up ; Chaldee, I will move Him.

And he shall show judgment, &c. i.e., what is just and equal: for this is the judgment of righteous judges. For Christ, as a law giver, shall preach the Evangelical law, not only to the Jews, like Moses, but, by the Apostles, to all nations whatsoever.

He shall not strirve, &c. the meekness of Christ, and His gentle method of teaching, are here noted.

A bruised reed, &c. Syriac and Arabic, and He shall not extinguish a lamp verging on extinction. This is a genuine proverb, meaning that Christ will not contentiously rebuke and oppress those who are weak in faith, hope, and love, but will strengthen and kindle them by His own meekness, gentleness, and patience. Listen to the Fathers. S. Jerome says, "He who does not stretch out his hand to a sinner, nor carry a brother's burden, breaks the bruised reed; he who despises a spark of faith in the little ones, quenches the smoking flax." S. Hilary: "He shows that He might easily break the persecutors as a broken reed, and quench their fury;" but, says S. Augustine, "He spares them because He came not to judgment." Rabanus says, "The bruised nations were not broken, but were reserved for salvation: neither were the Jews, who were agitated by the wind, condemned immediately, but were patiently borne with."

Until he bring forth, &c., i.e., until He lead judgment, i.e., justice, or faith, and gospel sanctity, to victory, so that it may indeed have dominion over the whole world. Wherefore, the Vulgate in Isaiah translates He will place (as though a lord and conqueror) judgment in the earth (as it were a queen and lady governing all). The Hebrew is, He shall bring forth judgment unto truth, i.e., He shall bring true judgment.

And in His name, &c. Instead of Gentiles, the Hebrew has islands, meaning most remote nations, dwelling in islands, who shall place all their hope in Christ the Saviour. I have expounded all this more at length on Isaiah xlii. 1, which see.

Then there was brought unto Him a man having a devil. Luke (Luk 11:14) says only that he was dumb: whence S. Augustine ( L. 2 de Consens. Evang. sec. 37) is of opinion that Luke is speaking of another demoniac; but Luke does not say that he was not blind. Now the man was not blind and dumb from birth, or by disease, as Abul. and Barradi think, but was deprived of the use of his eyes and ears through the demoniacal possession. The demon, therefore, had not made him blind, nor taken away the faculty of speech, but only hindered the exercise of both. Whence, when the demon was cast out, without any other miraculous operation, the man began both to speak and to see. Thus S. Chrysostom, Enthym., Lyra, Jansen, Maldonatus. Hear S. Chrysostom: "0 pestiferous craft of the devil! he seized upon, and obstructed both the ways,—sight and hearing—by which the man might believe." Hence S. Luke says that demon was dumb, &c., in its effects, because it made the man dumb whom it possessed. There was, then, in this miracle a threefold effect. For, as S. Jerome says, "In this one man three signs were wrought at one and the same time; the blind sees, the dumb speaks, the possessed of the devils is delivered."

Tropologically : S. Jerome says, "What was then done literally is daily fulfilled in the conversion of believers, that, when the devil has been driven out they may first behold the light of faith, and then open their mouths to speak the praises of God." Then S. Augustine says, "He, having a devil, is blind and dumb, who does not believe: and he is a slave of the devil, who does not understand, and does not confess the true faith, or who does not give praise to God." ( Lib. 1. quæst. Evangel. q. 3.) The devil then makes men dumb lest they should confess their sins and expel their poison; lest they should praise God; lest they should instruct their neighbours: but Christ by His grace, looses their mouths to confess, to praise, to teach. Wisely saith S. Bernard ( in Senteentiis ) "Why art thou ashamed to speak of thy sin, when thou wast not ashamed to do it? or why dost thou blush to confess to God, from whose eyes thou canst not be hid? And if thou art so grievously ashamed to expose thy sin to one man, a sinner himself, what wilt thou do in the day of judgment, when thy consciousness of guilt will be exposed to all?"

And all the multitudes were amazed, &c. ε̉ξίσταντο, i.e., were astonished and admired so that they, as it were, were rapt out of themselves in an ecstasy, at seeing so many and so great miracles of Christ; wherefore they said, No Prophet hath done so many miracles as Jesus hath. Therefore He is greater than them all. Consequently, He is the Son of David, the Messiah promised to David, whom we are all eagerly expecting.

When the Pharisees heard it, &c. The Pharisees were so blinded by their envy and hatred of Christ, that when they could not deny His miracles so clearly attested, they slanderously said, that they were magical, and not wrought by power of God, but by Beelzebub. They made Christ to be a magician who had a familiar demon, by whose power He wrought miracles.

But if Satan cast out Satan, &c. It means the kingdom of Satan upon earth could not stand, if Satan, i.e., one devil were constantly to rise up against another devil, and fight with him, so that the inferior should be continually striving to cast out his superior from men. Thus you, 0 ye Scribes, behold Me, continually and assiduously, with hostility punish the devils, and expel them from the souls and bodies of men. Therefore, not by the help of Beelzebub, but by the power of God, I cast them out. Neither indeed is Beelzebub so foolish as to send the devils who are subject to him, to drive out one the other. For by so doing he would destroy his and their kingdom. So also mutinous soldiers, when they rebel against their prince are closely and intimately united among themselves, for they know, if they should disagree, they would easily be overthrown by their prince. I have spoken of Christ's hostility to the devils; because Apollonius of Tyana, as Philostratus testifies in his life, and magicians cast out devils, but by collusion with them, that they may entice men to sorcerers, and to sorcery, i.e., fellowship with the devil. But Christ proves by what follows, that He had no fellowship with the devil. I spoke also of habitual warfare; for frequently strife and battle will arise among the devils for the possession of a man. An aged priest, worthy of credit, who had discharged the office of exorcist for many years and expelled devils at Rome, once told me he had seen with his eyes, and heard with his ears, two men possessed with devils, contending and fighting with one another, in the Church of S. Matthew. The devil who possessed one of the men was of a higher order and superior to the other; and he wished to cast out the other devil, as an inferior, from the man whom he possessed. But the inferior devil resisted, and greatly abused his superior; and among other things, he said to him, "Thou art an infernal devil, and by the just judgment of God being banished to hell, art far more heavily punished than I am, who am not an infernal devil, but am permitted to live here in the air, because I did not rebel against God as thou didst, but only clave and consented to Lucifer, as a subject to my superior." But such things as this are very uncommon and are succeeded by peace, even as these two devils after a short time laid aside their contention, and rested, and held their peace. For although those who are damned, and the devils, burn with pride, wrath, and hatred one against another, and quarrel, and tear one another in hell like dogs; nevertheless, on earth they must agree among themselves, in order that they may establish their kingdom and dominion over men.

But if I beg Beelzebub, &c. This is Christ's second proof, by which He shows, that he cast out devils by the help of God not of Satan, By your sons, in the first place, SS. Hilar., Chrys., Theoph., Enthym. understand, your Apostles, for they were sons of the Jews. These writers think that this happened after Christ sent forth the Apostles, when the Apostles, by the help of Christ, cast out devils, and wrought many miracles. But it is more probable that this happened before the mission of the Apostles. Hence it is better to understand by your sons, Jewish exorcists, who, by the method handed down by Solomon, expelled demons. ( See Joseph. Lib. 8, cap. 2.) Such exorcists were the seven sons of Sceva, a chief of the priests (Act 19:14). So Jansen, Tolet, and others.

Therefore they shall be your judges. In the day of judgment, they shall, by their deeds, condemn you, because ye have passed so perverted a judgment upon Me, namely that they have cast out devils by the help of God, but I by the assistance of Satan; although ye behold far greater proofs of the presence and operation of God in Me, than in your own exorcists. For who of them has healed so many sick, and raised so many dead persons as I have done? Who of them has preached such sublime and Divine doctrine as I preach? Therefore shall the Queen of Sheba and the Ninevites, by their faith and repentance in the day of judgment condemn the unbelieving Jews.

But if I by the Spirit of God, &c. If I by the power of God and the Holy Ghost not of Beelzebub, cast out devils, then that is true (and the Holy Ghost himself manifestly attests it by his concurrence) which I and John Baptist have put forward as the head and sum of our preaching—the kingdom of Heaven is at hand. Ye see the kingdom of the devil by Me everywhere destroyed by My words, and by what I effect in the bodies and souls of men: and thus God's kingdom is begun by grace. This is what John says (1 Epist. iii. 8), In this the Son of God was manifested that he might destroy the works of the devil. For as S. Leo says, "Those nails which pierced the Lord's hands and feet inflicted eternal wounds upon the devil; and the Punishment of His holy limbs was the death of the hostile powers."

Or how can one enter into the strong man's house, &c. Instead of, or, the Gr. has ὴ,which Pagninus translates otherwise ; the Arab. and ; others, for. A new reason is here given, the third, whereby Christ proves that He casts out devils by the help of God, not of Beelzebub. The argument is drawn from a comparison, thus: As he who attacks the castle of any strong or valiant man, like Samson or Hercules, to spoil it, is not able to accomplish it unless he first vanquish and bind the strong man; so in like manner, I Christ, who spoil the kingdom of Satan by leading sinners, his subjects, to repentance and salvation, must needs overcome and bind Satan himself; for, otherwise, he would not allow this spoliation. Satan therefore is My enemy, and has been overthrown by Me. He is not My friend or ally in casting out demons, as ye calumniously assert. The strong man then, in this passage, is the devil; the house is the world; the vessels are his arms; his goods, his instruments. The arms of the devil are fraud and deceit by which he entices men to sin; his arms are wealth, honours, riches. They are also inferior demons and wicked men, says S. Chrysostom. These the devil makes use of against us, to tempt and vex us. His goods are the souls of sinners, and the bodies of the possessed; yea the souls of the fathers detained in Limbus before Christ. All these Christ took away from the devil, and bound him in hell.

Moreover, the devil is here called a strong one, because he goeth about like a roaring lion seeking whom he may devour, as S. Peter saith.  Job (40 and 41) depicts his strength and might under the figures of Behemoth and Leviathan. By the strong man understand Lucifer, the prince of the devils, the antagonist of Christ and S. Michael. For Lucifer, being conquered by Christ on the Cross, was thrust down to hell, that there he should remain, personally bound, until the day of judgment. Then he will be loosed for a little space, as John says ( Apoc. xx.). Nevertheless, Lucifer is so bound in hell, that he is not only able to go forth himself, but even by means of his demons, whom he sends forth into the world. Yet he is not able to hurt men as much as he was before. For Christ has greatly restrained and diminished the power and might of the demons.  S. Anthony was taught this by long experience, as S. Athanas. testifies in his Life : "The devil" he says, "was hooked by the Lord, like a dragon, by the hook of the Cross; and was taken in a drag-net, and was bound like a fugitive slave, and his lips were perforated by a ring and a bracelet, and he is not permitted to devour any of the faithful. Now, like a wretched sparrow, he is made sport of by Christ; now he groans at his companions, being trodden like serpents and scorpions under the heels of Christians. He who boasted that he drank up every sea, he who pretended that he held the world in the hollow of his hand, lo! he is conquered by you; lo! he is not able to prevent my entering the lists against him." And he confirms this by the devil's own confession ( cap. 20). "I saw," he said, "a man of enormous height, whose head reached unto Heaven. When I asked him who he was, he said, I am Satan. And I, What seekest thou here? He answered, Why do all Christian people curse me? I answered, Hast thou not read, 'Because the swords of the enemy have failed at the end, and thou hast destroyed their cities?' ( Vulg.) He said, Lo, now have I no place, I possess no city, I have no arms: the name of Christ sounds throughout all nations and all provinces, and the wilderness is peopled with choirs of monks. Let them, I beseech you, look at themselves, and not wound me without cause."

He who is not with Me is against Me. First, SS. Hilary, Jerome, Chrysostom, Theophylact expound of the strong man, i.e., the devil. The devil is not with Me, in such manner that he is against Me: and the things which I gather, he strives to disperse. This, therefore, is a fourth argument of Christ against the Scribes. Its force is as follows: They whose works are contrary, are themselves contrary. But My works and the devil's are contrary; therefore, I and he are contrary to each other. For, as S. Jerome says, "He, the devil, desires to hold captive the souls of men, but the Lord to deliver them. He preaches idolatry, Christ, the knowledge of the one God; the one draws to vice, the other recalls to virtue. How, then, can they have agreement between themselves, whose works are contrary?"

2. You may take the passage more simply with S. Chrysostom, with an application to the Pharisees, thus: As when a sedition arises in a kingdom or city, and one part rises against another part, so that evil-disposed men endeavour to seize upon the commonwealth, and spoil it, as Catiline with his fellow-conspirators did at Rome; then it is necessary for good citizens to defend the state, and he who does not, but desires to be neutral, is looked upon as an enemy and a companion of the seditious: because, under those circumstances, all citizens are bound to help the city or republic with all their might. Thus, in like manner, I, who have proclaimed universal war with Satan, that I may expel him from his dominion over the world, look upon all men as it were citizens of the world, as subjects of Me, their true Prince. If, therefore, they are not with Me in this war, and if they do not fight under My banner, they are contrary to Me, and My enemies, and, as such, I shall treat them, and punish them. Such, therefore, are you, 0 ye Pharisees, who ought above all, as my subjects, and better instructed than other men, to receive Me as the Messiah, the Christ prophesied of in your law and the prophets, and to commend Me as such to the people; notwithstanding, ye are secretly My adversaries, and openly ye dissimulate as though ye were judges appointed to make inquisition concerning My life and doctrine.

Thus this saying of Christ is not opposed to what He says in Luke ix. 50—He who is not against you, is on your part : for there He is speaking of one who is really in doctrinal agreement with the Apostles, and therefore is with them and for them, although for some just reason he does not profess as much openly.

Therefore I say unto you, every sin and blasphemy shall be forgiven a man : but the blasphemy of the Spirit shall not be forgiven. The word Spirit is in the genitive case, as is plain from the Greek πνεύματος. The blasphemy therefore of the Spirit is blasphemy against the Holy Spirit. Whence the Arabic translates, Blasphemy against the Holy Spirit ; Syriac, Blasphemy against the Spirit of Holiness.

You will ask, what is this blasphemy? 1. Philastrius ( On the Heresy of Rotorius ) thinks it is heresy, especially that of Eunomius, who said that the Holy Ghost was not God. Thus also S. Ambrose ( Lib. 1, de Spir. Sanc. sec. 3).

2. S. Hilary thinks that blasphemy against the Holy Ghost is when a man denies that Christ is God. "The sin against the Holy Ghost," he says, "is to deny to God the power of virtue, and to take away from Christ His eternal substance, by which, because God came into man, man shall in turn come to God; since God grants pardon to all other things, whilst this only is without forgiveness."

3. S. Ambrose ( L. 2, de pœniten. see. 4) thinks it is schism; also Simony, the sin whereby, for example, Simon Magus wished to buy the Holy Spirit of S. Peter.

4. Origen says it is every mortal sin after Baptism; committed, that is, after the grace of the Holy Spirit received in Baptism. Moreover, Pope Gelasius ( de Anath. vinc.) understands by it sins which are not forgiven, either in this world, or in the world to come. But he thinks it refers to sinners who do not wish to repent. For he says, that man makes the sentence against himself irrevocable who wills to continue in such a state as that he cannot truly be forgiven.

5. S. Cyprian ( L. 3, ad Quirinal, N. 28) says, blasphemy against the Holy Ghost is every sin committed against God: but blasphemy against the Son of Man is every sin committed against man.

6. The same Saint ( L 3, Epist. 14) thinks blasphemy against the Holy Ghost is denial of the faith in persecution.

7. Richard of S. Victor says, it is to hate and revile God.

I have summarily embraced eighteen expositions of the Fathers (viz., eleven of the Latin Fathers and seven of the Greek) in the foregoing paragraphs.

Lastly, theologians—and from them, catechists—out of various expositions of S. Augustine, collect six sins against the Holy Ghost; namely, presumption, despair, striving against known truth, envy of fraternal charity, impenitence, and obstinacy. They say that these are called sins against the Holy Ghost, because they are committed through undoubted wickedness against the goodness of God, which is an attribute of the Holy Ghost. Thus, likewise, sins which are committed through infirmity are said to be done against God the Father, because power is one of His especial attributes. And sins which are done through ignorance, are said to be done against the Son, because of His attribute of wisdom.

Note, therefore, that Christ is here speaking not of every sin against the Holy Ghost, but only of blasphemy against the Holy Ghost, which may take place by words; and the same reasoning will apply to thoughts and actions, as when anyone reviles works manifestly divine and miraculous, which God works for the salvation of men, by which He confirms faith and truth. Such a work is the casting out of devils; and because such works proceed from the goodness and holiness of God, they are attributed to the Holy Ghost, who proceeds from the Father and the Son by procession and inspiration, as Love, Goodness, and Holiness. When, therefore, anyone calumniates such things, and knowingly out of malice ascribes them to an unclean spirit (as these Pharisees did), such an one is said to commit blasphemy against the Holy Ghost; for such an one directly fights against God and takes from Him His holiness and purity. The whole argument is expressed in the following syllogism:—

The author of the miracles which Christ performs is, according to you, 0 ye Scribes, Beelzebub:

But God the Holy Ghost is, in truth, the Author of these miracles :

Therefore, according to you, God and the Holy Ghost are Beelzebub.

What more horrible can possibly be said? What greater blasphemy can be imagined? S. Basil adds that there are such persons even now, who ascribe the fruits and actions of the Holy Ghost to the opposing unclean spirit. We many of us do this, when we call earnestness ambition, and impute the calumny of anger to one who is only moved by zeal and righteous indignation. Moreover, Christ opposes this blasphemy against God and the Holy Ghost to that blasphemy against the Son of Man by which some who were offended at Christ's human conversation, calumniated what He did as man, as when they called Him a wine bibber, and a friend of Publicans and sinners. This was something more excusable, and less unworthy of forgiveness, because it had respect to Christ as Man rather than as God.

Shall not be forgiven : Arab. Shall not be relaxed, i.e., shall with difficulty, and seldom be forgiven. For this blasphemy against the Holy Ghost is most horrible, inexcusable, and altogether unworthy of pardon, and, considered simply in itself, takes away and excludes all medicine, and means of obtaining forgiveness. For such a blasphemer places himself in diametrical opposition to the Holy Ghost, and drives Him from him, yea blasphemes Him: the Holy Ghost, I say, by whom alone he could be absolved, healed, and sanctified. Similarly, we call an incurable disease one which does not admit of medicine, and rejects every kind of food. Nevertheless a blasphemer does not shut up the hand of God, so that God cannot have mercy upon him, although unworthy; and convert him, as He converted S. Paul, who confesses that he had been a blasphemer against God (1Ti 1:13).

And whosoever shall speak a word, &c. Christ declares the same truth in still clearer words. A word, anything injurious, reviling, blasphemous, it shall be forgiven him, it is remissible, and is readily forgiven to the penitent. From hence, it is plain against the Novatians, that all persons who have lapsed into heinous sins, should he admitted to penance.

But whosoever shall speak against the Holy Ghost, &c. Syriac, whosoever shall revile the Holy Ghost.

Here, first, Origen is condemned, who extended repentance, pardon, and salvation, to all sinners, after this life. For he said, after the great year of Plato, all things would be restored afresh, and that Judas would be saved; and Lucifer, together with the devils and the damned, would be brought back to heaven.

2. S. Aug. (21 Civit. 24), S. Greg. (4 dialog. 39), Isidore, Bede, S. Bern., and others, quoted by Bellarmine ( Lib. 2. de Purgat. sec. 4), prove from this passage, that there is a Purgatory after this life. For it would be unmeaning to say, shall not be forgiven nor in the world to come, if there were no remission of sins in the world to come. Thus a person would speak vainly who said, I will never marry a wife, neither in this world, nor in the world to come, since no wife can be married in the world to come. Mark adds, and gives greater force to the saying: but shall be guilty of eternal damnation. Moreover mortal sins are expiated in Purgatory, so far only as pertains to their punishment, but venial sins as regards both fault and punishment.

Either make the tree good, &c. This is Christ's fifth argument, and as S. Jerome says, forms a dilemma, from which it is impossible to escape. 1. And plainly, this tree is Christ. Make, i.e., appoint, assert. Either approve and praise Me, together with My works, which seem to you to be laudable; or condemn Me, with My works as a bad tree. He means, you, 0 ye Pharisees, praise My works, and yet condemn Me the author of them. But if ye praise the works, ye ought likewise to praise their author. Or if ye condemn the author, ye ought also to condemn the works. Otherwise ye flatly contradict your own selves. 2. S. Jerome by tree understands the devil, to whom the Scribes attributed the works and miracles of Christ. As thus, "If ye praise My works, then ye ought also to praise the devil to whom ye ascribe them; which is most absurd."

3. S. Aug. ( Serm. 12. de Verb. Dom.), by tree understands the Pharisees themselves . If ye wish to be, and to be accounted good, do good works, namely, praise good men and good things. For if ye do evil, as in truth ye do, when ye condemn Me and My Divine works, ye must needs confess yourselves to be bad and wicked calumniators, for a calumniator is known by his calumnies, as a tree is known by its fruit. From hence S. Aug. gathers the moral argument. "First," he says, "a man must be changed, that his works may be changed. For if a man remained in that which is bad, he cannot have good works: if he remain in that which is good, he cannot have bad works."

0 generation of vipers, &c. Christ here calls the Pharisees vipers, for this special reason, that they, like vipers, uttered viperous words and calumnies, by which they endeavoured to defame Christ and cut Him off. For they had a viper's heart, that is a heart full of the poison of envy, pride, hatred and malice against Christ, from which they belched forth those viperous and deadly calumnies.

Out of the abundance of the heart, &c., i.e., from that which abounds in the heart, which the heart often thinks about and loves, that, the mouth speaketh. If the heart, i.e., the mind and the will, abound in goodness and charity, a man speaks good and loving things; if in the gall of malice and envy, he speaks words of gall and envy and bitterness; as ye do against Me, 0 ye Pharisees. Whence S. Chrysostom says, "if the words spoken by them are so evil, how great malice, think ye, do they have in their hearts, where God is the only witness? Wherefore, when thou hearest a man speaking evil, much greater may you consider is the wickedness which his words demonstrate. For what is spoken outwardly is but the super-effluence of that which is within, with which he has vehemently attacked you. For if what is spoken by them is so evil, how great is the root of thought which imagines the words? Do you wish then to know what any one has in his heart, consider what he says; what he has most frequently on his lips, for in that his heart abounds."

A good man, &c. He explains the abundance of the heart by a treasure, that is, a heap and accumulation. A good man, therefore, from the good heap of good thoughts and affections which he accumulates in his mind, brings forth good words and works. But an evil man, from the evil treasure and heap of evil affections, brings forth evil words and works. Hear S. Chrysostom, "He shows, either that the Jews themselves, blaspheming God, make manifest from what treasure house they draw their blasphemy; or else, the sentence is connected with what went before, that as a good man cannot bring forth evil things, nor an evil man good things; so neither can Christ do bad works, nor the devil good works."

But I say unto you, for every idle word . . . give an account (Arab. an answer ). Give an account, i.e., to Christ the judge. Christ shall require of them an account of idle words; and if they are not able to render it, He will punish them. There is here a catachresis, as appears from the following verse. So SS. Hilary, Chrysostom, Jerome, and others. It is a Hebrew construction. For the Hebrews put the relative, with its antecedent, in the nominative case. The meaning then is, as S. Jerome says, "If he who speaks an idle word, which by no means edifies the hearers, is not without peril to him who speaks it, and if in the day of judgment every one shall give an account of his words; how much more shall ye, who blaspheme the works of the Holy Ghost, and say that I cast out devils through Beelzebub, give an account of your calumny? Again, like idle words, so too every idle thought, wish, and action, is at least a venial sin."

You will ask, what is meant by an idle word? The Gr. is α̉ργόν, as if α̉εργόν, that is inert, without art and work, lacking fruit and utility. First, Theophylact and Euthymius translate idle, calumnious. With them S. Chrysostom agrees, who says, "It is an idle word because it is false." He adds, "Some say, because it is vain, such as gives rise to inordinate laughter: or shameful or immodest."

2. And genuinely, an idle word is one that is vain, frivolous, ludicrous, which brings good neither to the speaker, nor to the hearer, even though it be injurious to no one, nor, in itself, reprehensible. Thus S. Jerome, "an idle word is what is spoken without profit either to the speaker, or the hearer, if omitting to speak of serious things we speak of what are frivolous and old wives' fables. But a man who utters what is scurrilous, or anything immodest, will be accounted guilty, not of idle, but of wicked words." S. Greg. ( Hom. 6. in Evang. sub finem ), says: "An idle word is one which is devoid of right usefulness, or the reason of just necessity. Turn ye therefore your idle words into endeavours after edification. Consider how swiftly the time of this life passes away; how swiftly the strict judge shall come." S. Bern. says, in his sermon of the threefold keeping of the hand, the tongue and the heart: "An idle word is one of which we can give no reasonable account, one which is without reason. Let none of us, brethren, think lightly of the time we spend in idle words. For now is the accepted time, now is the day of salvation. The word flies, and cannot be recalled. Time flies, and cannot be recovered; nor does foolish man consider what he loses. Let us chat, they say, to pass away the time. 0 meanwhile the hour, the time is passing away, which the mercy of thy Maker is giving thee to repent, to obtain pardon, to acquire grace, to gain eternal glory; the time is passing, in which you ought to propitiate the Divine mercy, to hasten to the society of the angels, to sigh for thy lost inheritance, to breathe after the promised felicity, to stir up thy weak will, to weep for the sins thou hast committed." An idle word then, according to S. Bern., is one spoken without reasonable cause. Such therefore is not one which is spoken pleasantly, to console the afflicted, or to exhilarate those who are sick and sad. Neither is it one which teaches human wisdom, as when the words and deeds of others are related, with this end, that, from them, we may learn to act and speak prudently. S. Basil goes further, and says that for a word not to be idle, a pious intention is required. But he is speaking to Religious, whose profession calls them to deal with and speak of holy things. He says: "An idle word is one which is not for edification in the Lord; for such grieves the Holy Ghost." For like as it is the part of a human being to act and speak according to the rule of right reason, and of a Christian according to the law of Christ, so it is the part of a Religious to speak according to the dictates of religion and piety. Whence S. Bern. says: "Thou hast consecrated thy mouth to the Gospel; it is no longer lawful for thee to open it for jests."

1. Then a pious intention is not required absolutely, that a word should not be idle. It is sufficient that it should, in some manner, be conducive to use, and human prudence. For thus the sailor speaks of the winds, the ploughman tells of oxen. Were it otherwise, nearly every word of artificers, of merchants, and men of the world would be idle.

2. Gabriel Vasquez (1. 2. disp. 52. in fine.) teaches that an idle word is not one uttered with this end only in view, that a man should give counsel with respect to any infirmity or want of nature: As for example, if one should say, when he is cold, I am frozen; I desire the fire, that I may drive away the cold.

This idleness of thoughts, words, and works is, as it were, a wastefulness of time and human actions, which, other things being equal, is worse than waste of riches and fortune. For a small portion of time has been given us by God, in which to provide for a blessed eternity: and every moment of it we may, by thinking, speaking, and acting well, be acquiring for ourselves the greatest degrees and treasures of glory and blessedness, all which treasures are wasted by this idleness of words and works, as S. Bern. has rightly remarked. Everyone is bound to do and say all things in such manner as that they may be fitly referred to God, that is to say, that they should be adapted to please and obey Him, according to those words of the Apostle, "Whether ye eat or drink, or whatsoever ye do, do all to the glory of God." (1Co 10:31.) Otherwise they are idle, i.e., useless for the final end of man. But for this it is required that they should be directed by right reason, and should be honest. For everything that is honest, and nothing but what is honest is pleasing to God.

God has given us a mouth, that we should pray to Him and praise Him; and that we should speak what is useful and salutary to ourselves, or to our neighbours. But he who speaks what is idle and unprofitable, abuses his mouth, contrary to the mind and appointmerit of God. "For neither," as S. Ambrose says (in Ps. 119 Serm. 22) "is it of small peril to speak of worldly and idle things, when we have such wonderful works of God to speak about. Let the righteous man be resolved to say with holy David, My tongue shall speak of Thy word, for all Thy commandments are equity (Vulg,); and thus let him shut out all idle words."

From what has been said, it is plain that many idle things are done and said by most men, of which they will have to render an account to God. Wherefore, that they may provide a remedy against this evil, let them accustom themselves to do and say nothing without premeditation. In the second place, let them learn to speak sparingly, and only about good and useful things. 3. Let them for some days collect their mind and thoughts, and consider seriously the actions, reasons, objects, and intentions of their life; that if they be depraved or idle, they may correct them, and aim at some definite end for their whole life and all their actions, that in all they may seek God's glory and their own salvation and perfection. Moreover, let them each morning daily conceive this intention, and offer it to God, and frequently renew it through the day; that thus they may gain a habit of referring all their words and actions to this end. By this means they will at length always have this end (virtually) in sight, even though they may not actually think about it. For a good intention changes our words and actions, so that from being indifferent or idle they become honest, holy, and are rewarded with heavenly glory. Cassian tells of the Abbot Machetes, who, when idle things were being related, fell asleep; but, when spiritual things were spoken of, was always wakeful. He used to say that the devil was the author of idle words, and that he had found it out by the following proof: When he was discoursing about spiritual things, almost every one fell asleep; by-and-bye if he related some idle tale, he saw them all wake up. This caused him to groan, saying, Who is the author of this, unless it be he to whom idle things are pleasing, spiritual things displeasing-that is, the devil?

For by thy words, &c. Not only of works, but also of words, must we have a great care, since of both account must be given to God. They are both the fruit of the same tree—that is, of the will—whether it be good or bad. Wherefore thy words, no less than thy works, shall justify thee, if they be righteous and holy; or shall condemn thee, if they be depraved and perverse. They shall justify, I say—that is, shall not only declare thee just, but shall also make thee just, or more just, if they proceed from the love of God and true repentance. But they shall condemn, and render thee liable to punishment if they be idle, wanton, quarrelsome, and so on. For those who are condemned by Christ in the Day of Judgment shall be punished, not only on account of mortal, but also of venial sins; yet, according to the gravity and desert of each, more or less severely.

Then certain of the Scribes—a sign, &c. S. Luke (Luk 11:16) adds, from Heaven. These were some of those men who brought the false accusation against Christ, that He cast out devils by the help of Beelzebub. This is plain from S. Luke xi. 16. When they had been refuted by Christ, because they did not wish to seem overcome and convicted of falsehood, they pressed Him to confirm what He said by a sign, that is, by some celestial miracle. As thus: Thou sayest that Thou workest miracles by the help of God; if it be so, cause that God may attest that this is true by some sign from Heaven, by which He may signify that Thou art sent by Him, and dost cast out devils by His power. But the many diseases which were healed, the many dead who were raised up by Christ, with this object—that He might show them that He was the Messiah, sent by God the Father—ought to have been sufficient for them. But for the unbelieving and false accusers nothing is sufficient; and if one thing be granted, they ask, as a subterfuge, another and another. The meaning is this: Thy miracles, 0 Christ, are in the earth and of the earth, but we wish to see celestial miracles in Heaven. For God, Whom Thou assertest to be the Author of these miracles, dwells in Heaven. Cause, therefore, that fire may come down from Heaven, as Elias did; or that the sky may flash with new and marvellous thunders and lightnings, as Samuel did (1 Sam. vii. 10); or that the sun should stand still, as Joshua did. Thus S. Jerome: Tacitly, therefore, they scoff at Christ's miracles done on earth, as though they were tokens of Satanic influence; and they tempt Christ, that they may falsely accuse Him. But although He had shown such a sign in Heaven, they would immediately have sought a subterfuge, and would have required some other sign. For this is the disposition of all curious and cavilling persons, especially infidels and heretics.

He answered and said—an evil generation—and, that is, but, &.c. generation (Gr. γενεα̉, i.e, nation, race ) adulterous, i.e., faithless and unbelieving, because leaving God their husband to whom they had been betrothed by circumcision, they clave to the devil. Hence infidelity and idolatry are often called adultery by Ezekiel (Ezek cap. 16) and others. So Theoph. says, "He calls them an adulterous generation, because they forsook God, and clave to the devil." 2 Adulterous, i.e., degenerate from the faith and character of Abraham, Isaac and the rest of the Patriarchs. For they believed in Messiah, but these would not acknowledge Him when He was present, and proving Himself by so many miracles to be Messiah. For Messiah was the husband of the synagogue of the Jews, and is now the Spouse of the Christian Church, as is plain from Eph 5:32. For thus the Hebrews called spurious, i.e., degenerate children, bene nechar, i.e., strange children, or rather, children of a strange, that is to say, an adulterous father.

But no sign, &c. This perverse nation of the Jews asks of me a sign from Heaven, but I will not give it a sign, except a sign from the earth, that is, from the deep. I will not grant to the Jews any other sign than what I formerly promised, when I said, "Destroy this temple, and I will raise it up;" but He spake of the temple of His body (S. Joh 2:19-21). (He meant the sign of the Resurrection, which is the sign of the prophet Jonah, because it was prefigured by Jonah.) For this Jonah clearly showed, who I am, why I died, why I am crucified, in respect of which they are offended; in truth that I am Messiah, the Tamer of Death and Sin, the Saviour of the World, and the Lord of Heaven and Earth. For the keepers of the sepulchre told the Jews that Christ was risen from the tomb; the Jews themselves saw the empty sepulchre, and the Apostles proved Christ's resurrection by many miracles. Wherefore many Jews at the time, and afterwards all nations, believed in Christ raised from death. For the Jews did not expect a humble and poor Messiah, but one who was rich and glorious. Such they beheld Christ in His Resurrection, Ascension, and Mission of the Holy Ghost. Whence they at that time acknowledged Him, and accepted Him as Messiah, according to what He said in Joh 8:28. When ye have lifted up the Son of Man, on the Cross, then ye shall know that I am He : for I shall rise gloriously from the cross and death.

But the unbelieving Jews were likewise compelled to acknowledge that Christ was Messiah, for after His Resurrection He sent Titus and Vespasian, who destroyed Jerusalem and Judea, because of His unjust death at the hands of the Jews. Thus S. Chrysostom, for at that time there was a complete destruction of the nation, although it still endures, and shall endure until the end of the world. A righteous and avenging God brought this upon them on account of their crowning wickedness in killing Christ. This destruction is the most evident token that the Jesus whom the Jews put to death was the Messiah. Wherefore Christ brings forward this sign of Jonah, as it were a sign of the condemnation of the Jews by the Ninevites, for the Ninevites believed Jonah and repented, but the Jews would not believe Christ, and were therefore cut off. Maldonatus thinks that Christ gave the Jews who sought a sign from Heaven, a sign from earth, that they might be condemned; for it behoved that they who sought a sign deceitfully should be confounded.

For as Jonah was, &c., in the heart, i.e., in the lowest part of the earth, within the earth, as the heart is within the human body. When Christ died upon the cross, as His body was placed in the tomb, so did His soul descend into the Limbus Patrum, which is near the centre of the earth.

You will ask, how Christ was three days and nights in the sepulchre and Limbus: for He was there only on Friday and Saturday nights, and rose at day-break on Sunday? 1. Alcuin ( L. de. Divinis 0ff. sec. de. Cœna. Dom.) gathers from this place that Christ lay in the tomb three whole days and nights, or 72 hours, and consequently rose again at the end of Easter Monday. But this is certainly a mistake. The constant tradition of the church is that Christ rose on the Lord's day.

2. Greg. Nyssen ( Orat. 1 &. 2 de Resurrec.) computes these three days to begin on Thursday. He is of opinion, that when on the evening of that day Christ instituted the Eucharist, He offered Himself to God under the species of bread and wine by means of the unbloody sacrifice. The soul of Christ was separated from the body, but that this was done in a secret and invisible manner, and that then the soul of Christ went down to Hades, and that thus He pre-accomplished His death, which the Jews were visibly to bring about on the following day upon the cross. But this, too, is an error. For there is really in the Eucharist the soul of the Living Christ, that is to say, in His body and blood contained under the species of bread and wine. It is there, I say, not indeed by virtue of the words of consecration, but by natural concomitance. For in the Eucharist there is Living Christ, with His Soul, even as He is outside the Eucharist. Thus the Council of Trent defines ( Sess. 13, sec. 2). It would have been otherwise if any of the Apostles had consecrated the Eucharist during the triduum of the Passion. For then the Body and Blood of Christ would have been in it separated from His Soul, for in this manner they were in Christ Himself now buried. For Christ was then dead, not alive.

I say then, that the expression three days and three nights is here only a periphrasis and description of a natural day. The two integral parts of such a day are day and night, or light and darkness. Christ makes use of this periphrasis because Jonah, His antetype, did the same. (Jon 1:17.) We must not understand that these days are three artificial days as opposed to nights, as if during three days, in which the sun is above the horizon, Christ lay in the tomb; for this was not the case. You must consider these three natural days to be not whole days but parts of days, namely, the latter part of Friday; when Christ being taken down from the Cross, was laid in the sepulchre, the whole of Saturday, and part of the Lord's day. For although the Hebrews reckoned their civil days from one sun-rise to another, like the Chaldeans and the Persians ( Beda de ration. temp.), yet they computed their sacred days, such as the Passover, from evening to evening. Thus S. Jerome, Theophyl., Euthym., and S. Aug. and commentators, passim, explain the meaning of these three days. Hence Christ is constantly spoken of as rising on the third day, or after three days, without any mention of nights.

But in this place, according to this computation, there were but two nights in which Christ lay in the tomb, viz. Friday and Saturday nights, and yet three nights are expressly mentioned. Others therefore answer more fully and plainly; that these three days and nights are reckoned according to the Roman computation. For the Romans were at that time, masters of Judea, and had introduced their own methods of computing time in civil affairs. The Romans reckoned from midnight to midnight, as Christians do in their fasts and festivals. ( See Macrob. L. 1. Saturni c. Gell. L. 3. c. 2. Pliny. L. 2. c. 77. and others ). According to this reckoning it is clear Christ remained in the tomb during a part of three days and three nights. He was buried on Friday before sunset; and was in the tomb until the midnight of that day. After that He was in the tomb during the entire day and night of the Sabbath; and from the midnight of Sunday for about

Introduction / Outline

Robertson: Matthew (Book Introduction)

THE GOSPEL ACCORDING TO MATTHEW

By Way of Introduction

The passing years do not make it any plainer who actually wrote our Greek Matthew. Papias records, as quoted by Eusebius, that Matthew wrote the Logia of Jesus in Hebrew (Aramaic). Is our present Matthew a translation of the Aramaic Logia along with Mark and other sources as most modern scholars think? If so, was the writer the Apostle Matthew or some other disciple? There is at present no way to reach a clear decision in the light of the known facts. There is no real reason why the Apostle Matthew could not have written both the Aramaic Logia and our Greek Matthew, unless one is unwilling to believe that he would make use of Mark’s work on a par with his own. But Mark’s book rests primarily on the preaching of Simon Peter. Scholfield has recently (1927) published An Old Hebrew Text of St. Matthew’s Gospel . We know quite too little of the origin of the Synoptic Gospels to say dogmatically that the Apostle Matthew was not in any real sense the author.

If the book is genuine, as I believe, the date becomes a matter of interest. Here again there is nothing absolutely decisive save that it is later than the Gospel according to Mark which it apparently uses. If Mark is given an early date, between a.d. 50 to 60, then Matthew’s book may be between 60 and 70, though many would place it between 70 and 80. It is not certain whether Luke wrote after Matthew or not, though that is quite possible. There is no definite use of Matthew by Luke that has been shown. One guess is as good as another and each decides by his own predilections. My own guess is that a.d. 60 is as good as any.

In the Gospel itself we find Matthew the publican (Mat_9:9; Mat_10:3) though Mark (Mar_2:14) and Luke (Luk_5:27) call him Levi the publican. Evidently therefore he had two names like John Mark. It is significant that Jesus called this man from so disreputable a business to follow him. He was apparently not a disciple of John the Baptist. He was specially chosen by Jesus to be one of the Twelve Apostles, a business man called into the ministry as was true of the fishermen James and John, Andrew and Simon. In the lists of the Apostles he comes either seventh or eighth. There is nothing definite told about him in the Gospels apart from the circle of the Twelve after the feast which he gave to his fellow publicans in honor of Jesus.

Matthew was in the habit of keeping accounts and it is quite possible that he took notes of the sayings of Jesus as he heard them. At any rate he gives much attention to the teachings of Jesus as, for instance, the Sermon on the Mount in chapters Matthew 5-7, the parables in Matthew 13, the denunciation of the Pharisees in Matthew 23, the great eschatological discourse in Matthew 24 and 25. As a publican in Galilee he was not a narrow Jew and so we do not expect a book prejudiced in favor of the Jews and against the Gentiles. He does seem to show that Jesus is the Messiah of Jewish expectation and hope and so makes frequent quotations from the Old Testament by way of confirmation and illustration. There is no narrow nationalism in Matthew. Jesus is both the Messiah of the Jews and the Saviour of the world.

There are ten parables in Matthew not in the other Gospels: The Tares, the Hid Treasure, the Net, the Pearl of Great Price, the Unmerciful Servant, the Labourers in the Vineyard, the Two Sons, the Marriage of the King’s Son, the Ten Virgins, the Talents. The only miracles in Matthew alone are the Two Blind Men, the Coin in the Mouth of the Fish. But Matthew gives the narrative of the Birth of Jesus from the standpoint of Joseph while Luke tells that wonderful story from the standpoint of Mary. There are details of the Death and Resurrection given by Matthew alone.

The book follows the same general chronological plan as that in Mark, but with various groups like the miracles in Matthew 8 and 9, the parables in Matthew 13.

The style is free from Hebraisms and has few individual peculiarities. The author is fond of the phrase the kingdom of heaven and pictures Jesus as the Son of man, but also as the Son of God. He sometimes abbreviates Mark’s statements and sometimes expands them to be more precise.

Plummer shows the broad general plan of both Mark and Matthew to be the same as follows:

Introduction to the Gospel Mar_1:1-13 Matthew 3:1-4:11. Ministry in Galilee Mark 1:14-6:13 Matthew 4:12-13:58. Ministry in the Neighborhood Mark 6:14-9:50 Matthew 14:1-18:35. Journey through Perea to Jerusalem Mark 10:1-52 Matthew 19:1-20:34. Last week in Jerusalem Mark 11:1-16:8 Matthew 21:1-28:8. The Gospel of Matthew comes first in the New Testament, though it is not so in all the Greek manuscripts. Because of its position it is the book most widely read in the New Testament and has exerted the greatest influence on the world. The book deserves this influence though it is later in date than Mark, not so beautiful as Luke, nor so profound as John. Yet it is a wonderful book and gives a just and adequate portraiture of the life and teachings of Jesus Christ as Lord and Saviour. The author probably wrote primarily to persuade Jews that Jesus is the fulfilment of their Messianic hopes as pictured in the Old Testament. It is thus a proper introduction to the New Testament story in comparison with the Old Testament prophecy.

The Title

The Textus Receptus has " The Holy Gospel according to Matthew" ( to kata Matthaion hagion Euaggelion ), though the Elzevirs omit " holy," not agreeing here with Stephanus, Griesbach, and Scholz. Only minuscules (cursive Greek manuscripts) and all late have the adjective. Other minuscules and nine uncials including W (the Washington Codex of the fifth century), C of the fifth century (the palimpsest manuscript) and Delta of the ninth together with most Latin manuscripts have simply " Gospel according to Matthew" ( Euaggelion kata Matthaion ). But Aleph and B the two oldest and best Greek uncials of the fourth century have only " According to Matthew" ( Kata Maththaion ) (note double th) and the Greek uncial D of the fifth or sixth century follows Aleph and B as do some of the earliest Old Latin manuscripts and the Curetonian Syriac. It is clear, therefore, that the earliest form of the title was simply " According to Matthew." It may be doubted if Matthew (or the author, if not Matthew) had any title at all. The use of " according to" makes it plain that the meaning is not " the Gospel of Matthew," but the Gospel as given by Matthew, secundum Matthaeum , to distinguish the report by Matthew from that by Mark, by Luke, by John. Least of all is there any authority in the manuscripts for saying " Saint Matthew," a Roman Catholic practice observed by some Protestants.

The word Gospel ( Euaggelion ) comes to mean good news in Greek, though originally a reward for good tidings as in Homer’s Odyssey XIV. 152 and in 2Ki_4:10. In the New Testament it is the good news of salvation through Christ. The English word Gospel probably comes from the Anglo-Saxon Godspell, story or narrative of God, the life of Christ. It was early confused with the Anglo-Saxon godspell, good story, which seems like a translation of the Greek euaggelion . But primarily the English word means the God story as seen in Christ which is the best news that the world has ever had. One thinks at once of the use of " word" ( Logos ) in Joh_1:1, Joh_1:14. So then it is, according to the Greek, not the Good News of Matthew, but the Good News of God, brought to us in Christ the Word, the Son of God, the Image of the Father, the Message of the Father. We are to study this story first as presented by Matthew. The message is God’s and it is as fresh to us today in Matthew’s record as when he first wrote it.

JFB: Matthew (Book Introduction)

THE author of this Gospel was a publican or tax gatherer, residing at Capernaum, on the western shore of the Sea of Galilee. As to his identity with the "Levi" of the second and third Gospels, and other particulars, see on Mat 9:9. Hardly anything is known of his apostolic labors. That, after preaching to his countrymen in Palestine, he went to the East, is the general testimony of antiquity; but the precise scene or scenes of his ministry cannot be determined. That he died a natural death may be concluded from the belief of the best-informed of the Fathers--that of the apostles only three, James the Greater, Peter, and Paul, suffered martyrdom. That the first Gospel was written by this apostle is the testimony of all antiquity.

For the date of this Gospel we have only internal evidence, and that far from decisive. Accordingly, opinion is much divided. That it was the first issued of all the Gospels was universally believed. Hence, although in the order of the Gospels, those by the two apostles were placed first in the oldest manuscripts of the Old Latin version, while in all the Greek manuscripts, with scarcely an exception, the order is the same as in our Bibles, the Gospel according to Matthew is "in every case" placed first. And as this Gospel is of all the four the one which bears the most evident marks of having been prepared and constructed with a special view to the Jews--who certainly first required a written Gospel, and would be the first to make use of it--there can be no doubt that it was issued before any of the others. That it was written before the destruction of Jerusalem is equally certain; for as HUG observes [Introduction to the New Testament, p. 316, FOSDICK'S translation], when he reports our Lord's prophecy of that awful event, on coming to the warning about "the abomination of desolation" which they should "see standing in the holy place," he interposes (contrary to his invariable practice, which is to relate without remark) a call to his readers to read intelligently--"Whoso readeth, let him understand" (Mat 24:15) --a call to attend to the divine signal for flight which could be intended only for those who lived before the event. But how long before that event this Gospel was written is not so clear. Some internal evidences seem to imply a very early date. Since the Jewish Christians were, for five or six years, exposed to persecution from their own countrymen--until the Jews, being persecuted by the Romans, had to look to themselves--it is not likely (it is argued) that they should be left so long without some written Gospel to reassure and sustain them, and Matthew's Gospel was eminently fitted for that purpose. But the digests to which Luke refers in his Introduction (see on Luk 1:1) would be sufficient for a time, especially as the living voice of the "eye-witnesses and ministers of the Word" was yet sounding abroad. Other considerations in favor of a very early date--such as the tender way in which the author seems studiously to speak of Herod Antipas, as if still reigning, and his writing of Pilate apparently as if still in power--seem to have no foundation in fact, and cannot therefore be made the ground of reasoning as to the date of this Gospel. Its Hebraic structure and hue, though they prove, as we think, that this Gospel must have been published at a period considerably anterior to the destruction of Jerusalem, are no evidence in favor of so early a date as A.D. 37 or 38--according to some of the Fathers, and, of the moderns, TILLEMONT, TOWNSON, OWEN, BIRKS, TREGELLES. On the other hand, the date suggested by the statement of IRENÆUS [Against Heresies, 3.1], that Matthew put forth his Gospel while Peter and Paul were at Rome preaching and founding the Church--or after A.D. 60--though probably the majority of critics are in favor of it, would seem rather too late, especially as the second and third Gospels, which were doubtless published, as well as this one, before the destruction of Jerusalem, had still to be issued. Certainly, such statements as the following, "Wherefore that field is called the field of blood unto this day" (Mat 27:8); "And this saying is commonly reported among the Jews until this day" (Mat 28:15), bespeak a date considerably later than the events recorded. We incline, therefore, to a date intermediate between the earlier and the later dates assigned to this Gospel, without pretending to greater precision.

We have adverted to the strikingly Jewish character and coloring of this Gospel. The facts which it selects, the points to which it gives prominence, the cast of thought and phraseology, all bespeak the Jewish point of view from which it was written and to which it was directed. This has been noticed from the beginning, and is universally acknowledged. It is of the greatest consequence to the right interpretation of it; but the tendency among some even of the best of the Germans to infer, from this special design of the first Gospel, a certain laxity on the part of the Evangelist in the treatment of his facts, must be guarded against.

But by far the most interesting and important point connected with this Gospel is the language in which it was written. It is believed by a formidable number of critics that this Gospel was originally written in what is loosely called Hebrew, but more correctly Aramaic, or Syro-Chaldaic, the native tongue of the country at the time of our Lord; and that the Greek Matthew which we now possess is a translation of that work, either by the Evangelist himself or some unknown hand. The evidence on which this opinion is grounded is wholly external, but it has been deemed conclusive by GROTIUS, MICHAELIS (and his translator), MARSH, TOWNSON, CAMPBELL, OLSHAUSEN, CRESWELL, MEYER, EBRARD, LANGE, DAVIDSON, CURETON, TREGELLES, WEBSTER and WILKINSON, &c. The evidence referred to cannot be given here, but will be found, with remarks on its unsatisfactory character, in the Introduction to the Gospels prefixed to our larger Commentary, pp. 28-31.

But how stand the facts as to our Greek Gospel? We have not a title of historical evidence that it is a translation, either by Matthew himself or anyone else. All antiquity refers to it as the work of Matthew the publican and apostle, just as the other Gospels are ascribed to their respective authors. This Greek Gospel was from the first received by the Church as an integral part of the one quadriform Gospel. And while the Fathers often advert to the two Gospels which we have from apostles, and the two which we have from men not apostles--in order to show that as that of Mark leans so entirely on Peter, and that of Luke on Paul, these are really no less apostolical than the other two--though we attach less weight to this circumstance than they did, we cannot but think it striking that, in thus speaking, they never drop a hint that the full apostolic authority of the Greek Matthew had ever been questioned on the ground of its not being the original. Further, not a trace can be discovered in this Gospel itself of its being a translation. MICHAELIS tried to detect, and fancied that he had succeeded in detecting, one or two such. Other Germans since, and DAVIDSON and CURETON among ourselves, have made the same attempt. But the entire failure of all such attempts is now generally admitted, and candid advocates of a Hebrew original are quite ready to own that none such are to be found, and that but for external testimony no one would have imagined that the Greek was not the original. This they regard as showing how perfectly the translation has been executed; but those who know best what translating from one language into another is will be the readiest to own that this is tantamount to giving up the question. This Gospel proclaims its own originality in a number of striking points; such as its manner of quoting from the Old Testament, and its phraseology in some peculiar cases. But the close verbal coincidences of our Greek Matthew with the next two Gospels must not be quite passed over. There are but two possible ways of explaining this. Either the translator, sacrificing verbal fidelity in his version, intentionally conformed certain parts of his author's work to the second and third Gospels--in which case it can hardly be called Matthew's Gospel at all--or our Greek Matthew is itself the original.

Moved by these considerations, some advocates of a Hebrew original have adopted the theory of a double original; the external testimony, they think, requiring us to believe in a Hebrew original, while internal evidence is decisive in favor of the originality of the Greek. This theory is espoused by GUERICKS, OLSHAUSEN, THIERSCH, TOWNSON, TREGELLES, &c. But, besides that this looks too like an artificial theory, invented to solve a difficulty, it is utterly void of historical support. There is not a vestige of testimony to support it in Christian antiquity. This ought to be decisive against it.

It remains, then, that our Greek Matthew is the original of that Gospel, and that no other original ever existed. It is greatly to the credit of DEAN ALFORD, that after maintaining, in the first edition of his Greek Testament the theory of a Hebrew original, he thus expresses himself in the second and subsequent editions: "On the whole, then, I find myself constrained to abandon the view maintained in my first edition, and to adopt that of a Greek original."

One argument has been adduced on the other side, on which not a little reliance has been placed; but the determination of the main question does not, in our opinion, depend upon the point which it raises. It has been very confidently affirmed that the Greek language was not sufficiently understood by the Jews of Palestine when Matthew published his Gospel to make it at all probable that he would write a Gospel, for their benefit in the first instance, in that language. Now, as this merely alleges the improbability of a Greek original, it is enough to place against it the evidence already adduced, which is positive, in favor of the sole originality of our Greek Matthew. It is indeed a question how far the Greek language was understood in Palestine at the time referred to. But we advise the reader not to be drawn into that question as essential to the settlement of the other one. It is an element in it, no doubt, but not an essential element. There are extremes on both sides of it. The old idea, that our Lord hardly ever spoke anything but Syro-Chaldaic, is now pretty nearly exploded. Many, however, will not go the length, on the other side, of HUG (in his Introduction to the New Testament, pp. 326, &c.) and ROBERTS ("Discussions of the Gospels," &c., pp. 25, &c.). For ourselves, though we believe that our Lord, in all the more public scenes of His ministry, spoke in Greek, all we think it necessary here to say is that there is no ground to believe that Greek was so little understood in Palestine as to make it improbable that Matthew would write his Gospel exclusively in that language--so improbable as to outweigh the evidence that he did so. And when we think of the number of digests or short narratives of the principal facts of our Lord's history which we know from Luke (Luk 1:1-4) were floating about for some time before he wrote his Gospel, of which he speaks by no means disrespectfully, and nearly all of which would be in the mother tongue, we can have no doubt that the Jewish Christians and the Jews of Palestine generally would have from the first reliable written matter sufficient to supply every necessary requirement until the publican-apostle should leisurely draw up the first of the four Gospels in a language to them not a strange tongue, while to the rest of the world it was the language in which the entire quadriform Gospel was to be for all time enshrined. The following among others hold to this view of the sole originality of the Greek Matthew: ERASMUS, CALVIN, BEZA, LIGHTFOOT, WETSTEIN, LARDNER, HUG, FRITZSCHE, CREDNER, DE WETTE, STUART, DA COSTA, FAIRBAIRN, ROBERTS.

On two other questions regarding this Gospel it would have been desirable to say something, had not our available space been already exhausted: The characteristics, both in language and matter, by which it is distinguished from the other three, and its relation to the second and third Gospels. On the latter of these topics--whether one or more of the Evangelists made use of the materials of the other Gospels, and, if so, which of the Evangelists drew from which--the opinions are just as numerous as the possibilities of the case, every conceivable way of it having one or more who plead for it. The most popular opinion until recently--and perhaps the most popular still--is that the second Evangelist availed himself more or less of the materials of the first Gospel, and the third of the materials of both the first and second Gospels. Here we can but state our own belief, that each of the first three Evangelists wrote independently of both the others; while the fourth, familiar with the first three, wrote to supplement them, and, even where he travels along the same line, wrote quite independently of them. This judgment we express, with all deference for those who think otherwise, as the result of a close study of each of the Gospels in immediate juxtaposition and comparison with the others. On the former of the two topics noticed, the linguistic peculiarities of each of the Gospels have been handled most closely and ably by CREDNER [Einleitung (Introduction to the New Testament)], of whose results a good summary will be found in DAVIDSON'S Introduction to the New Testament. The other peculiarities of the Gospels have been most felicitously and beautifully brought out by DA COSTA in his Four Witnesses, to which we must simply refer the reader, though it contains a few things in which we cannot concur.

JFB: Matthew (Outline)

• GENEALOGY OF CHRIST. ( = Luke 3:23-38). (Mat. 1:1-17)
• BIRTH OF CHRIST. (Mat 1:18-25)
• VISIT OF THE MAGI TO JERUSALEM AND BETHLEHEM. (Mat 2:1-12)
• THE FLIGHT INTO EGYPT--THE MASSACRE AT BETHLEHEM--THE RETURN OF JOSEPH AND MARY WITH THE BABE, AFTER HEROD'S DEATH, AND THEIR SETTLEMENT AT NAZARETH. ( = Luk 2:39). (Mat 2:13-23)
• PREACHING AND MINISTRY OF JOHN. ( = Mar 1:1-8; Luke 3:1-18). (Mat 3:1-12)
• BAPTISM OF CHRIST AND DESCENT OF THE SPIRIT UPON HIM IMMEDIATELY THEREAFTER. ( = Mar 1:9-11; Luk 3:21-22; Joh 1:31-34). (Mat 3:13-17)
• TEMPTATION OF CHRIST. ( = Mar 1:12-13; Luk 4:1-13). (Mat 4:1-11)
• CHRIST BEGINS HIS GALILEAN MINISTRY--CALLING OF PETER AND ANDREW, JAMES AND JOHN--HIS FIRST GALILEAN CIRCUIT. ( = Mar 1:14-20, Mar 1:35-39; Luk 4:14-15). (Mat 4:12-25)
• THE BEATITUDES, AND THEIR BEARING UPON THE WORLD. (Mat. 5:1-16)
• IDENTITY OF THESE PRINCIPLES WITH THOSE OF THE ANCIENT ECONOMY; IN CONTRAST WITH THE REIGNING TRADITIONAL TEACHING. (Mat. 5:17-48)
• FURTHER ILLUSTRATION OF THE RIGHTEOUSNESS OF THE KINGDOM--ITS UNOSTENTATIOUSNESS. (Mat. 6:1-18)
• CONCLUDING ILLUSTRATIONS OF THE RIGHTEOUSNESS OF THE KINGDOM--HEAVENLY-MINDEDNESS AND FILIAL CONFIDENCE. (Mat. 6:19-34)
• MISCELLANEOUS SUPPLEMENTARY COUNSELS. (Mat 7:1-12)
• CONCLUSION AND EFFECT OF THE SERMON ON THE MOUNT. (Mat. 7:13-29)
• HEALING OF A LEPER. ( = Mar 1:40-45; Luk 5:12-16). (Mat 8:1-4) When he was come down from the mountain, great multitudes followed him.
• INCIDENTS ILLUSTRATIVE OF DISCIPLESHIP. ( = Luk 9:57-62). (Mat 8:18-22) And a certain scribe came, and said unto him, Master, I will follow thee whithersoever thou goest.
• MATTHEW'S CALL AND FEAST. ( = Mar 2:14-17; Luk 5:27-32). (Mat 9:9-13)
• TWO BLIND MEN AND A DUMB DEMONIAC HEALED. (Mat 9:27-34)
• THIRD GALILEAN CIRCUIT--MISSION OF THE TWELVE APOSTLES. (Mat. 9:35-10:5)
• MISSION OF THE TWELVE APOSTLES. ( = Mar 6:7-13; Luk 9:1-6). (Mat 10:1-5)
• THE TWELVE RECEIVE THEIR INSTRUCTIONS. (Mat. 10:5-42)
• THE IMPRISONED BAPTIST'S MESSAGE TO HIS MASTER--THE REPLY, AND DISCOURSE, ON THE DEPARTURE OF THE MESSENGERS, REGARDING JOHN AND HIS MISSION. ( = Luke 7:18-35). (Mat. 11:1-19)
• OUTBURST OF FEELING SUGGESTED TO THE MIND OF JESUS BY THE RESULT OF HIS LABORS IN GALILEE. (Mat 11:20-30) Then began he to upbraid the cities wherein most of his mighty works were done, because they repented not.
• PLUCKING CORN EARS ON THE SABBATH DAY. ( = Mar 2:23-28; Luk 6:1-5). (Mat 12:1-8)
• THE HEALING OF A WITHERED HAND ON THE SABBATH DAY AND RETIREMENT OF JESUS TO AVOID DANGER. ( = Mar 3:1-12; Luk 6:6-11). (Mat 12:9-21)
• A BLIND AND DUMB DEMONIAC HEALED AND REPLY TO THE MALIGNANT EXPLANATION PUT UPON IT. ( = Mar 3:20-30; Luk 11:14-23). (Mat. 12:22-37)
• A SIGN DEMANDED AND THE REPLY--HIS MOTHER AND BRETHREN SEEK TO SPEAK WITH HIM, AND THE ANSWER. ( = Luk 11:16, Luk 11:24-36; Mar 3:31-35; Luk 8:19-21). (Mat 12:38-50)
• JESUS TEACHES BY PARABLES. ( = Mark 4:1-34; Luk 8:4-18; Luk 13:18-20). (Mat. 13:1-52) The same day went Jesus out of the house, and sat by the seaside.
• HOW JESUS WAS REGARDED BY HIS RELATIVES. ( = Mar 6:1-6; Luk 4:16-30). (Mat 13:53-58) And it came to pass, that, when Jesus had finished these parables, he departed thence.
• HEROD THINKS JESUS A RESURRECTION OF THE MURDERED BAPTIST--ACCOUNT OF HIS IMPRISONMENT AND DEATH. ( = Mark 6:14-29; Luk 9:7-9). (Mat 14:1-12)
• JESUS CROSSES TO THE WESTERN SIDE OF THE LAKE WALKING ON THE SEA--INCIDENTS ON LANDING. ( = Mar 6:45; Joh 6:15-24). (Mat 14:22-26)
• DISCOURSE ON CEREMONIAL POLLUTION. ( = Mar 7:1, Mar 7:23). (Mat. 15:1-20)
• THE WOMAN OF CANAAN AND HER DAUGHTER. (Mat 15:21-28)
• PETER'S NOBLE CONFESSION OF CHRIST AND THE BENEDICTION PRONOUNCED UPON HIM--CHRIST'S FIRST EXPLICIT ANNOUNCEMENT OF HIS APPROACHING SUFFERINGS, DEATH, AND RESURRECTION--HIS REBUKE OF PETER AND WARNING TO ALL THE TWELVE. ( = Mar 8:27; Mar 9:1; Luk 9:18-27). (Mat. 16:13-28)
• HEALING OF A DEMONIAC BOY--SECOND EXPLICIT ANNOUNCEMENT BY OUR LORD OF HIS APPROACHING DEATH AND RESURRECTION. ( = Mark 9:14-32; Luk 9:37-45). (Mat 17:14-23)
• THE TRIBUTE MONEY. (Mat 17:24-27)
• FURTHER TEACHING ON THE SAME SUBJECT INCLUDING THE PARABLE OF THE UNMERCIFUL DEBTOR. (Mat. 18:10-35)
• FINAL DEPARTURE FROM GALILEE--DIVORCE. ( = Mar 10:1-12; Luk 9:51). (Mat 19:1-12)
• PARABLE OF THE LABORERS IN THE VINEYARD. (Mat. 20:1-16)
• THE AUTHORITY OF JESUS QUESTIONED AND THE REPLY--THE PARABLES OF THE TWO SONS, AND OF THE WICKED HUSBANDMAN. ( = Mark 11:27-12:12; Luke 20:1-19). (Mat. 21:23-46)
• PARABLE OF THE MARRIAGE OF THE KING'S SON. (Mat 22:1-14)
• DENUNCIATION OF THE SCRIBES AND PHARISEES--LAMENTATION OVER JERUSALEM, AND FAREWELL TO THE TEMPLE. ( = Mar 12:38-40; Luk 20:45-47). (Mat. 23:1-39)
• PARABLE OF THE TEN VIRGINS. (Mat 25:1-13)
• PARABLE OF THE TALENTS. (Mat. 25:14-30)
• THE LAST JUDGMENT. (Mat. 25:31-46)
• JESUS LED AWAY TO PILATE--REMORSE AND SUICIDE OF JUDAS. ( = Mar 15:1; Luk 23:1; Joh 18:28). (Mat 27:1-10)
• GLORIOUS ANGELIC ANNOUNCEMENT ON THE FIRST DAY OF THE WEEK, THAT CHRIST IS RISEN--HIS APPEARANCE TO THE WOMEN--THE GUARDS BRIBED TO GIVE A FALSE ACCOUNT OF THE RESURRECTION. ( = Mar 16:1-8; Luk 24:1-8; Joh 20:1). (Mat 28:1-15)
• JESUS MEETS WITH THE DISCIPLES ON A MOUNTAIN IN GALILEE AND GIVES FORTH THE GREAT COMMISSION. (Mat 28:16-20)
• SIGNS AND CIRCUMSTANCES FOLLOWING THE DEATH OF THE LORD JESUS--HE IS TAKEN DOWN FROM THE CROSS, AND BURIED--THE SEPULCHRE IS GUARDED. ( = Mar 15:38-47; Luk 23:47-56; Joh 19:31-42). (Mat. 27:51-66)

TSK: Matthew (Book Introduction)

Matthew, being one of the twelve apostles, and early called to the apostleship, and from the time of his call a constant attendant on our Saviour, was perfectly well qualified to write fully the history of his life. He relates what he saw and heard. " He is eminently distinguished for the distinctness and particularity with which he has related many of our Lord’s discourses and moral instructions. Of these his sermon on the mount, his charge to the apostles, his illustrations of the nature of his kingdom, and his prophecy on mount Olivet, are examples. He has also wonderfully united simplicity and energy in relating the replies of his Master to the cavils of his adversaries." " There is not," as Dr. A. Clarke justly remarks, " one truth or doctrine, in the whole oracles of God, which is not taught in this Evangelist. The outlines of the whole spiritual system are here correctly laid down. even Paul himself has added nothing. He has amplified and illustrated the truths contained in this Gospel - under the inspiration of the Holy Ghost, neither he, nor any of the other apostles, have brought to light one truth, the prototype of which has not been found in the words and acts of our blessed Lord as related by Matthew."

TSK: Matthew 12 (Chapter Introduction)

Overview

Mat 12:1, Christ reproves the blindness of the Pharisees concerning the breach of the sabbath, Mat 12:3, by scripture, Mat 12:9, by reason, Mat 12:13. and by a miracle; Mat 12:22, He heals a man possessed that was blind and dumb; Mat 12:24, and confuting the absurd charge of casting out devils by Beelzebub, he shows that blasphemy against the Holy Ghost shall never be forgiven; Mat 12:36, Account shall be made of idle words; Mat 12:38, He rebukes the unfaithful, who seek after a sign, Mat 12:46. and shows who is his brother, sister, and mother.

Poole: Matthew 12 (Chapter Introduction)

CHAPTER 12

MHCC: Matthew (Book Introduction)

Matthew, surnamed Levi, before his conversion was a publican, or tax-gatherer under the Romans at Capernaum. He is generally allowed to have written his Gospel before any other of the evangelists. The contents of this Gospel, and the evidence of ancient writers, show that it was written primarily for the use of the Jewish nation. The fulfilment of prophecy was regarded by the Jews as strong evidence, therefore this is especially dwelt upon by St. Matthew. Here are particularly selected such parts of our Saviour's history and discourses as were best suited to awaken the Jewish nation to a sense of their sins; to remove their erroneous expectations of an earthly kingdom; to abate their pride and self-conceit; to teach them the spiritual nature and extent of the gospel; and to prepare them for the admission of the Gentiles into the church.

MHCC: Matthew 12 (Chapter Introduction)

(Mat 12:1-8) Jesus defends his disciples for plucking corn on the sabbath day.

(Mat 12:9-13) Jesus heals a man with a withered hand on the sabbath.

(Mat 12:14-21) The malice of the Pharisees.

(Mat 12:22-30) Jesus heals a demoniac.

(Mat 12:31, Mat 12:32) Blasphemy of the Pharisees.

(Mat 12:33-37) Evil words proceed from an evil heart.

(Mat 12:38-45) The scribes and Pharisees reproved for seeking a sign.

(Mat 12:46-50) The disciples of Christ are his nearest relations.

Matthew Henry: Matthew (Book Introduction)

An Exposition, with Practical Observations, of The Gospel According to St. Matthew

We have now before us, I. The New Testament of our Lord and Savior Jesus Christ; so this second part of the holy Bible is entitled: The new covenant; so it might as well be rendered; the word signifies both. But, when it is (as here) spoken of as Christ's act and deed, it is most properly rendered a testament, for he is the testator, and it becomes of force by his death (Heb 9:16, Heb 9:17); nor is there, as in covenants, a previous treaty between the parties, but what is granted, though an estate upon condition, is owing to the will, the free-will, the good-will, of the Testator. All the grace contained in this book is owing to Jesus Christ as our Lord and Saviour; and, unless we consent to him as our Lord, we cannot expect any benefit by him as our Saviour. This is called a new testament, to distinguish it from that which was given by Moses, and was not antiquated; and to signify that it should be always new, and should never wax old, and grow out of date. These books contain, not only a full discovery of that grace which has appeared to all men, bringing salvation, but a legal instrument by which it is conveyed to, and settled upon, all believers. How carefully do we preserve, and with what attention and pleasure do we read, the last will and testament of a friend, who has therein left us a fair estate, and, with it, high expressions of his love to us! How precious then should this testament of our blessed Saviour be to us, which secures to us all his unsearchable riches! It is his testament; for though, as is usual, it was written by others (we have nothing upon record that was of Christ's own writing), yet he dictated it; and the night before he died, in the institution of his supper, he signed, sealed, and published it, in the presence of twelve witnesses. For, though these books were not written for some years after, for the benefit of posterity, in perpetuam rei memoriam - as a perpetual memorial, yet the New Testament of our Lord Jesus was settled, confirmed, and declared, from the time of his death, as a nuncupative will, with which these records exactly agree. The things which St. Luke wrote were things which were most surely believed, and therefore well known, before he wrote them; but, when they were written, the oral tradition was superseded and set aside, and these writings were the repository of that New Testament. This is intimated by the title which is prefixed to many Greek Copies, Tē kainēs Diathēkēs Hapanta - The whole of the New Testament, or all the things of it. In it is declared the whole counsel of God concerning our salvation, Act 20:27. As the law of the Lord is perfect, so is the gospel of Christ, and nothing is to be added to it. We have it all, and are to look for no more.

II. We have before us The Four Gospels. Gospel signifies good news, or glad tidings; and this history of Christ's coming into the world to save sinners is, without doubt, the best news that ever came from heaven to earth; the angel gave it this title (Luk 2:10), Euagnelizomai humin - I bring you good tidings; I bring the gospel to you. And the prophet foretold it, Isa 52:7; Isa 61:1. It is there foretold that in the days of the messiah good tidings should be preached. Gospel is an old Saxon word; it is God's spell or word; and God is so called because he is good, Deus optimus - God most excellent, and therefore it may be a good spell, or word. If we take spell in its more proper signification for a charm ( carmen ), and take that in a good sense, for what is moving and affecting, which is apt lenire dolorem - to calm the spirits, or to raise them in admiration or love, as that which is very amiable we call charming, it is applicable to the gospel; for in it the charmer charmeth wisely, though to deaf adders, Psa 58:4, Psa 58:5. Nor (one would think) can any charms be so powerful as those of the beauty and love of our Redeemer. The whole New Testament is the gospel. St. Paul calls it his gospel, because he was one of the preachers of it. Oh that we may each of us make it ours by our cordial acceptance of it and subjection to it! But the four books which contain the history of the Redeemer we commonly call the four gospels, and the inspired penmen of them evangelists, or gospel-writers; not, however, very properly, because that title belongs to a particular order of ministers, that were assistants to the apostles (Eph 4:11): He gave some apostles, and some evangelists. It was requisite that the doctrine of Christ should be interwoven with, and founded upon, the narrative of his birth, life, miracles, death, and resurrection; for then it appears in its clearest and strongest light. As in nature, so in grace, the most happy discoveries are those which take rise from the certain representations of matters of fact. Natural history is the best philosophy; and so is the sacred history, both of the Old and New Testament, the most proper and grateful vehicle of sacred truth. These four gospels were early and constantly received by the primitive church, and read in Christian assemblies, as appears by the writings of Justin Martyr and Irenaeus, who lived little more than a hundred years after the ascension of Christ; they declared that neither more nor fewer than four were received by the church. A Harmony of these four evangelists was compiled by Tatian about that time, which he called, To dia tessarōn - The Gospel out of the four. In the third and fourth centuries there were gospels forged by divers sects, and published, one under the name of St. Peter, another of St. Thomas, another of St. Philip, etc. But they were never owned by the church, nor was any credit given to them, as the learned Dr. Whitby shows. And he gives this good reason why we should adhere to these written records, because, whatever the pretences of tradition may be, it is not sufficient to preserve things with any certainty, as appears by experience. For, whereas Christ said and did many memorable things, which were not written (Joh 20:30; Joh 21:25), tradition has not preserved any one of them to us, but all is lost except what was written; that therefore is what we must abide by; and blessed by God that we have it to abide by; it is the sure word of history.

III. We have before us the Gospel according to St. Matthew. The penman was by birth a Jew, by calling a publican, till Christ commanded his attendance, and then he left the receipt of custom, to follow him, and was one of those that accompanied him all the time that the Lord Jesus went in and out, beginning from the baptism of John unto the day that he was taken up, Act 1:21, Act 1:22. He was therefore a competent witness of what he has here recorded. He is said to have written this history about eight years after Christ's ascension. Many of the ancients say that he wrote it in the Hebrew or Syriac language; but the tradition is sufficiently disproved by Dr. Whitby. Doubtless, it was written in Greek, as the other parts of the New Testament were; not in that language which was peculiar to the Jews, whose church and state were near a period, but in that which was common to the world, and in which the knowledge of Christ would be most effectually transmitted to the nations of the earth; yet it is probable that there might be an edition of it in Hebrew, published by St. Matthew himself, at the same time that he wrote it in Greek; the former for the Jews, the latter for the Gentiles, when he left Judea, to preach among the Gentiles. Let us bless God that we have it, and have it in a language we understand.

Matthew Henry: Matthew 12 (Chapter Introduction)

In this chapter, we have, I. Christ's clearing of the law of the fourth commandment concerning the sabbath-day, and vindicating it from some superstitious notions advanced by the Jewish teachers; showing that works of necessity and mercy are to be done on that day (Mat 12:1-13). II. The prudence, humility, and self-denial of our Lord Jesus in working his miracles (Mat 12:14-21). III. Christ's answer to the blasphemous cavils and calumnies of the scribes and Pharisees, who imputed his casting out devils to a compact with the devil (v. 22-37). IV. Christ's reply to a tempting demand of the scribes and Pharisees, challenging him to show them a sign from heaven (Mat 12:38-45). V. Christ's judgment about his kindred and relations (Mat 12:46-50).

Barclay: Matthew (Book Introduction)

INTRODUCTION TO THE GOSPEL ACCORDING TO SAINT MATTHEW

The Synoptic Gospels

Matthew, Mark and Luke are usually known as the Synoptic Gospels. Synoptic comes from two Greek words which mean to see together and literally means able to be seen together. The reason for that name is this. These three gospels each give an account of the same events in Jesusife. There are in each of them additions and omissions; but broadly speaking their material is the same and their arrangement is the same. It is therefore possible to set them down in parallel columns, and so to compare the one with the other.

When that is done, it is quite clear that there is the closest possible relationship between them. If we, for instance, compare the story of the feeding of the five thousand (Mat_14:12-21; Mar_6:30-44; Luk_9:10-17) we find exactly the same story told in almost exactly the same words.

Another instance is the story of the healing of the man who was sick with the palsy (Mat_9:1-8; Mar_2:1-12; Luk_5:17-26). These three accounts are so similar that even a little parenthesis--"he then said to the paralytic"--occurs in all three as a parenthesis in exactly the same place. The correspondence between the three gospels is so close that we are bound to come to the conclusion either that all three are drawing their material from a common source, or that two of them must be based on the third.

The Earliest Gospel

When we examine the matter more closely we see that there is every reason for believing that Mark must have been the first of the gospels to be written, and that the other two, Matthew and Luke, are using Mark as a basis.

Mark can be divided into 105 sections. Of these sections 93 occur in Matthew and 81 in Luke. Of Mark105 sections there are only 4 which do not occur either in Matthew or in Luke.

Mark has 661 verses: Matthew has 1,068 verses: Luke has 1,149 verses. Matthew reproduces no fewer than 606 of Markverses; and Luke reproduces 320. Of the 55 verses of Mark which Matthew does not reproduce Luke reproduces 31; so there are only 24 verses in the whole of Mark which are not reproduced somewhere in Matthew or Luke.

It is not only the substance of the verses which is reproduced; the very words are reproduced. Matthew uses 51 per cent of Markwords; and Luke uses 53 per cent.

Both Matthew and Luke as a general rule follow Markorder of events. Occasionally either Matthew or Luke differs from Mark; but they never both differ against him; always at least one of them follows Markorder.

Improvements On Mark

Since Matthew and Luke are both much longer than Mark, it might just possibly be suggested that Mark is a summary of Matthew and Luke; but there is one other set of facts which show that Mark is earlier. It is the custom of Matthew and Luke to improve and to polish Mark, if we may put it so. Let us take some instances.

Sometimes Mark seems to limit the power of Jesus; at least an ill-disposed critic might try to prove that he was doing so. Here are three accounts of the same incident:

Mar_1:34: And he healed many who were sick with various

diseases, and cast out many demons;

Mat_8:16: And he cast out the spirits with a word, and

healed all who were sick;

Luk_4:40: And he laid his hands on every one of them, and

healed them.

Let us take other three similar examples:

Mar_3:10: For he had healed many;

Mat_12:15: And he healed them all;

Luk_6:19: and healed them all.

Matthew and Luke both change Markmany into all so that there may be no suggestion of any limitation of the power of Jesus Christ.

There is a very similar change in the account of the events of Jesusisit to Nazareth. Let us compare the account of Mark and of Matthew.

Mk 6:5-6: And he could do no mighty work there... and

he marvelled because of their unbelief;

Mat_13:58: And he did not do many mighty works there,

because of their unbelief.

Matthew shrinks from saying that Jesus could not do any mighty works; and changes the form of the expression accordingly.

Sometimes Matthew and Luke leave out little touches in Mark in case they could be taken to belittle Jesus. Matthew and Luke omit three statements in Mark.

Mar_3:5: "He looked around at them with anger, grieved

at their hardness of heart."

Mar_3:21: And when his friends heard it, they went out to

seize him: for they said, He is beside himself;

Mar_10:14: He was indignant.

Matthew and Luke hesitate to attribute human emotions of anger and grief to Jesus, and shudder to think that anyone should even have suggested that Jesus was mad.

Sometimes Matthew and Luke slightly alter things in Mark to get rid of statements which might seem to show the apostles in a bad light. We take but one instance, from the occasion on which James and John sought to ensure themselves of the highest places in the coming Kingdom. Let us compare the introduction to that story in Mark and in Matthew.

Mar_10:35: James and John, the sons of Zebedee, came

forward to him, and said to him...

Mat_20:20: Then the mother of the sons of Zebedee came

up to him, with her sons, and kneeling before him,

she asked him for something.

Matthew hesitates to ascribe motives of ambition directly to the two apostles, and so he ascribes them to their mother.

All this makes it clear that Mark is the earliest of the gospels. Mark gives a simple, vivid, direct narrative; but Matthew and Luke have already begun to be affected by doctrinal and theological considerations which make them much more careful of what they say.

The Teaching Of Jesus

We have seen that Matthew has 1,068 verses; and that Luke has 1,149 verses; and that between them they reproduce 582 of Markverses. That means that in Matthew and Luke there is much more material than Mark supplies. When we examine that material we find that more than 200 verses of it are almost identical. For instance such passages as Luk_6:41-42 and Mat_7:1, Mat_7:5; Luk_10:21-22 and Mat_11:25-27; Luk_3:7-9 and Mat_3:7-10 are almost exactly the same.

But here we notice a difference. The material which Matthew and Luke drew from Mark was almost entirely material dealing with the events of Jesusife; but these 200 additional verses common to Matthew and Luke tell us, not what Jesus did, but what Jesus said. Clearly in these verses Matthew and Luke are drawing from a common source-book of the sayings of Jesus.

That book does not now exist; but to it scholars have given the letter Q which stands for Quelle, which is the German word for "source." In its day it must have been an extraordinarily important book, for it was the first handbook of the teaching of Jesus.

MatthewPlace In The Gospel Tradition

It is here that we come to Matthew the apostle. Scholars are agreed that the first gospel as it stands does not come directly from the hand of Matthew. One who had himself been an eye-witness of the life of Christ would not have needed to use Mark as a source-book for the life of Jesus in the way Matthew does. But one of the earliest Church historians, a man called Papias, gives us this intensely important piece of information:

"Matthew collected the sayings of Jesus in the Hebrew tongue."

So, then, we can believe that it was none other than Matthew who wrote that book which was the source from which all men must draw, if they wished to know what Jesus taught. And it was because so much of that source-book is incorporated in the first gospel that Matthewname was attached to it. We must be for ever grateful to Matthew, when we remember that it is to him that we owe the Sermon on the Mount and nearly all we know about the teaching of Jesus. Broadly speaking, to Mark we owe our knowledge of the events of Jesusife; to Matthew we owe our knowledge of the substance of Jesuseaching.

Matthew The Taxgatherer

About Matthew himself we know very little. We read of his call in Mat_9:9. We know that he was a taxgatherer and that he must therefore have been a bitterly hated man, for the Jews hated the members of their own race who had entered the civil service of their conquerors. Matthew would be regarded as nothing better than a quisling.

But there was one gift which Matthew would possess. Most of the disciples were fishermen. They would have little skill and little practice in putting words together on paper; but Matthew would be an expert in that. When Jesus called Matthew, as he sat at the receipt of custom, Matthew rose up and followed him and left everything behind him except one thing--his pen. And Matthew nobly used his literary skill to become the first man ever to compile an account of the teaching of Jesus.

The Gospel Of The Jews

Let us now look at the chief characteristics of Matthewgospel so that we may watch for them as we read it.

First and foremost, Matthew is the gospel which was written for the Jews. It was written by a Jew in order to convince Jews.

One of the great objects of Matthew is to demonstrate that all the prophecies of the Old Testament are fulfilled in Jesus, and that, therefore, he must be the Messiah. It has one phrase which runs through it like an ever-recurring theme--"This was to fulfil what the Lord had spoken by the prophet." That phrase occurs in the gospel as often as 16 times. Jesusirth and Jesusame are the fulfillment of prophecy (Mat_1:21-23); so are the flight to Egypt (Mat_2:14-15); the slaughter of the children (Mat_2:16-18); Josephsettlement in Nazareth and Jesuspbringing there (Mat_2:23); Jesusse of parables (Mat_13:34-35); the triumphal entry (Mat_21:3-5); the betrayal for thirty pieces of silver (Mat_27:9); the casting of lots for Jesusarments as he hung on the Cross (Mat_27:35). It is Matthewprimary and deliberate purpose to show how the Old Testament prophecies received their fulfillment in Jesus; how every detail of Jesusife was foreshadowed in the prophets; and thus to compel the Jews to admit that Jesus was the Messiah.

The main interest of Matthew is in the Jews. Their conversion is especially near and dear to the heart of its writer. When the Syro-Phoenician woman seeks his help, Jesusirst answer is: "I was sent only to the lost sheep of the house of Israel" (Mat_15:24). When Jesus sends out the Twelve on the task of evangelization, his instruction is: "Go nowhere among the Gentiles, and enter no town of the Samaritans, but go rather to the lost sheep of the house of Israel" (Mat_10:5-6). Yet it is not to be thought that this gospel by any means excludes the Gentiles. Many are to come from the east and the west to sit down in the kingdom of God (Mat_8:11). The gospel is to be preached to the whole world (Mat_24:14). And it is Matthew which gives us the marching orders of the Church: "Go therefore and make disciples of all nations" (Mat_28:19). It is clear that Matthewfirst interest is in the Jews, but that it foresees the day when an nations will be gathered in.

The Jewishness of Matthew is also seen in its attitude to the Law. Jesus did not come to destroy, but to fulfil the Law. The least part of the Law will not pass away. Men must not be taught to break the Law. The righteousness of the Christian must exceed the righteousness of the Scribes and Pharisees (Mat_5:17-20). Matthew was written by one who knew and loved the Law, and who saw that even the Law has its place in the Christian economy.

Once again there is an apparent paradox in the attitude of Matthew to the Scribes and Pharisees. They are given a very special authority: "The Scribes and the Pharisees sit on Moseseat; so practice and observe whatever they tell you" (Mat_23:2). But at the same time there is no gospel which so sternly and consistently condemns them.

Right at the beginning there is John the Baptistsavage denunciation of them as a brood of vipers (Mat_3:7-12). They complain that Jesus eats with tax collectors and sinners (Mat_9:11). They ascribe the power of Jesus, not to God, but to the prince of devils (Mat_12:24). They plot to destroy him (Mat_12:14). The disciples are warned against the leaven, the evil teaching, of the Scribes and Pharisees (Mat_16:12). They are like evil plants doomed to be rooted up (Mat_15:13). They are quite unable to read the signs of the times (Mat_16:3). They are the murderers of the prophets (Mat_21:41). There is no chapter of condemnation in the whole New Testament like Matt 23 , which is condemnation not of what the Scribes and the Pharisees teach, but of what they are. He condemns them for falling so far short of their own teaching, and far below the ideal of what they ought to be.

There are certain other special interests in Matthew. Matthew is especially interested in the Church. It is in fact the only one of the Synoptic Gospels which uses the word Church at all. Only Matthew introduces the passage about the Church after Peterconfession at Caesarea Philippi (Mat_16:13-23; compare Mar_8:27-33; Luk_9:18-22). Only Matthew says that disputes are to be settled by the Church (Mat_18:17). By the time Matthew came to be written the Church had become a great organization and institution; and indeed the dominant factor in the life of the Christian.

Matthew has a specially strong apocalyptic interest. That is to say, Matthew has a specially strong interest in all that Jesus said about his own Second Coming, about the end of the world, and about the judgment. Matt 24 gives us a fuller account of Jesus pocalyptic discourse than any of the other gospels. Matthew alone has the parables of the talents (Mat_25:14-30); the wise and the foolish virgins (Mat_25:1-13); and the sheep and the goats (Mat_25:31-46). Matthew has a special interest in the last things and in judgment.

But we have not yet come to the greatest of all the characteristics of Matthew. It is supremely the teaching gospel.

We have already seen that the apostle Matthew was responsible for the first collection and the first handbook of the teaching of Jesus. Matthew was the great systematizer. It was his habit to gather together in one place all that he knew about the teaching of Jesus on any given subject. The result is that in Matthew we find five great blocks in which the teaching of Jesus is collected and systematized. All these sections have to do with the Kingdom of God. They are as follows:

(a) The Sermon on the Mount, or The Law of the Kingdom (Matt 5-7).

(b) The Duties of the Leaders of the Kingdom (Matt 10 )

(c) The Parables of the Kingdom (Matt 13 ).

(d) Greatness and Forgiveness in the Kingdom (Matt 18 ).

(e) The Coming of the King (Matt 24-25).

Matthew does more than collect and systematize. It must be remembered that Matthew was writing in an age when printing had not been invented, when books were few and far between because they had to be hand-written. In an age like that, comparatively few people could possess a book; and, therefore, if they wished to know and to use the teaching and the story of Jesus, they had to carry them in their memories.

Matthew therefore always arranges things in a way that is easy for the reader to memorize. He arranges things in threes and sevens. There are three messages to Joseph; three denials of Peter; three questions of Pilate; seven parables of the Kingdom in Matt 13; seven woes to the Scribes and Pharisees in Matt 23.

The genealogy of Jesus with which the gospel begins is a good example of this. The genealogy is to prove that Jesus is the Son of David. In Hebrew there are no figures; when figures are necessary the letters of the alphabet stand for the figures. In Hebrew there are no written vowels. The Hebrew letters for David are D-W-D; if these letters be taken as figures and not as letters, they add up to 14; and the genealogy consists of three groups of names, and in each group there are 14 names. Matthew does everything possible to arrange the teaching of Jesus in such a way that people will be able to assimilate and to remember it.

Every teacher owes a debt of gratitude to Matthew, for Matthew wrote what is above all the teachergospel.

Matthew has one final characteristic. Matthewdominating idea is that of Jesus as King. He writes to demonstrate the royalty of Jesus.

Right at the beginning the genealogy is to prove that Jesus is the Son of David (Mat_1:1-17). The title, Son of David, is used oftener in Matthew than in any other gospel (Mat_15:22; Mat_21:9; Mat_21:15). The wise men come looking for him who is King of the Jews (Mat_2:2). The triumphal entry is a deliberately dramatized claim to be King (Mat_21:1-11). Before Pilate, Jesus deliberately accepts the name of King (Mat_27:11). Even on the Cross the title of King is affixed, even if it be in mockery, over his head (Mat_27:37). In the Sermon on the Mount, Matthew shows us Jesus quoting the Law and five times abrogating it with a regal: "But I say to you..." (Mat_5:21, Mat_5:27, Mat_5:34, Mat_5:38, Mat_5:43). The final claim of Jesus is: "All authority has been given to me" (Mat_28:18).

Matthewpicture of Jesus is of the man born to be King. Jesus walks through his pages as if in the purple and gold of royalty.

FURTHER READING

W. C. Allen, St. Matthew (ICC; G)

J. C. Fenton, The Gospel of St. Matthew (PC; E)

F. V. Filson, The Gospel According to St. Matthew (ACB; E)

A. H. McNeile, St Matthew (MmC; G)

A. Plummer, An Exegetical Commentary on the Gospel According to St. Matthew (E)

T. H. Robinson, The Gospel of Matthew (MC; E)

R. V. G. Tasker, The Gospel According to St. Matthew (TC; E)

Abbreviations

ACB: A. and C. Black New Testament Commentary

ICC: International Critical Commentary

MC: Moffatt Commentary

MmC: Macmillan Commentary

PC: Pelican New Testament Commentary

TC: Tyndale Commentary

E: English Text

G: Greek Text

Barclay: Matthew 12 (Chapter Introduction)

Crisis (Mat_12:1-50)

In Mattthew 12 we read the history of a series of crucial events in the life of Jesus. In every man's life there are decisive moments, times and events on which the whole of his life hinges. This chapter presents us with the story of such a period in the life of Jesus. In it we see the orthodox Jewish religious leaders of the day coming to their final decision regarding Jesus--and that was rejection. It was not only rejection in the sense that they would have nothing to do with him; it was rejection in the sense that they came to the conclusion that nothing less than his complete elimination would be enough.

Here in this chapter we see the first definite steps, the end of which could be nothing other than the Cross. The characters are painted clear before us. On the one hand there are the Scribes and the Pharisees, the representatives of orthodox religion. We can see four stages in their increasing attitude of malignant hostility to Jesus.

(i) In Mat_12:1-8, the story of how the disciples plucked the ears of corn on the Sabbath day, we see growing suspicion. The Scribes and Pharisees regarded with growing suspicion a teacher who was prepared to allow his followers to disregard the minutia of the Sabbath Law. This was the kind of thing which could not be allowed to spread unchecked.

(ii) In Mat_12:9-14, the story of the healing of the man with the paralysed hand on the Sabbath day, we see active and hostile investigation. It was not by chance that the Scribes and Pharisees were in the synagogue on that Sabbath. Luke says they were there to watch Jesus (Luk_6:7). From that time on Jesus would have to work always under the malignant eye of the orthodox leaders. They would do his steps, like private detectives, seeking the evidence on which they could level a charge against him.

(iii) In Mat_12:22-32, the story of how the orthodox leaders charged Jesus with healing by the power of the devil, and of how he spoke to them of the sin which has no forgiveness, we see the story of deliberate and prejudiced blindness. From that time on nothing Jesus could ever do would be right in the eyes of these men. They had so shut their eyes to God that they were completely incapable of ever seeing his beauty and his truth. Their prejudiced blindness had launched them on a path from which they were quite incapable of ever turning back.

(iv) In Mat_12:14 we see evil determination. The orthodox were not now content to watch and criticize; they were preparing to act. They had gone into council to find a way to put an end to this disturbing Galilaean. Suspicion, investigation, blindness were on the way to open action.

In face of all this the answer of Jesus is clearly delineated. We can see five ways in which he met this growing opposition.

(i) He met it with courageous defiance. In the story of the healing of the man with the paralysed hand (Mat_12:9-14) we see him deliberately defying the Scribes and Pharisees. This thing was not done in a corner; it was done in a crowded synagogue. It was not done in their absence; it was done when they were there with deliberate intent to formulate a charge against him. So far from evading the challenge, Jesus is about to meet it head on.

(ii) He met it with warning. In Mat_12:22-32 we see Jesus giving the most terrible of warnings. He is warning those men that, if they persist in shutting their eyes to the truth of God, they are on the way to a situation where, by their own act, they will have shut themselves out from the grace of God. Here Jesus is not so much on the defence as on the attack. He makes quite clear where their attitude is taking them.

(iii) He met it with a staggering series of claims. He is greater than the Temple (Mat_12:6), and the Temple was the most sacred place in all the world. He is greater than Jonah, and no preacher ever produced repentance so amazingly as Jonah did (Mat_12:41). He is greater than Solomon, and Solomon was the very acme of wisdom (Mat_12:42). His claim is that there is nothing in spiritual history than which he is not greater. There are no apologies here; there is the statement of the claims of Christ at their highest.

(iv) He met it with the statement that his teaching is essential. The point of the strange parable of the Empty House (Mat_12:43-45) is that the Law may negatively empty a man of evil, but only the gospel can fill him with good. The Law therefore simply leaves a man an empty invitation for all evil to take up its residence within his heart; the gospel so fills him with positive goodness that evil cannot enter in. Here is Jesus, claim that the gospel can do for men what the Law can never do.

(v) Finally, he met it with an invitation. Mat_12:46-50 are in essence an invitation to enter into kinship with him. These verses are not so much a disowning of Jesus' own kith and kin as an invitation to all men to enter into kinship with him, through the acceptance of the will of God, as that will has come to men in him. They are an invitation to abandon our own prejudices and self-will and to accept Jesus Christ as Master and Lord. If we refuse, we drift farther away from God; if we accept, we enter into the very family and heart of God.

Breaking The Sabbath Law (Mat_12:1-8)

The Claim Of Human Need (Mat_12:1-8 Continued)

Master Of The Sabbath (Mat_12:1-8 Continued)

Love And Law (Mat_12:9-14)

The Challenge Accepted (Mat_12:9-14 Continued)

The Characteristics Of The Servant Of The Lord (Mat_12:15-21)

Satan's Defences Are Breached (Mat_12:22-29)

The Jewish Exorcists (Mat_12:22-29 Continued)

The Impossibility Of Neutrality (Mat_12:30)

The Sin Beyond Forgiveness (Mat_12:31-33)

The Lost Awareness (Mat_12:31-33 Continued)

Hearts And Words (Mat_12:34-37)

The Only Sign (Mat_12:38-42)

The Peril Of The Empty Heart (Mat_12:43-45)

True Kinship (Mat_12:46-50)

Constable: Matthew (Book Introduction)

Introduction

The Synoptic Problem

The synoptic problem is intrinsic to all study of the Gospels, especially the first three. The word "synoptic" comes from two Greek words, syn and opsesthai, meaning "to see together." Essentially the synoptic problem involves all the difficulties that arise because of the similarities and differences between the Gospel accounts. Matthew, Mark, and Luke have received the title "Synoptic Gospels" because they present the life and ministry of Jesus Christ similarly. The content and purpose of John's Gospel are sufficiently distinct to put it in a class by itself. It is not one of the so-called Synoptic Gospels.

Part of the synoptic problem is the sources the Holy Spirit led the evangelists to use in producing their Gospels. There is internal evidence (within the individual Gospels themselves) that the writers used source materials as they wrote. The most obvious example of this is the Old Testament passages to which each one referred directly or indirectly. Since Matthew and John were disciples of Jesus Christ many of their statements represent eyewitness accounts of what happened. Likewise Mark had close connections with Peter, and Luke was an intimate associate of Paul as well as a careful historian (Luke 1:1-4). Information that the writers obtained verbally (oral tradition) and in writing (documents) undoubtedly played a part in what they wrote. Perhaps the evangelists also received special revelations from the Lord before and or when they wrote their Gospels.

Some scholars have devoted much time and attention to the study of the other sources the evangelists may have used. They are the "source critics" and their work constitutes "source criticism." Because source criticism and its development are so crucial to Gospel studies, a brief introduction to this subject follows.

In 1776 and 1779 two posthumously published essays by A. E. Lessing became known in which he argued for a single written source for the Synoptic Gospels. He called this source the Gospel of the Nazarenes, and he believed its writer had composed it in the Aramaic language. To him one original source best explained the parallels and differences between the Synoptics. This idea of an original source or primal Gospel caught the interest of many other scholars. Some of them believed there was a written source, but others held it was an oral source.

As one might expect, the idea of two or more sources occurred to some scholars as the best solution to the synoptic problem.¹ Some favored the view that Mark was one of the primal sources because over 90% of the material in Mark also appears in Matthew and or Luke. Some posited another primary source "Q," an abbreviation of the German word for source, quelle. It supposedly contained the material in Matthew and Luke that does not appear in Mark.

Gradually source criticism gave way to form criticism. The form critics concentrated on the process involved in transmitting what Jesus said and did to the primary sources. They assumed that the process of transmitting this information followed patterns of oral communication that are typical in primitive societies.² Typically oral communication has certain characteristic effects on stories. It tends to shorten narratives, to retain names, to balance teaching, and to elaborate on stories about miracles, to name a few results. The critics also adopted other criteria from secular philology to assess the accuracy of statements in the Gospels. For example, they viewed as distinctive to Jesus only what was dissimilar to what Palestinian Jews or early Christians might have said. Given the critics' view of inspiration it is easy to see how most of them concluded that the Gospels in their present form do not accurately represent what Jesus said and did. However some conservative scholars used the same literary method but held a much higher view of the Gospels.³

The next wave of critical opinion, redaction criticism, hit the Christian world shortly after World War II.⁴ Redaction critics generally accept the tenets of source and form criticism. However they also believe that the Gospel evangelists altered the traditions they received to make their own theological emphases. They viewed the writers not simply as compilers of the church's oral traditions but as theologians who adapted the material for their own purposes. They viewed the present Gospels as containing both traditional material and edited material. Obviously there is a good aspect and a bad aspect to this view. Positively it recognizes the individual evangelist's distinctive purpose for writing. Negatively it permits an interpretation of the Gospel that allows for historical error and even deliberate distortion. Redaction scholars have been more or less liberal depending on their view of Scripture generally. Redaction critics also characteristically show more interest in the early Christian community out of which the Gospels came and the beliefs of that community than they do in Jesus' historical context. Their interpretations of the early Christian community vary greatly as one would expect. In recent years the trend in critical scholarship has been conservative, to recognize more rather than less Gospel material as having a historical basis.

Some knowledge of the history of Gospel criticism is helpful to the serious student who wants to understand the text. Questions of the historical background out of which the evangelists wrote, their individual purposes, and what they simply recorded and what they commented on all affect interpretation. Consequently the conservative expositor can profit somewhat from the studies of scholars who concern themselves with these questions primarily.⁵

Most critics have concluded that one source the writers used was one or more of the other Gospels. Currently most source critics believe that Matthew and Luke drew information from Mark's Gospel. Mark's accounts are generally longer than those of Matthew and Luke suggesting that Matthew and Luke condensed Mark. To them it seems more probable that they condensed him than that he elaborated on them. There is no direct evidence, however, that one evangelist used another as a source. Since they were either personally disciples of Christ or very close to eyewitnesses of His activities, they may not have needed to consult an earlier Gospel.

Most source critics also believe that the unique material in each Gospel goes back to Q. This may initially appear to be a document constructed out of thin air. However the early church father Papias (80-155 A.D.) may have referred to the existence of such a source. Eusebius, the fourth century church historian, wrote that Papias had written, "Matthew composed the logia [sayings? Gospel?] in the hebraidi [Hebrew? Aramaic?] dialekto [dialect? language? style?]."⁶ This is an important statement for several reasons, but here note that Papias referred to Matthew's logia. This may be a reference to Matthew's Gospel, but many source critics believe it refers to a primal document that became a source for one or more of our Gospels. Most of them do not believe Matthew wrote Q. They see in Papias' statement support for the idea that primal documents such as Matthew's logia were available as sources, and they conclude that Q was the most important one.

Another major aspect of the synoptic problem is the order in which the Gospels appeared as finished products. This issue has obvious connections with the question of the sources the Gospel writers may have used.

Until after the Reformation, almost all Christians believed that Matthew wrote his Gospel before Mark and Luke wrote theirs; they held Matthean priority. From studying the similarities and differences between the Synoptics, some source critics concluded that Matthew and Luke came into existence before Mark. They viewed Mark as a condensation of the other two.⁷ However the majority of source critics today believe that Mark was the first Gospel and that Matthew and Luke wrote later. As explained above, they hold this view because they believe it is more probable that Matthew and Luke drew from and condensed Mark than that Mark expanded on Matthew and Luke.

Since source criticism is highly speculative many conservative expositors today continue to lean toward Matthean priority. We do so because there is no solid evidence to contradict this traditional view that Christians held almost consistently for the church's first 17 centuries.

While the game of deducing which Gospel came first and who drew from whom appeals to many students, these issues are essentially academic ones. They have little to do with the meaning of the text. Consequently I do not plan to discuss them further but will refer interested student to the vast body of literature that is available. I will, however, deal with problems involving the harmonization of the Gospel accounts at the appropriate places in the exposition that follows. The Bible expositor's basic concern is not the nature and history of the stories in the text but their primary significance in their contexts.

". . . it is this writer's opinion that there is no evidence to postulate a tradition of literary dependence among the Gospels. The dependence is rather a parallel dependence on the actual events which occurred."⁸

A much more helpful critical approach to the study of the Bible is literary criticism, the current wave of interest. This approach analyses the text in terms of its literary structure, emphases, and unique features. It seeks to understand the text as a piece of literature by examining how the writer wrote it.

Writer

External evidence strongly supports the Matthean authorship of the first Gospel. The earliest copies of the Gospel we have begin "KATA MATTHAION" ("according to Matthew"). Several early church fathers referred to Matthew as the writer including Clement of Rome, Polycarp, Justin Martyr, Clement of Alexandria, Tertullian, and Origen.⁹ Papias' use of the term logia to describe Matthew's work, cited above, is not a clear attestation to Matthean authorship of the first Gospel. Since Matthew was a disciple of Jesus and one of the 12 Apostles, his work carried great influence and enjoyed much prestige from its first appearance. We might expect a more prominent disciple such as Peter or James to have written it. The fact that the early church accepted it as from Matthew further strengthens the likelihood that he indeed wrote it.

Internal evidence of Matthean authorship is also strong. As a tax collector for Rome, Matthew would have had to be able to write capably. His profession forced him to keep accurate and detailed records which skill he put to good use in composing his Gospel. There are more references to money and to more different kinds of money in this Gospel than in any of the others.¹⁰ Matthew humbly referred to himself as a tax collector, a profession with objectionable connotations in his culture, whereas the other Gospel writers simply called him Matthew. Matthew called his feast for Jesus a dinner (Matt. 9:9-10), but Luke referred to it as a great banquet (Luke 5:29). All these details confirm the testimony of the early church fathers.

Language

Papias' statement, cited above, refers to a writing by Matthew in the hebraidi dialekto (the Hebrew or possibly Aramaic language or dialect). This may not be a reference to Matthew's Gospel. Four other church fathers mentioned that Matthew wrote in Aramaic and that translations followed in Greek: Irenaeus (130-202 A.D.), Origen (185-254 A.D.), Eusebius (4th century), and Jerome (6th century).¹¹ However they may have been referring to something other than our first Gospel. These references have led many scholars to conclude that Matthew composed his Gospel in Aramaic and that someone else, or he himself, later translated it into Greek. This is the normal meaning of the fathers' statements. If Matthew originally wrote his Gospel in Aramaic, it is difficult to explain why he sometimes, but not always, quoted from a Greek translation of the Old Testament, the Septuagint. The Hebrew Old Testament would have been the normal text for a Hebrew or Aramaic author to use. A Greek translator might have used the LXX (Septuagint) to save himself some work, but if he did so why did he not use it consistently? Matthew's Greek Gospel contains many Aramaic words. This solution also raises some questions concerning the reliability and inerrancy of the Greek Gospel that has come down to us.

There are several possible solutions to the problem of the language of Matthew's Gospel.¹² The best seems to be that Matthew wrote a Hebrew document that God did not inspire that is no longer extant. He also composed an inspired Greek Gospel that has come down to us in the New Testament. Many competent scholars believe that Matthew originally wrote his Gospel in Greek. They do so mainly because of his Greek.¹³

Date and Place of Composition

Dating Matthew's Gospel is difficult for many reasons even if one believes in Matthean priority. The first extra-biblical reference to it occurs in the writings of Ignatius (c. 110-115 A.D.).¹⁴ However Matthew's references to Jerusalem and the Sadducees point to a date of compositions before 70 A.D. when the Romans destroyed Jerusalem. His references to Jerusalem assume its existence (e.g., 4:5; 27:53). Matthew recorded more warnings about the Sadducees than all the other New Testament writers combined, but after 70 A.D. they no longer existed as a significant authority in Israel.¹⁵ Consequently Matthew probably wrote before 70 A.D.

References in the text to the customs of the Jews continuing "to this day" (27:8; 28:15) imply that some time had elapsed between the crucifixion of Jesus Christ and the composition of the Gospel. Since Jesus died in 33 A.D. Matthew may have composed his Gospel perhaps a decade or more later. A date between 40 and 70 A.D. is very probable.¹⁶

Since Matthew lived and worked in Palestine we would assume that he wrote while living there. There is no evidence that excludes this possibility. Nevertheless scholars love to speculate. Other sites they have suggested include Antioch of Syria (because Ignatius was bishop of Antioch), Alexandria, Edessa, Syria, Tyre, and Caesarea Maratima. These are all guesses.

Distinctive Features

Compared with the other Gospels Matthew's is distinctively Jewish. He used parallelism as did many to the Old Testament writers, and his thought patterns and general style are typically Hebrew.¹⁷ Matthew's vocabulary (e.g., kingdom of heaven, holy city, righteousness, etc.) and subject matter (the Law, defilement, the sabbath, Messiah, etc.) are also distinctively Jewish. Matthew referred to the Old Testament 129 times, more than any other evangelist.¹⁸ Usually he did so to prove a point to his readers. The genealogy in chapter 1 traces Jesus' ancestry back to Abraham, the father of the Jewish race. Matthew gave prominent attention to Peter, the apostle to the Jews.¹⁹ The writer also referred to many Jewish customs without explaining them evidently because he believed most of his original readers would not need an explanation.

Another distinctive emphasis in Matthew is Jesus' teaching ministry. No other Gospel contains as many of Jesus' discourses and instructions. These include the Sermon on the Mount, the instruction of the disciples, the parables of the kingdom, the denunciation of Israel's leaders, and the Olivet Discourse.²⁰

Audience and Purposes

Several church fathers (i.e., Irenaeus, Origen, and Eusebius) stated what we might suppose from the distinctively Jewish emphases of this book, namely that Matthew wrote his Gospel primarily for his fellow Jews.²¹

He wrote, under the inspiration of the Holy Spirit, for a specific purpose or, more accurately, specific purposes. He did not state these purposes concisely as John did in his Gospel (John 20:30-31). Nevertheless they are clear from his content and his emphases.

"Matthew has a twofold purpose in writing his Gospel. Primarily he penned this Gospel to prove Jesus is the Messiah, but he also wrote it to explain God's kingdom program to his readers. One goal directly involves the other. Nevertheless, they are distinct."²²

"Matthew's purpose obviously was to demonstrate that Jesus Christ was the promised Messiah of the Old Testament, that He fulfilled the requirements of being the promised King who would be a descendant of David, and that His life and ministry fully support the conclusion that He is the prophesied Messiah of Israel. . . .

"As a whole, the gospel is not properly designated as only an apologetic for the Christian faith. Rather, it was designed to explain to the Jews, who had expected the Messiah when He came to be a conquering king, why instead Christ suffered and died, and why there was the resulting postponement of His triumph to His second coming."²³

Matthew presented three aspects to God's kingdom program. First, Jesus presented Himself to the Jews as the king that God had promised in the Old Testament. Second, Israel's leaders rejected Jesus as their king. This resulted in the postponement, not the cancellation, of the messianic kingdom that God had promised Israel. Third, because of Israel's rejection Jesus is now building His church in anticipation of His return to establish the promised messianic kingdom on the earth.

There are at least three wider purposes that Matthew undoubtedly hoped to fulfill with his Gospel. First, he wanted to instruct Christians and non-Christians concerning the person and work of Jesus.²⁴ Second, he wanted to provide an apologetic to aid his Jewish brethren in witnessing to other Jews about Christ. Third, he wanted to encourage all Christians to witness for Christ boldly and faithfully. It is interesting that Matthew is the only Gospel writer to use the Greek verb matheteuo, "to disciple" (13:52; 27:57; 28:19; cf. Acts 14:21 for its only other occurrence in the New Testament). This fact shows his concern for making disciples of Christ.²⁵

Carson identified nine major themes in Matthew. They are Christology, prophecy and fulfillment, law, church, eschatology, Jewish leaders, mission, miracles, and the disciples' understanding and faith.²⁶

Plan and Structure

Matthew often grouped his material into sections so that three, five, six, or seven events, miracles, sayings, or parables appear together.²⁷ Jewish writers typically did this to help their readers remember what they had written. The presence of this technique reveals Matthew's didactic (instructional) intent. Furthermore it indicates that his arrangement of material was somewhat topical rather than strictly chronological. Generally chapters 1-4 are in chronological order, chapters 5-13 are topical, and chapters 14-28 are again chronological.²⁸

Not only Matthew but the other Gospel writers as well present the life of Jesus Christ in three major stages. These stages are His presentation to the people, their consideration of His claims, and their rejection and its consequences.

A key phrase in Matthew's Gospel enables us to note the major movements in the writer's thought. It is the phrase "and it came about that when Jesus had finished" (7:28; 11:1; 13:53; 19:1; 26:1). This phrase always occurs at the end of one of Jesus' addresses. An address therefore concludes each major section of the Gospel, and it is climactic. Matthew evidently used the narrative sections to introduce Jesus' discourses, which he regarded as specially important in his book. Mark, on the other hand, gave more detailed information concerning the narrative material in his Gospel. In addition to each major section, there is a prologue and an epilogue to the Gospel according to Matthew.

Message²⁹

The four Gospels are foundational to Christianity because they record the life of Jesus Christ and His teachings. Each of the four Gospels fulfills a unique purpose. They are not simply four versions of the life of Jesus. If one wants to study the life of Jesus Christ, the best way to do that is with a harmony of the Gospels that correlates all the data chronologically. However if one wants to study only one of the Gospel accounts, then one needs to pay attention to the uniqueness of that Gospel. The unique material, what the writer included and excluded, reveals the purpose for which he wrote and the points he wanted to stress.

What is the unique message of Matthew's Gospel? How does it differ from the other three Gospels? What specific emphasis was Matthew wanting his readers to gain as they read his record of Jesus' life and ministry? I would put it this way.

Matthew wanted his readers to do what John the Baptist and Jesus called the people of their day to do, namely "Repent, for the kingdom of heaven is at hand." This was the message of the King to His people and the message of the King's herald as he called the King's people to prepare for the King's coming.

This is not the final message of Christianity, but it is the message that Matthew wanted us to understand. When John the Baptist and Jesus originally issued this call, they faced a situation that is different from the situation we face today. They called the people of their day to trust in and follow Jesus because the messianic kingdom was immediately at hand. If the Jews had responded, Jesus would have established His kingdom immediately. He would have died on the cross, risen from the dead, ascended into heaven, ushered in the Tribulation, returned, and established His kingdom.

The messianic kingdom is at hand for you and me in a different sense. Jesus Christ has died and risen from the dead. The Tribulation is still future, but following those seven years Jesus will return and establish His messianic kingdom on earth. The commission that Jesus has given us as His disciples is essentially to prepare people for the King's return. To do this we must go into all the world and herald the gospel to everyone. We must call them to trust in and follow the King as His disciples.

Essentially the message of Matthew is "the kingdom of heaven is at hand." The proper response to this message is, "Repent." Let us look first at the message and then at the proper response. Note three things about the message.

First, "the kingdom of heaven is at hand" is the statement of a fact. The subject of this statement is the kingdom. The kingdom is the theme of Matthew's Gospel. The word "kingdom" occurs about 50 times in Matthew. Since "kingdom" is such a prominent theme it is not surprising to discover that this Gospel presents Jesus as the great King.

Matthew presents the kingship of Jesus. Kingship involves the fact that Jesus is the great King that the Old Testament prophets predicted would come and rule over all the earth in Israel's golden age. It points to the universal sovereignty of God's Son who would rule over all mankind. He was to be a Son of David who would also rule over Israel. The second smaller sphere of sovereignty lies within the first larger sphere.

The word "kingdom" refers to the realm over which the King reigns. This is usually what we think of when we think of Jesus' messianic kingdom, the sphere over which He will rule. However, it is important that we not stress the sphere to the detriment of the sovereignty with which He will rule. Both ideas are essential to the concept of the kingdom that Matthew presents, sphere and sovereignty.

The little used phrase in Matthew's Gospel "kingdom of God" stresses the fact that it is God who rules. The King is God, and He will reign over all of His creation eventually. The kingdom belongs to God and it will extend over all that God sovereignly controls.

Matthew of all the Gospel evangelists was the only one to use the phrase "kingdom of heaven." John the Baptist nor Jesus ever explained this phrase. Their audiences knew what they meant by it. Ever since God gave His great promises to Abraham the Jews knew what the kingdom of heaven meant. It meant God's rule over His people who lived on the earth. As time passed, God gave the Israelites more information about His rule over them. He told them that He would provide a descendant of David who would be their King. This king would rule over the Israelites who would live in the Promised Land. His rule would include the whole earth, however, and the Gentiles too would live under His authority. The kingdom of heaven that the Old Testament predicted was an earthly kingdom over which God would rule through His Son. It would not just be God's rule over His people from heaven. When the Jews in Jesus' day heard John the Baptist and Jesus calling them to repent for the kingdom of heaven was at hand, what did they think? They understood that the earthly messianic kingdom predicted in the Old Testament was very near. They needed to get ready for it by making some changes.

The simple meaning of "kingdom of heaven" then is God's establishment of heaven's order on earth. Every created being and every human authority would be in subjection to God. God would overturn everyone and everything that did not recognize His authority. It is the establishment of divine order on earth. It is the supremacy of God's will over human affairs. The establishment of the kingdom of heaven on earth then is the hope of humanity, and it will only transpire as people submit to God's King. It is impossible for people to bring in this kingdom. Only God can bring it in. People just need to get ready because it is coming.

Second, Matthew's Gospel interprets the kingdom. It does not just affirm the coming of the kingdom, but it also explains the order of the kingdom. Specifically it reveals the principle of the kingdom, the practice of the kingdom, and the purpose of the kingdom.

The principle of the kingdom is righteousness. This is one of the major themes in Matthew. Righteousness in Matthew refers to righteous conduct, righteousness in practice rather than positional righteousness. Righteousness is necessary to enter the kingdom and to serve in the kingdom under the King. The words of the King in Matthew constitute the law of the kingdom. They proclaim the principle of righteousness.

The practice of the kingdom is peace. Peace is another major theme in Matthew. When you think of the Sermon on the Mount you may think of these two major themes: righteousness and peace. The kingdom would come not by going to war with Rome and defeating it. It would come by peaceful submission to the King, Jesus. These two approaches to inaugurating the kingdom contrast starkly as we think of Jesus hanging on the cross between two insurrectionists. They tried to establish the kingdom the way most people in Israel thought it would come, by violence. Jesus, on the other hand, submitted to His Father's will, and even though He died He ratified the covenant by which the kingdom will come by dying. He secured the kingdom. Jesus' example of peaceful submission to God's will is to be the model for His disciples. Greatness in the kingdom does not come by self-assertion but by self-sacrifice. The greatest in the kingdom will be the servant of all. The works of the King in Matthew demonstrate the powers of the kingdom moving toward peace.

The purpose of the kingdom is joy. God will establish His kingdom on earth to bring great joy to mankind. This will be the time of greatest fruitfulness and abundance in earth's history. God's will has always been to bless mankind. It is by rebelling against God that man loses his joy. The essence of joy is intimate fellowship with God. This intimate fellowship will be a reality during the kingdom to a greater extent than ever before in history. The will of the King in Matthew is to bless mankind. The Beatitudes express this purpose very clearly (cf. 5:3-12).

Third, Matthew's Gospel stresses the method by which the King will administer the kingdom. It is a three-fold method.

In the first five books of the Old Testament, the Law or Torah, God revealed the need for a high priest to offer a final sacrifice for mankind to God. The last part of Matthew's Gospel, the passion narrative, presents Jesus as the Great High Priest who offered that perfect sacrifice.

In the second part of the Old Testament, the historical books, the great need and expectation is a king who will rule over Israel and the nations in righteousness. The first part of Matthew's Gospel presents Jesus as that long expected King, Messiah.

In the last part of the Old Testament, the prophets, we see the great need for a prophet who could bring God's complete revelation to mankind. The middle part of Matthew's Gospel presents Jesus as the prophet who would surpass Moses and bring God's final revelation to mankind.

God will administer His kingdom on earth through this Person who as King has all authority, as Prophet reveals God's final word of truth, and as Priest has dealt with sin finally. God's administration of His kingdom is in the hands of a King who is the great High Priest and the completely faithful Prophet.

The central teaching of Matthew's Gospel then concerns the kingdom of heaven. The needed response to this Gospel is, "Repent."

In our day Christians differ in their understanding of the meaning of repentance. This difference arises because there are two Greek verbs each of which means, "to repent." One of these is metamelomai. When it occurs, it usually describes an active change. The other word is metanoeo. When it occurs, it usually describes a contemplative change. Consequently when we read "repent" or "repentance" in our English Bibles, we have to ask ourselves whether a change of behavior is in view primarily or a change of mind. Historically the Roman Catholic Church has favored an active interpretation of the nature of repentance whereas Protestants have favored a contemplative interpretation. Catholics say repentance involves a change of behavior while Protestants say it involves a change of thinking essentially. One interpretation stresses the need for a sense of sorrow, and the other stresses the need for a sense of awareness.

The word John the Baptist and Jesus used when they called their hearers to repentance was metanoeo. We could translate it, "Think again." They were calling their hearers to consider the implications of the imminency of the messianic kingdom.

Consideration that the kingdom of heaven was at hand would result in a conviction of sin and a sense of sorrow. These are the inevitable consequences of considering these things. Conviction of a need to change is the consequence of genuine repentance.

Consideration leads to conviction, and conviction leads to conversion. Conversion describes turning from rebellion to submission, from self to the Savior. In relation to the coming kingdom it involves becoming humble and childlike rather than proud and independent. It involves placing confidence in Jesus rather than in self for salvation.

To summarize, we can think of the kind of repenting that John the Baptist, Jesus, and later Jesus' disciples were calling on their hearers to demonstrate as involving consideration, conviction, and conversion. Repentance begins with consideration of the facts. Awareness of these facts brings conviction of personal need. Feeling these personal needs leads to conversion or a turning from what is bad to what is good.

Now let us combine "repent" with "the kingdom of heaven is at hand." Matthew's Gospel calls the reader to consider the kingdom and the King. This should produce the conviction that one is not ready for such a kingdom nor is one ready to face such a King. Then we should submit our lives to the rule of the King and the standards of the kingdom.

Matthew's Gospel proclaims the kingdom. It interprets the kingdom as righteousness, peace, and joy. It reveals that a perfect King who is a perfect prophet and a perfect priest will administer the kingdom. It finally appeals to mankind to repent in view of these realities: to consider, to feel conviction, and to turn in conversion. As readers of this Gospel, we need to get ready, to think again, because the kingdom of heaven is coming.

The church now has the task of calling the world to repent for the kingdom of heaven is at hand. The church is Jesus' disciples collectively. The King is coming back to rule and to reign. People need to prepare for that reality. The church's job is to spread the good news of the King and the kingdom to those who have very different ideas about the ultimate ruler and the real utopia. We face the same problem that Jesus did in His day. Therefore Matthew's Gospel is a great resource for us as we seek to carry out the commission that the King has given us.

Individually we have a responsibility to consider the King and the kingdom, to gain conviction by what we consider, and to change our behavior. Our repentance should involve submission to the King's authority and preparation for kingdom service. We submit to the King's authority as we observe all that He has commanded us. We prepare for kingdom service as we faithfully persevere in the work He has given us to do rather than pursuing our own personal agendas. We can do this joyfully because we have the promise of the King's presence with us and the enablement of His authority behind us (28:18, 20).

Constable: Matthew (Outline)

Outline

I. The introduction of the King 1:1-4:11

A. The King's genealogy 1:1-17

B. The King's birth 1:18-25

C. The King's childhood 2:1-23

1. The prophecy about Bethlehem 2:1-12

2. The prophecies about Egypt 2:13-18

3. The prophecies about Nazareth 2:19-23

D. The King's preparation 3:1-4:11

1. Jesus' forerunner 3:1-12

2. Jesus' baptism 3:13-17

3. Jesus' temptation 4:1-11

II. The authority of the King 4:12-7:29

A. The beginning of Jesus' ministry 4:12-25

1. The setting of Jesus' ministry 4:12-16

2. Jesus' essential message 4:17

3. The call of four disciples 4:18-22

4. A summary of Jesus' ministry 4:23-25

B. Jesus' revelations concerning participation in His kingdom 5:1-7:29

1. The setting of the Sermon on the Mount 5:1-2

2. The subjects of Jesus' kingdom 5:3-16

3. The importance of true righteousness 5:17-7:12

4. The false alternatives 7:13-27

5. The response of the audience 7:28-29

III. The manifestation of the King 8:1-11:1

A. Demonstrations of the King's power 8:1-9:34

1. Jesus' ability to heal 8:1-17

2. Jesus' authority over His disciples 8:18-22

3. Jesus' supernatural power 8:23-9:8

4. Jesus' authority over His critics 9:9-17

5. Jesus' ability to restore 9:18-34

B. Declarations of the King's presence 9:35-11:1

1. Jesus' compassion 9:35-38

2. Jesus' commissioning of 12 disciples 10:1-4

3. Jesus' charge concerning His apostles' mission 10:5-42

4. Jesus' continuation of His work 11:1

IV. The opposition to the King 11:2-13:53

A. Evidences of Israel's opposition to Jesus 11:2-30

1. Questions from the King's forerunner 11:2-19

2. Indifference to the King's message 11:20-24

3. The King's invitation to the repentant 11:25-30

B. Specific instances of Israel's rejection of Jesus ch. 12

1. Conflict over Sabbath observance 12:1-21

2. Conflict over Jesus' power 12:22-37

3. Conflict over Jesus' sign 12:38-45

4. Conflict over Jesus' kin 12:46-50

C. Adaptations because of Israel's rejection of Jesus 13:1-53

1. The setting 13:1-3a

2. Parables addressed to the multitudes 13:3b-33

3. The function of these parables 13:34-43

4. Parables addressed to the disciples 13:44-52

5. The departure 13:53

V. The reactions of the King 13:54-19:2

A. Opposition, instruction, and healing 13:54-16:12

1. The opposition of the Nazarenes and Romans 13:54-14:12

2. The withdrawal to Bethsaida 14:13-33

3. The public ministry at Gennesaret 14:34-36

4. The opposition of the Pharisees and scribes 15:1-20

5. The withdrawal to Tyre and Sidon 15:21-28

6. The public ministry to Gentiles 15:29-39

7. The opposition of the Pharisees and Sadducees 16:1-12

B. Jesus' instruction of His disciples around Galilee 16:13-19:2

1. Instruction about the King's person 16:13-17

2. Instruction about the King's program 16:18-17:13

3. Instruction about the King's principles 17:14-27

4. Instruction about the King's personal representatives ch. 18

5. The transition from Galilee to Judea 19:1-2

VI. The official presentation and rejection of the King 19:3-25:46

A. Jesus' instruction of His disciples around Judea 19:3-20:34

1. Instruction about marriage 19:3-12

2. Instruction about childlikeness 19:13-15

3. Instruction about wealth 19:16-20:16

4. Instruction about Jesus' passion 20:17-19

5. Instruction about serving 20:20-28

6. An illustration of illumination 20:29-34

B. Jesus' presentation of Himself to Israel as her King 21:1-17

1. Jesus' preparation for the presentation 21:1-7

2. Jesus' entrance into Jerusalem 21:8-11

3. Jesus' entrance into the temple 21:12-17

C. Israel's rejection of her King 21:18-22:46

1. The sign of Jesus' rejection of Israel 21:18-22

2. Rejection by the chief priests and the elders 21:23-22:14

3. Rejection by the Pharisees and the Herodians 22:15-22

4. Rejection by the Sadducees 22:23-33

5. Rejection by the Pharisees 22:34-46

D. The King's rejection of Israel ch. 23

1. Jesus' admonition of the multitudes and His disciples 23:1-12

2. Jesus' indictment of the scribes and the Pharisees 23:13-36

3. Jesus' lamentation over Jerusalem 23:37-39

E. The King's revelations concerning the future chs. 24-25

1. The setting of the Olivet Discourse 24:1-3

2. Jesus' warning about deception 24:4-6

3. Jesus' general description of the future 24:7-14

4. The abomination of desolation 24:15-22

5. The second coming of the King 24:23-31

6. The responsibilities of disciples 24:32-25:30

7. The King's judgment of the nations 25:31-46

VII. The crucifixion and resurrection of the King chs. 26-28

A. The King's crucifixion chs. 26-27

1. Preparations for Jesus' crucifixion 26:1-46

2. The arrest of Jesus 26:47-56

3. The trials of Jesus 26:57-27:26

4. The crucifixion of Jesus 27:27-56

5. The burial of Jesus 27:57-66

B. The King's resurrection ch. 28

1. The empty tomb 28:1-7

2. Jesus' appearance to the women 28:8-10

3. The attempted cover-up 28:11-15

4. The King's final instructions to His disciples 28:16-20

Constable: Matthew

Matthew

Bibliography

Abbott-Smith, G. A. A Manual Greek Lexicon of the New Testament. Edinburgh: T. & T. Clark, 1937.

Albright, W. F. and Mann, C. S. Matthew. The Anchor Bible series. Garden City: Doubleday, 1971.

Alford, Henry. The Greek Testament. 4 vols. Reprint ed. Grand Rapids: Baker Book House, n. d.

Allen, Willoughby C. A Critical and Exegetical Commentary on the Gospel According to S. Matthew. 3rd ed. International Critical Commentary on the Holy Scriptures of the Old and New Testaments series. Edinburgh: T. & T. Clark, 1912.

Anderson, Robert. The Coming Prince. Grand Rapids: Kregel Publications, 1975.

Andrews, Samuel J. The Life of Our Lord Upon the Earth. New York: Charles Scribner's Sons, 1891.

Archer, Gleason L., Jr. A Survey of Old Testament Introduction. 1964; revised ed., Chicago: Moody Press, 1974.

Armerding, Carl. The Olivet Discourse. Findlay, Oh.: Dunham Publishing Co., n. d.

The Babylonian Talmud. London: Soncino Press, 1935.

Bailey, Mark L. "A Biblical Theology of Paul's Pastoral Epistles." in A Biblical Theology of the New Testament, pp. 333-67. Edited by Roy B. Zuck. Chicago: Moody Press, 1994.

_____. "Dispensational Definitions of the Kingdom." In Integrity of Heart, Skillfulness of Hands, pp. 201-21. Edited by Charles H. Dyer and Roy B. Zuck. Grand Rapids: Baker Book House, 1994.

_____. "The Doctrine of the Kingdom in Matthew 13." Bibliotheca Sacra 156:624 (October-December 1999):443-51.

_____. "Guidelines for Interpreting Jesus' Parables." Bibliotheca Sacra 155:617 (January-March 1998):29-38.

_____. "The Parable of the Leavening Process." Bibliotheca Sacra 156:621 (January-March 1999):61-71.

_____. "The Parable of the Mustard Seed." Bibliotheca Sacra 155:620 (October-December 1998):449-59.

_____. "The Parable of the Sower and the Soils." Bibliotheca Sacra 155:618 (April-June 1998):172-88.

_____. "The Parable of the Tares." Bibliotheca Sacra 155:619 (July-September 1998):266-79.

_____. "The Parables of the Dragnet and of the Householder." Bibliotheca Sacra 156:623 (July-September 1999):282-96.

_____. "The Parables of the Hidden Treasure and of the Pearl Merchant." Bibliotheca Sacra 156:622 (April-June 1999):175-89.

Bailey, Mark L., and Constable, Thomas L. The New Testament Explorer. Nashville: Word Publishing, 1999.

Baillie, Rebecca A., and Baillie, E. Eugene. "Biblical Leprosy as Compared to Present-Day Leprosy." Christian Medical Society Journal 14:3 (Fall 1983):27-29.

Baly, D. The Geography of the Bible. New York: Harper and Row, 1974.

Barbieri, Louis A., Jr. "Matthew." In Bible Knowledge Commentary: New Testament, pp. 13-94. Edited by John F. Walvoord and Roy B. Zuck. Wheaton: Scripture Press Publications, Victor Books, 1983.

Barclay, William. The Gospel of Matthew. 2 vols. Edinburgh: Saint Andrew Press, 1956.

Barnhouse, Donald Grey. His Own Received Him Not, But . . . New York: Fleming H. Revell Co., 1933.

_____. Romans. Vol. I: Man's Ruin. God's Wrath. Grand Rapids: Wm. B. Eerdmans Publishing Co., 1952.

Barr, James. "Abba Isn't Daddy." Journal of Theological Studies 39 (1988):28-47.

Bauckham, R. J. "The Eschatological Earthquake in the Apocalypse of John." Novum Testamentum 19 (1977):224-33.

Bauer, J. B. "Libera nos a malo." Verbum Domini 34 (1965):12-15.

Bauer, Walter. A Greek-English Lexicon of the New Testament. Translated and revised by William F. Arndt, F. Wilbur Gingrich, and Frederick W. Danker. 2nd ed. Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 1958.

Beasley-Murray, G. R. Baptism in the New Testament. London: Macmillan, 1954.

Bennetch, John Henry. "Matthew: An Apologetic." Bibliotheca Sacra 103 (October 1946):477-84.

Berghuis, Kent D. "A Biblical Perspective on Fasting." Bibliotheca Sacra 158:629 (January-March 2001):86-103.

Berkhof, Louis. Systematic Theology. 4th ed. Grand Rapids: Wm. B. Eerdmans Publishing Co., 1941.

Bernardin, Joseph B. "The Transfiguration." Journal of Biblical Theology 52 (October 1933):181-89.

Bindley, T. Herbert. "Eschatology in the Lord's Prayer." The Expositor 17 (October 1919):315-20.

Blaising, Craig A. "The Fulfillment of the Biblical Covenants." In Progressive Dispensationalism, pp. 174-211. By Craig A. Blaising and Darrell L. Bock. Wheaton: Victor Books, 1993.

Blass, F. and Debrunner, A. A Greek Grammar of the New Testament and Other Early Christian Literature. Translated and revised by Robert W. Funk. Cambridge: University Press, 1961.

Blomberg, Craig L. "Degrees of Reward in the Kingdom of Heaven?" Journal of the Evangelical Theological Society 35:2 (June 1992):159-72.

_____. "Marriage, Divorce, Remarriage, and Celibacy: An Exegesis of Matthew 19:3-12." Trinity Journal 11NS (1990):161-96.

_____. Matthew. New American Commentary series. Nashville, Broadman Press, 1992.

Blum, Edwin A. "Jesus and JAMA." Christian Medical Society Journal 17:4 (Fall 1986):4-11.

Bock, Darrell L. "A Review of The Gospel According to Jesus." Bibliotheca Sacra 146:581 (January-March 1989):21-40.

Bonhoeffer, Dietrich. The Cost of Discipleship. 6th ed. London: SCM, 1959.

Bornkamm, Gunther. "End-Expectation and Church in Matthew." In Tradition and Interpretation in Matthew, pp. 15-51. Edited by Gunther Bornkamm, Gerhard Barth, and H. J. Held. Translated by P. Scott. London: SCM Press, 1963.

_____. "The Stilling of the Storm in Matthew." In Tradition and Interpretation in Matthew, pp. 52-57. Edited by Gunther Bornkamm, Gerhard Barth, and H. J. Held. Translated by P. Scott. London: SCM Press, 1963.

Bowker, John. "The Son of Man." Journal of Theological Studies 28 (1977):19-48.

Breshears, Gerry. "The Body of Christ: Prophet, Priest, or King?" Journal of the Evangelical Theological Society 37:1 (March 1994):3-26.

Brown, Raymond. The Birth of the Messiah. Garden City, N.Y.: Doubleday, 1977.

Bruce, Alexander Balmain. "The Synoptic Gospels." In The Expositor's Greek Testament. Edited by W. Robertson Nicoll. Grand Rapids: Wm. B. Eerdmans Publishing Co., 1910.

Buchler, Adolf. "St. Mathew vi 1-6 and Other Allied Passages." Journal of Theological Studies 10 (1909):266-70.

Burrows, Millar. Burrows on the Dead Sea Scrolls. Grand Rapids: Baker Book House, 1978.

_____. "Thy Kingdom Come." Journal of Biblical Literature 74 (January 1955):1-8.

Burton, Ernest de Witt. Syntax of the Moods and Tenses in NT Greek. Edinburgh: T. & T. Clark, 1894.

Burton, Ernest de Witt, and Goodspeed, Edgar Johnson. A Harmony of the Synoptic Gospels in Greek. 2nd ed. Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 1947.

Byargeon, Rick W. "Echoes of Wisdom in the Lord's Prayer (Matt 6:9-13)." Journal of the Evangelical Theological Society 41:3 (September 1998):353-65.

Calvin, John. Commentary on a Harmony of the Evangelists, Matthew, Mark, and Luke. 3 vols. Translated by William Pringle. Edinburgh: The Calvin Translation Society, 1845.

_____. Institutes of the Christian Religion. 2 vols. Translated by John Allen. Philadelphia: Presbyterian Board of Christain Education, 1936.

Campbell, Donald K. "Interpretation and Exposition of the Sermon on the Mount." Th.D. dissertation, Dallas Theological Seminary, 1953.

Carr, A. The Gospel According To St. Matthew. Cambridge: University Press, 1913.

Carson, Donald A. Divine Sovereignty and Human Responsibility. Atlanta: John Knox Press, 1981.

_____. "Matthew." In Matthew-Luke. Vol. 8 of Expositor's Bible Commentary. 12 vols. Edited by Frank E. Gaebelein and J. D. Douglas. Grand Rapids: Zondervan Publishing House, 1984.

_____. "Redaction Criticism: On the Legitimacy and Illegitimacy of a Literary Tool." In Scripture and Truth, pp. 119-42. Edited by D. A. Carson and J. D. Woodbridge. Grand Rapids: Zondervan Publishing House, 1983.

_____. The Sermon on the Mount. Grand Rapids: Baker Book House, 1978.

Catchpole, David R. "The Answer of Jesus to Caiaphas (Matt. xxvi. 64)." New Testament Studies 17 (1970-71):213-26.

_____. "The Poor on Earth and the Son of Man in Heaven: A Re-appraisal of Matthew xxv. 31-46." Bulletin of the John Rylands Library 61 (1978-79):355-97.

Chafer, Lewis Sperry. Systematic Theology. 8 vols. Dallas: Dallas Seminary Press, 1947.

_____. "The Teachings of Christ Incarnate." Bibliotheca Sacra 108 (October 1951):389-413.

Congdon, Roger D. "Did Jesus Sustain the Law in Matthew 5?" Bibliotheca Sacra 135:538 (April-June 1978):117-25.

Cooper, David L. Messiah: His Historical Appearance. Los Angeles: Biblical Research Society, 1958.

Cranfield, C. E. B. "The Cup Metaphor in Mark xiv. 36 and Parallels." Expository Times 59 (1947-48):137-38.

_____. "St. Mark 13." Scottish Journal of Theology 6 (April 1953):165-96; (July 1953):287-303; 7 (April 1954):284-303.

Crater, Tim. "Bill Gothard's View of the Exception Clause." Journal of Pastoral Practice 4 (1980):5-12.

Cremer, Hermann. Biblico-Theological Lexicon of New Testament Greek. Translated by William Urwick. 4th English ed. Edinburgh: T. & T. Clark, 1895.

Criswell, W. A. Expository Notes on the Gospel of Matthew. Grand Rapids: Zondervan Publishing House, 1961.

Culver, Robert D. "What Is the Church's Commission? Some Exegetical Issues In Matthew 28:16-20." Bibliotheca Sacra 125:499 (July-September 1968):239-53.

Cunningham, Scott, and Bock, Darrell L. "Is Matthew Midrash?" Bibliotheca Sacra 144:574 (April-June 1987):157-80.

Dahl, N. A. Jesus in the Memory of the Early Church. Minneapolis: Augsburg, 1976.

Dalman, Gustaf H.. The Words of Jesus. Translated by D. M. Kay. Edinburgh: T. & T. Clark, 1909.

Darby, John Nelson. Synopsis of the Books of the Bible. 5 vols. Revised ed. New York: Loizeaux Brothers Publishers, 1942.

Daube, D. "The Anointing at Bethany and Jesus' Burial." Anglican Theological Review 32 (1950):187-88.

_____. The New Testament and Rabbinic Judaism. London: Athlone, 1956.

Davidson, Bruce W. "Reasonable Damnation: How Jonathan Edwards Argued for the Rationality of Hell." Journal of the Evangelical Theological Society 38:1 (March 1995):47-56.

Davies, W. D., and Allison, D. C. A Critical and Exegetical Commentary on the Gospel according to Saint Matthew. International Critical Commentary series. 2 vols. Edinburgh: T. & T. Clark, 1988.

Deatrick, Eugene P. "Salt, Soil, Savor." Biblical Archaeologist 25 (1962):41-48.

Deissmann, Adolf. Light from the Ancient East. Translated by Lionel R. M. Strachan. London: Hodder and Stoughton, 1927.

A Dictionary of Christ and the Gospels. Edited by James Hastings. S.v. "Baptism," by Marcus Dodds.

_____. S.v. "Genealogies of Jesus Christ," by P. M. Barnard.

A Dictionary of New Testament Theology. Edited by Colin Brown. S.v. "kardia," by T. Sorg.

_____. S.v. "kathemai," by R. T. France.

_____. S.v. "Leprosy," by R. K. Harrison.

Dillow, Joseph C. The Reign of the Servant Kings. Miami Springs, Fl.: Schoettle Publishing Co., 1992.

Dodd, C. H. The Parables of the Kingdom. London: Nisbet, 1936.

Donaldson, T. L. Jesus on the Mountain: A Study in Matthean Theology. Sheffield: JSOT, 1985.

Donn, T. M. "Let the Dead Bury Their Dead' (Mt. viii. 22, Lk. ix. 60)." Expository Times 61 (September 1950):384.

Doriani, Daniel. "The Deity of Christ in the Synoptic Gospels." Journal of the Evangelical Theological Society 37:3 (September 1994):333-50.

Duling, Dennis C. "The Therapeutic Son of David: An Element in Matthew's Christological Apologetic." New Testament Studies 24 (1978):392-410.

Dunn, James D. G. Jesus and the Spirit: A Study of the Religious and Charismatic Experience of Jesus and the First Christians as Reflected in the New Testament. London: SCM, 1975.

Dyer, Charles H. "Do the Synoptics Depend on Each Other?" Bibliotheca Sacra 138:551 (July-September 1981):230-44.

The Ecclesiastical History of Eusebius Pamphilus. Twin Brooks series. Popular ed. Grand Rapids: Baker Book House, 1974.

Edersheim, Alfred. The Life and Times of Jesus the Messiah. Grand Rapids: Wm. B. Eerdmans Publishing Co., 1971.

_____. The Temple: Its Ministry and Services. London: Religious Tract Society, n. d.

Edgar, Thomas R. "The Cessation of the Sign Gifts." Bibliotheca Sacra 145:580 (October-December 1988):371-86.

_____. "An Exegesis of Rapture Passages." In Issues in Dispensationalism, pp. 203-23. Edited by Wesley R. Willis and John R. Master. Chicago: Moody Press, 1994.

Ellis, Earle E. The Gospel of Luke. New Century Bible series. New York: Thomas Nelson Publishers, 1966.

Ellis, I. P. "But some doubted.'" New Testament Studies 14 (1967-68):574-80.

English, E. Schuyler. Studies in the Gospel According to Matthew. New York: Fleming H. Revell Co., 1935.

Erickson, Millard J. "Is Hell Forever?" Bibliotheca Sacra (July-September 1995):259-72.

Feinberg, Charles Lee. God Remembers, A Study of Zechariah. 4th ed. Portland: Multnomal Press, 1979.

_____. Israel in the Last Days: The Olivet Discourse. Altadena, Ca.: Emeth Publications, 1953.

_____. Premillennialism or Amillennialism? Wheaton: Van Kampen Press, 1954.

Feinberg, Paul D. "Dispensational Theology and the Rapture." In Issues in Dispensationalism, pp. 225-45. Edited by Wesley R. Willis and John R. Master. Chicago: Moody Press, 1994.

Fenton, J. C. Saint Matthew. Westminster Pelican Commentaries series. Philadelphia: Westminster Press, 1978.

Filson, Floyd V. A Commentary on the Gospel According to St. Matthew. London: Adam & Charles Black, 1960.

Fitzmyer, J. A. "Crucifixion in Ancient Palestine, Qumran Literature, and the New Testament." Catholic Biblical Quarterly 40 (1978):493-513.

_____. "The Matthean Divorce Texts and Some New Palestinian Evidence." Theological Studies 37 (1976):208-11.

Fleming, T. V. "Christ and Divorce." Theological Studies 24 (1963):109.

France, R. T. "Exegesis in Practice: Two Samples." In New Testament Interpretation, pp. 252-81. Edited by I. Howard Marshall. Exeter: Paternoster Press, 1977.

_____. "Herod and the Children of Bethlehem," Novum Testamentum 21 (1979):98-120.

_____. Jesus and the Old Testament: His Application of Old Testament Passages to Himself and His Mission. London: Tyndale House Publishers, 1971.

Franzmann, Martin L. Follow Me: Discipleship According to Saint Matthew. St. Louis: Concordia, 1961.

Freed, Edwin D. "The Women in Matthew's Genealogy." Journal for the Study of the New Testament 29 (1987):3-19.

Fruchtenbaum, Arnold G. Israelology: The Missing Link in Systematic Theology. Tustin, Cal.: Ariel Ministries Press, 1989.

Gaebelein, Arno C. The Gospel of Matthew, An Exposition. 2 vols. in 1. Neptune, N. J.: Loizeaux Brothers, 1910.

Garlington, Don B. "Jesus, the Unique Son of God: Tested and Faithful." Bibliotheca Sacra 151:603 (July-September 1994):284-308.

Geisler, Norman L. "A Christian Perspective on Wine-Drinking." Bibliotheca Sacra 139:553 (January-March 1982):46-56.

Geisler, Norman L. and Nix, William E. A General Introduction to the Bible. Chicago: Moody Press, 1968.

Geldard, Mark. "Jesus' Teaching on Divorce." Churchman 92 (1978):134-43.

Glass, Ronald N. "The Parables of the Kingdom: A Paradigm for Consistent Dispensational Hermeneutics." Paper presented at the meeting of the Evangelical Theological Society, Lisle, Illinois, 18 November 1994.

Glover, Richard. A Teacher's Commentary of the Gospel of Matthew. Grand Rapids: Zondervan Publishing House, 1956.

Goebel, Siegfried. The Parables of Jesus. Translated by Professor Banks. Edinburgh: T. & T. Clark, 1913.

Gore, Charles. The Sermon on the Mount. London: John Murray, 1896.

A Greek-English Lexicon of the New Testament. By C. G. Wilke. Revised by C. L. Wilibald Grimm. Translated, revised and enlarged by Joseph Henry Thayer, 1889.

Green, F. W., ed. The Gospel According to Saint Matthew in the Revised Version. The Clarendon Bible series. Oxford: Clarendon Press, 1936.

Grounds, Vernon C. "Mountain Manifesto." Bibliotheca Sacra 128:510 (April-June 1971):135-41.

Guelich, Robert A. "The Matthean Beatitudes: Entrance-Requirements' or Eschatological Blessings?" Journal of Biblical Literature 95 (1973):415-34.

_____. The Sermon on the Mount: A Foundation for Understanding. Waco: Word Books, 1982.

Gundry, Robert H. Matthew: A Commentary on His Literary and Theological Art. Grand Rapids: Wm. B. Eerdmans Publishing Co., 1982.

_____. The Use of the Old Testament in St. Matthew's Gospel, with Special Reference to the Messianic Hope. Leiden: Brill, 1975.

Habershon, Ada R. The Study of the Parables. Grand Rapids: Kregel Publications, 1904.

Hagner, Donald A. Matthew 1-13. Word Biblical Commentary series. Dallas: Word Books, 1993.

_____. Matthew 14-28. Word Biblical Commentary series. Dallas: Word Books, 1995.

Halverson, Richard C. "God and Caesar." Journal of the Evangelical Theological Society 37:1 (March 1994):125-29.

Hare, Douglas R. A. The Theme of Jewish Persecution of Christians in the Gospel According to St. Matthew. Cambridge: University Press, 1967.

Hatch, W. Essays in Biblical Greek. Oxford: Clarendon Press, 1889.

Hay, David M. Glory at the Right Hand: Psalm 110 in Early Christianity. Nashville: Abingdon, 1973.

A Hebrew and English Lexicon of the Old Testament. By William Gesenius. Translated by Edward Robinson. Edited by Francis Brown, S. R. Driver, and Charles A. Briggs, 1906.

Hendriksen, William. New Testament Commentary, Exposition of the Gospel According to Matthew. Grand Rapids: Baker Book House, 1973.

Hengel, G. Crucifixion. London: SCM, 1977.

Hiebert, D. Edmond. "An Expository Study of Matthew 28:16-20." Bibliotheca Sacra 149:595 (July-September 1992):338-54.

Hill, David. The Gospel of Matthew. Grand Rapids: Wm. B. Eerdmans Publishing Co., 1972.

Hodges, Zane C. "Form-Criticism and the Resurrection Accounts." Bibliotheca Sacra 124:496 (October-December 1967):339-48.

_____. Grace in Eclipse. Dallas: Redencion Viva, 1981.

_____. "Possessing the Kingdom." The KERUGMA Message 1:1 (May-June 1991):1-2; 1:2 (July-August 1991):1-2; 1:3 (November-December 1991):1, 4; 2:1 (Spring 1992):1, 4; 2:2 (Winter 1992):1, 5-6.

Hoehner, Harold W. Chronological Aspects of the Life of Christ. Contemporary Evangelical Perspectives series. Grand Rapids: Zondervan Publishing House, 1977.

_____. Herod Antipas. Cambridge: University Press, 1972.

Hogg, C. F., and Watson, J. B. On the Sermon on the Mount. 2nd ed. London: Pickering and Inglis, 1934.

Hooker, Morna D. The Son of Man in Mark. London: SPCK, 1967.

Howard, Tracy L. "The Use of Hosea 11:1 in Matthew 2:15: An Alternative Solution." Bibliotheca Sacra 143:572 (October-December 1986):314-28.

Huffman, Norman A. "Atypical Features in the Parables of Jesus." Journal of Biblical Literature 97 (1978):207-20.

Hunter, Archibald M. The Message of the New Testament. Philadelphia: Wesminster Press, 1944.

_____. A Pattern for Life: An Exposition of the Sermon on the Mount. Rev. ed. Philadelphia: Westminster Press, 1966.

Hutchison, John C. "Women, Gentiles, and the Messianic Mission in Matthew's Genealogy." Bibliotheca Sacra 158:630 (April-June 2001):152-64.

Irenaeus. Against Heresies. Vol. 1 of The Ante-Nicene Fathers. 10 vols. Edinburgh: T. & T. Clark, and Grand Rapids: Wm. B. Eerdmans Publishing Co., 1989.

Jensen, Joseph. "Does porneia Mean Fornication? A Critique of Bruce Malina." Novum Testamentum 20 (1978):161-84.

Jeremias, J. Jerusalem in the Time of Jesus. 3rd ed. Translated by F. H. and C. H. Cave. London: SCM, 1962.

_____. New Testament Theology. Part I. The Proclamation of Jesus. Translated by John Bowden. London: SCM, 1971.

_____. The Parables of Jesus. Translated by S. H. Hooke. London: SCM, 1963.

_____. The Prayers of Jesus. Translated by John Bowden and Christoph Burchard. London: SCM, 1967.

Johnson, L. T. "The New Testament's Anti-Jewish Slander and Conventions of Ancient Rhetoric." Journal of Biblical Literature 108 (1989):419-41.

Johnson, M. D. The Purpose of Biblical Genealogies. 2nd ed. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1988.

Johnson, S. Lewis, Jr. "The Agony of Christ." Bibliotheca Sacra 124:496 (October-December 1967):303-13.

_____. "The Argument Of Matthew," Bibliotheca Sacra 112:446 (April 1955):143-53.

_____. "The Baptism of Christ." Bibliotheca Sacra 123:491 (July-September 1966):220-29.

_____. "The Death of Christ." Bibliotheca Sacra 125:497 (January-March 1968):10-19.

_____. "The Message Of John the Baptist." Bibliotheca Sacra 113:449 (January 1956):30-36.

_____. "The Temptation of Christ." Bibliotheca Sacra 123:492 (October-December 1996):342-52.

_____. "The Transfiguration of Christ." Bibliotheca Sacra 124:494 (April-June 1967):133-43.

_____. "The Triumphal Entry of Christ." Bibliotheca Sacra 124:495 (July-September 1967):218-29.

Josephus, Flavius. The Works of Flavius Josephus. Translated by William Whiston. Antiquities of the Jews and The Wars of the Jews. London: T. Nelson and Sons, 1866.

Kelly, William. Lectures on the Gospel of Matthew. New York: Loizeaux Brothers, n. d.

Kent, Homer A., Jr. "Matthew's Use of the Old Testament." Bibliotheca Sacra 121:481 (January-March 1964):34-43.

Kepler, Thomas. S. Jesus' Design for Living. New York: Abingdon Press, 1955.

Kiddle, M. "The Conflict Between the Disciples, the Jews, and the Gentiles in St. Matthew's Gospel." The Journal of Theological Studies 36 (January 1935):33-44.

Kik, J. Marcellus. Matthew Twenty-Four, An Exposition. Swengel, Pa.: Bible Truth Depot, n. d.

Kilgallen, John J. "To What Are the Matthean Exception-Texts [5, 32 and 19, 9] an Exception?" Biblica 61 (1980):102-5.

Kingsbury, Jack Dean. Matthew as Story. 2nd ed. Philadelphia: Fortress Press, 1988.

_____. "The Place, Structure, and Meaning of the Sermon on the Mount within Matthew." Interpretation 41 (1987):131-43.

Kissinger, W. S. The Sermon on the Mount: A History of Interpretation and Bibliography. Metuchen, N.J.: Scarecrow & ATLA, 1975.

Kitchens, Ted G. "Perimeters of Corrective Church Discipline." Bibliotheca Sacra 148:590 (April-June 1991):201-13.

Lachs, S. T. "Some Textual Observations on the Sermon on the Mount." Jewish Quarterly Review 69 (1978):98-111.

Ladd, George E. The Presence of the Future: The Eschatology of Biblical Realism. Grand Rapids: Wm. B. Eerdmans Publishing Co., 1974.

Laney, J. Carl. "The Biblical Practice of Church Discipline." Bibliotheca Sacra 143:572 (October-December 1986):353-64.

Laurenson, L. Messiah, the Prince. New York: Loizeaux Brothers, 1924.

Legrand, L. "The Missionary Command of the Risen Lord Mt 28:16-20." Indian Theological Studies 24:1 (March 1987):5-28.

Leifeld, Walter L. "Theological Motifs in the Transfiguration Narrative." In New Dimensions in New Testament Study, pp. 162-79. Edited by Richard N. Longenecker and Merrill C. Tenney. Grand Rapids: Zondervan Publishing House, 1974.

Lenski, Richard C. H. The Interpretation of St. Matthew's Gospel. Minneapolis: Wartburg Press, 1943.

Levertoff, Paul J. St. Matthew (Revised Version). London: Thomas Murby & Co., 1940.

Levinskaya, Irena. The Book of Acts in Its Diaspora Setting. Vol. 5 of The Book of Acts in Its First Century Setting, edited by Bruce W. Winter. Grand Rapids: Wm. B. Eerdmans Publishing Co., and Carlisle, England: Paternoster Press, 1996.

Lewis, Jack P. "The Gates of Hell Shall Not Prevail Against It' (Matt 16:18): A Study of the History of Interpretation." Journal of the Evangelical Theological Society 38:3 (September 1996):349-67.

Lindars, Barnabas. New Testament Apologetic. London: SCM, 1961.

Lowery, David K. "Evidence from Matthew." In A Case for Premillennialism: A New Consensus, pp. 165-80. Edited by Donald K. Campbell and Jeffrey L. Townsend. Chicago: Moody Press, 1992.

_____. "A Theology of Matthew." In A Biblical Theology of the New Testament, pp. 19-63. Edited by Roy B. Zuck. Chicago: Moody Press, 1994.

Maalouf, Tony T. "Were the Magi from Persia or Arabia?" Bibliotheca Sacra 156:624 (October-December 1999):423-42.

MacArthur, John F., Jr. The Gospel According to Jesus. Grand Rapids: Zondervan Publishing House, Academie Books, 1988.

Machen, J. Gresham. The Virgin Birth of Christ. London: Marshall, Morgan & Scott, 1930.

Major, H. D. A. Basic Christianity. Oxford: Basil Blackwell, 1944.

Major, H. D. A., Manson, T. W., and Wright, C. J. The Mission and Message of Jesus. New York: E. P. Dutton and Co., Inc., 1938.

Manson, T. W. The Sayings of Jesus. London: SCM, 1949.

Marshall, I. Howard. The Gospel of Luke: A Commentary on the Greek Text. New International Greek Testament Commentary series. Exeter, England: Paternoster Press, 1978.

_____. Kept by the Power of God. Minneapolis: Bethany House Publishers, 1969.

Martin, John A. "Christ, the End of the Law in the Sermon on the Mount." In Dispensationalism, Israel and the Church: The Search for Definition, pp. 248-63. Edited by Craig A. Blaising and Darrell L. Bock. Grand Rapids: Zondervan Publishing House, 1992.

_____. "Dispensational Approaches to the Sermon on the Mount." In Essays in Honor of J. Dwight Pentecost, pp. 35-48. Edited by Stanley D. Toussaint and Charles H. Dyer. Chicago: Moody Press, 1986.

Marx, Werner G. "Money Matters in Matthew." Bibliotheca Sacra 136:542 (April-June 1979):148-57.

Master, John R. "The New Covenant." In Issues in Dispensationalism, pp. 93-110. Edited by Wesley R. Willis and John R. Master. Chicago: Moody Press, 1994.

Matera, Frank J. Passion Narratives and Gospel Theologies: Interpreting the Synoptics through Their Passion Stories. Theological Inquiries series. New York: Paulist Press, 1986.

Maticich, Karen Kristine. "Reflections on Tractate Shekalim." Exegesis and Exposition 3:1 (Fall 1988):58-60.

Mattill, A. J. Jr. "The Way of Tribulation.'" Journal of Biblical Literature 98 (1979):531-46.

McClain, Alva J. The Greatness of the Kingdom, An Inductive Study of the Kingdom of God. Winona Lake, Ind.: BMH Books, 1959.

McClister, David. "Where Two or Three Are Gathered Together': Literary Structure as a Key to Meaning in Matt 17:22-20:19." Journal of the Evangelical Theological Society 39:4 (December 1996):549-58.

McHugh, John. The Mother of Jesus in the New Testament. Garden City: Doubleday, 1975.

McKeating, Henry. "Sanctions Against Adultery in Ancient Israelite Society." Journal for the Study of the Old Testament 11 (1979):57-72.

McPheeters, William M. "Christ As an Interpreter of Scripture." The Bible Student 1 (April 1900):223-29.

Meier, John P. "Nations or Gentiles in Matthew 28:19." Catholic Biblical Quarterly 39 (1977):94-102.

Merrill, Eugene H. "The Book of Ruth: Narration and Shared Themes." Bibliotheca Sacra 142:566 (April-June 1985):130-41.

_____. "Deuteronomy, New Testament Faith, and the Christian Life." In Integrity of Heart, Skillfulness of Hands, pp. 19-33. Edited by Charles H. Dyer and Roy B. Zuck. Grand Rapids: Baker Book House, 1994.

_____. Kingdom of Priests: A History of Old Testament Israel. Grand Rapids: Baker Book House, 1987.

_____. "The Sign of Jonah." Journal of the Evangelical Theological Society 23 (1980):23-30.

Metzger, Bruce M. "The Nazareth Inscription Once Again." In Jesus und Paulus, pp. 221-38. Edited by E. Earle Ellis and Max Wilcox. Gottingen: Vandenhoeck und Ruprecht, 1975.

_____. A Textual Commentary on the Greek New Testament. London: United Bible Societies, 1971.

Meyer, Ben F. The Aims of Jesus. London: SCM Press, 1979.

Michaels, J. R. "Apostolic Hardships and Righteous Gentiles." Journal of Biblical Literature 84 (1965):27-37.

Miller, Earl. The Kingdom of God and the Kingdom of Heaven. Meadville, Pa.: By the Author, 1950.

The Mishnah. Translated by Herbert Danby. London: Oxford University Press, 1933.

M'Neile, Alan Hugh. The Gospel According to St. Matthew. London: Macmillan & Co., 1915.

Moloney, Francis J. "Matthew 19, 3-12 and Celibacy. A Redactional and Form-Critical Study." Journal for the Study of the New Testament 2 (1979):42-60.

Montefiore, C. G. "Rabbinic Conceptions of Repentance." Jewish Quarterly Review 16 (January 1904):209-57.

_____. The Synoptic Gospels. 2 vols. Rev. ed. New York: KTAV, 1968.

Montefiore, C. G., and Loewe, H. A Rabbinic Anthology. London: Macmillan, 1938.

Moo, Douglas J. "The Use of the Old Testament in the Passion Texts of the Gospels." Ph.D. dissertation, University of St. Andrews, 1979.

Moore, G. F. Judaism in the First Centuries of the Christian Era. 3 vols. Cambridge: Harvard University Press, 1927-30.

Morgan, G. Campbell. The Gospel According to Matthew. New York: Fleming H. Revell Co., 1929.

_____. Living Messages of the Books of the Bible. 2 vols. New York: Fleming H. Revell Co., 1912.

Morison, Frank [pseud.]. Ross, Albert Henry. Who Moved the Stone? London: Faber and Faber, 1930. Reprint ed. Grand Rapids: Zondervan Publishing House, Lamplighter Books, 1976.

Morison, James. A Practical Commentary on the Gospel According to St. Matthew. Boston: N. J. Bartlett & Co., 1884.

Morris, Leon. The Apostolic Preaching of the Cross. London: Tyndale Press, 1965.

_____. The Gospel According to John. New International Commentary on the New Testament series. Grand Rapids: Wm. B. Eerdmans Publishing Co., 1971.

Moule, C. F. D. An Idiom Book of New Testament Greek. 2nd ed. London: Cambridge University Press, 1959.

Moulton, James Hope, and Milligan, George. The Vocabulary of the Greek Testament. Grand Rapids: Wm. B. Eerdmans Publishing Co., 1930.

Moulton, Mark. "Jesus' Goal for Temple and Tree: A Thematic Revisit of Matt 21:12-22." Journal of the Evangelical Theological Society 41:4 (December 1998):561-72.

Mounce, William D. Basics of Biblical Greek: Grammar. Grand Rapids: Zondervan Publishing House, 1993.

Mueller, James R. "The Temple Scroll and the Gospel Divorce Texts." Revue de Qumran 38 (1980):247-56.

Murray, John. Redemption--Accomplished and Applied. Grand Rapids: Wm. B. Eerdmans Publishing Co., 1955.

Nelson, Neil D., Jr. "This Generation" in Matt 24:34: A Literary Critical Perspective." Journal of the Evangelical Theological Society 38:3 (September 1996):369-85.

The New Bible Dictionary. Edited by J. D. Douglas. S.v. "Pilate," by D. H. Wheaton.

_____. S.v. "Chinnereth," by R. F. Hosking.

Newman, Albert H. A Manual of Church History. 2 vols. Chicago: American Baptist Press, 1931.

Nickelsburg, G. W. E. Resurrection, Immortality and Eternal Life in Intertestamental Judaism. Cambridge: Harvard University Press, 1972.

Nouwen, Henri J. M. In the Name of Jesus: Reflections on Christian Leadership. New York: Crossroad, 1994.

Overstreet, R. Larry. "Roman Law and the Trial of Jesus." Bibliotheca Sacra 135:540 (October-December 1978):323-32.

Pagenkemper, Karl E. "Rejection Imagery in the Synoptic Parables." Bibliotheca Sacra 153:610 (April-June 1996):179-98; 611 (July-September 1996):308-31.

Parrot, Andre. Golgotha and the Chruch of the Holy Sepulchre. Translated by E. Hudson. London: SCM, 1957.

Patai, Raphael. The Messianic Texts. Detroit: Wayne State University Press, 1979.

Payne, Philip B. "Jesus' Implicit Claim to Deity in His Parables." Trinity Journal 2NS:1 (Spring 1981):3-23.

Penner, James A. "Revelation and Discipleship in Matthew's Transfiguration Account." Bibliotheca Sacra 152:606 (April-June 1995):201-10.

Pentecost, J. Dwight. "The Biblical Covenants and the Birth Narratives." In Walvoord: A Tribute, pp. 257-70. Edited by Donald K. Campbell. Chicago: Moody Press, 1982.

_____. The Parables of Jesus. Grand Rapids: Zondervan Publishing House, 1982.

_____. The Words and Works of Jesus Christ. Grand Rapids: Zondervan Publishing House, 1981.

_____. Thy Kingdom Come. Wheaton: Scripture Press Publications, Victor Books, 1990.

Perowne, S. The Life and Times of Herod the Great. London: Hodder and Stoughton, 1956.

Peters, George N. D. The Theocratic Kingdom of Our Lord Jesus, the Christ, as Covenanted in the Old Testament and Presented in the New Testament. 3 vols. New York: Funk and Wagnalls, 1884; reprint ed., Grand Rapids: Kregel Publications, 1972.

Peterson, Robert A. "Does the Bible Teach Annihilationism?" Bibliotheca Sacra 156:621 (January-March 1999):13-27.

_____. "A Traditionalist Response to John Stott's Arguments for Annihilationism." Journal of the Evangelical Theological Society 37:4 (December 1994):553-68.

Pettingill, William L. Simple Studies in Matthew. Findlay, Oh.: Dunham Publishing Co., n. d.

Plummer, Alfred. An Exegetical Commentary on the Gospel According to S. Matthew. Grand Rapids: Wm. B. Eerdmans Publishing Co., 1953.

Price, J. Randall. "Prophetic Postponement in Daniel 9 and Other Texts." In Issues in Dispensationalism, pp. 133-65. Edited by Wesley R. Willis and John R. Master. Chicago: Moody Press, 1994.

Proctor, John. "Fire in God's House: Influence of Malachi 3 in the NT." Journal of the Evangelical Theological Society 36:1 (March 1993):9-14.

Przybylski, Benno. Righteousness in Matthew and His World of Thought. Cambridge: University Press, 1980.

Rawlinson, A. E. J. The Gospel According to St. Mark. 5th ed. London: Methuen, 1942.

Rice, Edwin W. People's Commentary on the Gospel of Matthew. Philadelphia: American Sunday School Union, 1887.

Robertson, Archibald, T. A Grammar of the Greek New Testament in the Light of Historical Research. Nashville: Broadman Press, 1934.

_____. A Harmony of the Gospels for Students of the Life of Christ. New York: Harper & Row, 1922.

_____. Word Pictures in the New Testament. 6 vols. Nashville: Broadman Press, 1930.

Robertson, Paul E. "First-Century Jewish Marriage Customs." Biblical Illustrator 13:1 (Fall 1986):33-36.

Robinson, J. M. Editor. The Nag Hammadi Library in English. New York: Harper and Row, 1977.

Robinson, Theodore H. The Gospel of Matthew. Moffatt New Testament Commentary series. London: Hodder and Stoughton, 1928.

Rogers, Cleon. "The Great Commission." Bibliotheca Sacra 130:519 (July-September 1973):258-67.

Ryrie, Charles C. Dispensationalism Today. Chicago: Moody Press, 1965.

Sahl, Joseph G. "The Impeccability of Jesus Christ." Bibliotheca Sacra 140:557 (January-March 1983):11-20.

Saucy, Mark. "The Kingdom-of-God Sayings in Matthew." Bibliotheca Sacra 151:602 (April-June 1994):175-97.

_____. "Miracles and Jesus' Proclamation of the Kingdom of God." Bibliotheca Sacra 153:611 (July-September 1996):281-307.

Saucy, Robert L. The Case for Progressive Dispensationalism. Grand Rapids: Zondervan Publishing House, 1993.

_____. "The Presence of the Kingdom and the Life of the Church." Bibliotheca Sacra 145:577 (January-March 1988):30-46.

Sauer, Erich. The Triumph of the Crucified. Translated by G. H. Lang. Grand Rapids: Wm. B. Eerdmans Publishing Co., 1951.

Scharen, Hans. "Gehenna in the Synoptics." Bibliotheca Sacra 149:595 (July-September 1992):324-37; 149:596 (October-December 1992):454-70.

Schweitzer, Albert. The Quest of the Historical Jesus. Translated by W. Montgomery. New York: Macmillan Co., 1961.

Scofield, C. I., ed. The New Scofield Reference Bible. New York: Oxford University Press, 1967.

_____. The Scofield Reference Bible. New York: Oxford University Press, 1917.

Scroggie, W. Graham, A Guide to the Gospels. Old Tappan, N. J.: Fleming H. Revell Co., 1975.

Senior, Donald. The Passion of Jesus in the Gospel of Matthew. Wilmington: Michael Glazier, 1985.

Shepard, J. W. The Christ of the Gospels. Grand Rapids: Wm. B. Eerdmans Publishing Co., 1939.

Showers, Renald E. Maranatha: Our Lord, Come! A Definitive Study of the Rapture of the Church. Bellmawr, N.J.: Friends of Israel Gospel Ministry, 1995.

Sparks, H. F. D. "The Doctrine of the Divine Fatherhood of God in the Gospels." In Studies in the Gospels: Essays in Memory of R. H. Lightfoot, pp. 241-62. Edited by D. E. Nineham. Oxford: Blackwell, 1955.

Spencer, Aída Besançon. "Father-Ruler: The Meaning of the Metaphor Father' for God in the Bible." Journal of the Evangelical Theological Society 39:3 (September 1996):433-42.

Stamm, Frederick Keller. Seeing the Multitudes. New York: Harper & Brothers, 1943.

Stanton, Gerald B. Kept from the Hour. Fourth ed. Miami Springs, Fl.: Schoettle Publishing Co., 1991.

Stauffer, Ethelbert. New Testament Theology. Translated by John Marsh. London: SCM Press, 1955.

Stein, Robert H. "Wine-Drinking in New Testament Times." Christianity Today 19:19 (June 20, 1975):9-11.

Stonehouse, Ned B. The Witness of Matthew and Mark to Christ. Grand Rapids: Wm. B. Eerdmans Publishing Co., 1944.

Storms, C. Samuel. Reaching God's Ear. Wheaton: Tyndale House Publishers, 1988.

Stott, John R. W. The Message of the Sermon on the Mount. Downers Grove, Il.: InterVarsity Press, 1978.

Stoutenburg, Dennis C. "Out of my sight!', Get behind me!', or Follow after me!': There Is No Choice in God's Kingdom." Journal of the Evangelical Theological Society 36:1 (March 1993):173-78.

Stowe, C. E. "The Eschatology of Christ, With Special Reference to the Discourse in Matt. XXIV. and XXV." Bibliotheca Sacra 7 (July 1850):452-78.

Sukenik, E. L. Ancient Synagogues in Palestine and Greece. London: Oxford University Press, 1934.

Tasker, R. V. G. The Gospel According to St. Matthew: An Introduction and Commentary. Tyndale New Testament Commentaries series. Grand Rapids: Wm. B. Eerdmans Publishing Co., 1961.

Tatum, W. Barnes, Jr. "Matthew 2.23." The Bible Translator 27 (1976):135-38.

Taylor, Vincent. The Gospel According to St. Mark. London: Macmillan, 1952.

Tenney, Merrill C. The Genius of the Gospels. Grand Rapids: Wm. B. Eerdmans Publishing Co., 1951.

Theological Dictionary of the New Testament. Edited by Gerhard Kittel. S.v. "makarios," by F. Hauck.

_____. S.v. "polloi," by Joachim Jeremias.

_____. S.v. "porne . . .," by F. Hauck and S. Schulz.

_____. S.v. "telones," by Otto Michel.

Theological Dictionary of the Old Testament. Edited by G. Johannes Botterweck and Helmer Ringgren. Translated by David E. Green. S.v. "Chebel," by H. J. Fabry.

Thiessen, Henry C. Introduction to the New Testament. Grand Rapids: Wm. B. Eerdmans Publishing Co., 1943.

Thistleton, A. C. "Realized Eschatology at Corinth." New Testament Studies 24 (1977):510-26.

Thomas, W. H. Griffith. Outline Studies of the Gospel of Matthew. Grand Rapids: William B. Eerdmans Publishing Co., 1961.

Torrey, Charles C. "The Foundry of the Second Temple at Jerusalem." Journal of Biblical Literature 55 (December 1936):247-60.

Toussaint, Stanley D. Behold the King: A Study of Matthew. Portland: Multnomah Press, 1980.

_____. "The Contingency of the Coming of the Kingdom." In Integrity of Heart, Skillfulness of Hands, pp. 222-37. Edited by Charles H. Dyer and Roy B. Zuck. Grand Rapids: Baker Book House, 1994.

_____. "The Introductory and Concluding Parables of Matthew Thirteen." Bibliotheca Sacra 121:484 (October-December 1964):351-55.

Trench, Richard C. Notes on the Parables of Our Lord. New York: Appleton, 1851.

_____. Studies in the Gospels. 3rd ed. Grand Rapids: Baker Book House, 1979.

_____. Synonyms of the New Testament. New ed. London: Kegan Paul, Trench, Trubner & Co. Ltd., 1915.

Trilling, Wolfgang .Das wahre Israel: Studien zur Theologie des Matthaus-Evangeliums. Munchen: Kosel, 1964.

Turner, David L. "The Structure and Sequence of Matthew 24:1-41: Interaction with Evangelical Treatments." Grace Theological Journal 10:1 (Spring 1989):3-27.

Turner, Nigel. Syntax. Vol. 3 of J. H. Moulton. A Grammar of New Testament Greek. Edinburgh: T. & T. Clark, 1963.

Vawter, Bruce. "Divorce and the New Testament." Catholic Biblical Quarterly 39 (1977):528-48.

_____. "The Divorce Clauses in Mt 5, 32 and 19, 9." Catholic Biblical Quarterly 16 (1959):155-67.

Vincent, Marvin R. Word Studies in the New Testament. 4 vols. New York: Charles Scribner's Sons, 1887; reprint ed., Grand Rapids: Wm. B. Eerdmans Publishing Co., 1946.

Walvoord, John F. "Christ's Olivet Discourse on the End of the Age." Bibliotheca Sacra 128:510 (April-June 1971):109-16; 128:511 (July-September 1971):206-14; 128:512 (October-December 1971):316-26; 129:513 (January-March 1972):20-32; 129:514 (April-June 1972):99-105; 129:515 (July-September 1972):206-10; 129:516 (October-December 1972):307-15.

_____. "The Kingdom of Heaven." Bibliotheca Sacra 124:495 (July-September 1967):195-205.

_____. Matthew: Thy Kingdom Come. Chicago: Moody Press, 1974.

_____. The Millennial Kingdom. Findlay, Oh.: Dunham Publishing Co., 1959.

Ware, Bruce A "Is the Church in View in Matthew 24-25?" Bibliotheca Sacra 138:550 (April-June 1981):158-72.

Warfield, Benjamin B. "Jesus' Alleged Confession of Sin." Princeton Theological Review 12 (1914):127-228.

_____. Selected Shorter Writings. 2 vols. Edited by John E. Meeter. Nutley, N.J.: Presbyterian and Reformed, 1970.

Wenham, David. "Jesus and the Law: an Exegesis on Matthew 5:17-20." Themelios 4:3 (April 1979):92-26.

_____. "The Structure of Matthew XIII." New Testament Studies 25 (1979):516-22.

Wenham, G. J. "May Divorced Christians Remarry?" Churchman 95 (1981):150-61.

Wenham, J. W. "When Were the Saints Raised?" Journal of Theological Studies 32 (1981):150-52.

Westcott, Brooke Foss. The Gospel According to St. John. 2 vols. London: John Murray, 1908.

Westerholm, Stephen. "The Law in the Sermon on the Mount: Matt 5:17-48." Criswell Theological Review 6:1 (Fall 1992):43-56.

Wilkin, Robert N. "A Great Buy!" The Grace Evangelical Society News 6:9 (September 1991):2.

_____. "Is Confessing Christ a Condition of Salvation?" The Grace Evangelical Society News 9:4 (July-August 1994):2-3.

_____. "Not Everyone Who Says Lord, Lord' Will Enter the Kingdom: Matthew 7:21-23." The Grace Evangelical Society News 3:12 (December 1988):2-3.

_____. "The Parable of the Four Soils: Do the Middle Two Soils Represent Believers or Unbelievers? (Matthew 13:20-21)." The Grace Evangelical Society News 3:8 (August-September 1988):2.

_____. "Self-Sacrifice and Kingdom Entrance: Matthew 5:29-30." The Grace Evangelical Society News 4:8 (August 1989):2; 4:9 (September 1989):2-3.

Winer, George Benedict. Grammar of the Idiom of the New Testament. Translated from the 7th German ed. by J. Henry Thayer. Philadelphia: Smith, English, & Co., 1874.

Yamauchi, Edwin M. "Cultural Aspects of Marriage in the Ancient World." Bibliotheca Sacra 135:539 (July-September 1978):241-52.

Zondervan Pictorial Encyclopedia of the Bible. Edited by Merrill C. Tenney. S.v. "phylactery," by J. Arthur Thompson.

_____. S.v. "Pilate, Pontius," by J. G. Vos.

Copyright 2003 by Thomas L. Constable

@pict rend=gs.pixel ent=p40mat-2@

@pict rend=gs.pixel ent=p40mat-3@

@pict rend=gs.pixel ent=p40mat-4@

@pict rend=gs.pixel ent=p40mat-5@

Haydock: Matthew (Book Introduction)

THE

HOLY GOSPEL OF JESUS CHRIST,

ACCORDING TO ST. MATTHEW

INTRODUCTION.

THIS and other titles, with the names of those that wrote the Gospels, are not the words of the Evangelists themselves. The Scripture itself nowhere teacheth us, which books or writings are to be received as true and canonical Scriptures. It is only by the channel of unwritten traditions , and by the testimony and authority of the Catholic Church, that we know and believe that this gospel, for example of St. Matthew, with all contained in it, and that the other books and parts of the Old or New Testament, are of divine authority, or written by divine inspiration; which made St. Augustine say, I should not believe the gospel, were I not moved thereunto by the authority of the Catholic Church: Ego evangelio non crederem, nisi me Ecclesiæ Catholicæ commoveret auctoritas. ( Lib. con. Epist. Manichæi, quam vocant fundamenti. tom. viii. chap. 5, p. 154. A. Ed. Ben.) (Witham)

S. MATTHEW, author of the gospel that we have under his name, was a Galilean, the son of Alpheus, a Jew, and a tax-gatherer; he was known also by the name of Levi. His vocation happened in the second year of the public ministry of Christ; who, soon after forming the college of his apostles, adopted him into that holy family of the spiritual princes and founders of his Church. Before his departure from Judea, to preach the gospel to distant countries, he yielded to the solicitations of the faithful; and about the eighth year after our Saviour's resurrection, the forty-first of the vulgar era, he began to write his gospel: i.e., the good tidings of salvation to man, through Christ Jesus, our Lord. Of the hagiographers, St. Matthew was the first in the New, as Moses was the first in the Old Testament. And as Moses opened his work with the generation of the heavens and the earth, so St. Matthew begins with the generation of Him, who, in the fullness of time, took upon himself our human nature, to free us from the curse we had brought upon ourselves, and under which the whole creation was groaning. (Haydock) ---This holy apostle, after having reaped a great harvest of souls in Judea, preached the faith to the barbarous nations of the East. He was much devoted to heavenly contemplation, and led an austere life; for he eat no flesh, satisfying nature with herbs, roots, seeds, and berries, as Clement of Alexanderia assures us, Pædag. lib. ii. chap. 1. St. Ambrose says, that God opened to him the country of the Persians. Rufinus and Socrates tell us, that he carried the gospel into Ethiopia, meaning probably the southern or eastern parts of Asia. St. Paulinus informs us, that he ended his course in Parthia; and Venantius Fortunatus says, by martyrdom.--- See Butler's Saints' Lives, Sept. 21 st.

Gill: Matthew (Book Introduction)

INTRODUCTION TO MATTHEW

The subject of this book, and indeed of all the writings of the New Testament, is the Gospel. The Greek word ευαγγελιον signifies a joyful message, good news, glad tidings of good things; such as Christ was anointed to preach, the Angels brought to the shepherds, and the Evangelists, Apostles, and Ministers of Christ published to the world. Isa 61:1. And such is the account given by this inspired writer, of the incarnation, life, actions, ministry, miracles, sufferings, and death of Jesus Christ; whereby peace and reconciliation, pardon and righteousness, atonement and redemption, life and salvation, are obtained for lost, perishing sinners. The Jews, to whom the message of grace was first sent, and among whom the Gospel was first preached, having despised and rejected it; they and their posterity, in allusion to the word "Evangelion", most wickedly and blasphemously call the whole New Testament, און גליון or וצן גליון "Aven Gilion" ^a, a "revelation", or "volume of iniquity and vanity"; but "blessed are the people that know the joyful sound", see Psa 89:15. The writer of this Gospel, Matthew, who also was called Levi in Luk 5:27 was by occupation a publican, or tax-gatherer, and was in his employ when Christ called him by his grace. He was one of the twelve Apostles sent forth by Christ to preach the Gospel of the kingdom, Mat 10:3 and was honoured to be the first of the writers of the New Testament, and to be the first publisher therein of the good news of the incarnate Saviour; and was a wonderful instance of the rich and sovereign grace of God. Though he was employed in collecting the Roman tax, yet he was of Jewish extract; as appears from his being called the son of Alphaeus, Mar 2:14 and from his name Matthew Levi; for as the latter, so the former is an Hebrew name. The Jews say ^b one of the disciples of Jesus was called yatm, Matthai or Matthew: his name signifies a "gift" or "given"; he was one of those the Father had given to Christ, and was kept by him, when the son of perdition was lost, Joh 17:6. It may not be improper to inquire in what language this Gospel was written. The ancient Christian writers were generally of opinion, that Matthew wrote it in Hebrew; Papias and ^c Pantaenus were of this mind, as also Irenaeus ^d, Origen ^e Eusebius ^f, Athanasius ^g, Epiphanius ^h, and Jerom ⁱ; and it is asserted in the titles of the Arabic and Persic versions, and at the end of the Syriac version of this Gospel, that it was written in that language; and this opinion is espoused by Grotius and Hammond, though justly exploded by others; for what has been published by Munster, Mercer, Hutter, and Robertson, are translations, made by themselves or others, and of no antiquity: and since Hebrew and Syriac words are interpreted in this Gospel, see Mat 1:23 which would not have been done, had it been written in either language; and since Matthew generally follows the Septuagint version in the passages cited by him out of the Old Testament; and since the Hebrew language was not generally known at that time to the common people, only to the learned; for the law and the prophets, when read in the synagogues in that language, required an interpreter; and since the Greek tongue was the language more commonly spoken, and the rest of the Evangelists wrote in Greek, and the Gospel was designed for the Gentiles as well as the Jews; it is most reasonable to conclude that this Gospel also was wrote in Greek; whereby that ancient prophecy was fulfilled, at least in part, "God shall enlarge" or "persuade Japheth, and he shall dwell in the tents of Shem", Gen 9:27 the Gospel being published in the language of Japheth, the Greek language, which the Jews, the posterity of Shem, now understood; agreeably to which the Palmudic writers interpret the prophecy; says ^k Bar Kaphra, mentioning the above words,

"They shall speak tpy lv wnwvlb in the language of Japheth, in the tents of Shem;''

or,

"the words of the law shall be spoken in the language of Japheth, in the midst of the tents of Shem ^l.''

R. Jochanan ^m explains them thus:

"tpy lv wyrbr "the words of Japheth" shall be in the tents of Shem; and says R. Chiya ben Aba, the sense of it is, The beauty of Japheth shall be in the tents of Shem.''

Which the gloss interprets thus:

"The beauty of Japheth is the language of Javan, or the Greek language, which language is more beautiful than that of any other of the sons of Japheth.''

The time when this Gospel was written is said ⁿ by some to be in the eighth or ninth, by others, in the fifteenth year after the ascension of Christ, when the Evangelist had received the extraordinary gifts of the Spirit, among which was the gift of tongues; and when the promise of Christ had been made good to him, Joh 14:26.

College: Matthew (Book Introduction)

INTRODUCTION

HISTORY OF INTERPRETATION

It may surprise the modern reader to realize that for the first two centuries of the Christian era, Matthew's Gospel prevailed as the most popular of the Gospel accounts. Not only was Matthew's text the most frequently quoted NT book among second century Christians, in virtually all textual witnesses and canonical lists Matthew is placed first.

Several factors may have contributed to the premier position assigned Matthew's Gospel. Certainly its comprehensive detail and the systematic structuring of ethical and pastoral material contributed to the Gospel's favored place in the church. In addition, the Gospel's popularity was undoubtedly based upon its explicit Jewish tendencies that enabled the church to affirm its Jewish roots while at the same time distancing the Christian movement from the synagogue. In short, both in form and content, Matthew's Gospel provided second century Christianity with an eminently practical and useful compendium of what was foundational to the Christian faith.

The priority and dominance extended Matthew's Gospel prevailed as the consensus for roughly 1700 years, until the early decades of the nineteenth century. With the development of an historical consciousness, and the refinement of literary methodology, questions of historical reliability and Synoptic relationships dominated post-Enlightenment Gospel research. While the chronological priority of Matthew was not immediately challenged, the privileged position given Matthew began to erode as scholarship presupposed that Gospel composition demanded a movement from the "more primitive" to the "more advanced." Mark's size, inferior quality, and seemingly "primitive theology," suggested to many that it was Mark not Matthew that should be regarded as the oldest Gospel, and hence the most reliable for a reconstruction of the life and teachings of Jesus. As a result, Matthew was gradually dismissed by many (esp. German scholarship), as a secondary development, being permeated by late and legendary additions (e.g., birth and infancy stories), representing more church tradition than a factual record of the life and teachings of Jesus.

The emerging nineteenth century consensus of the secondary character of Matthew received its most substantial endorsement in 1863 from H.J. Holtzmann, who argued that Mark wrote first and was used independently by Matthew and Luke. While subsequent defenders of Marcan priority have supplemented the theory with additional sources (e.g., Q, L, and M) to explain Synoptic relationships, the hypothesis that Mark is the earliest of the Gospel narratives has remained the dominant scholarly opinion for the past 100 years.

The initial result of the emergence of Mark as the pivotal document to explain Synoptic relationships was a decline of interest in Matthew in the early decades of this century. It was to Mark, rather than Matthew that scholarship turned either to find raw materials from which to reconstruct the life and teachings of Jesus, or to penetrate to the earliest form of the tradition in order to elucidate the possible factors within the Christian communities that generated the rise and preservation of certain text-forms (Form Criticism). As long as the scholarly agenda was preoccupied with penetrating behind the Gospels to isolate sources or to reconstruct early Christian communities, Matthew's Gospel would remain only of secondary interest.

Graham Stanton singles out the date of 1945 as marking a new phase in Matthean studies. The first two decades after 1945 witness a number of studies addressing Matthean themes or sections of the Gospel that begin to call attention to the editorial skills and theological concerns of the Gospel's author. The shift to an emphasis on the role of the evangelist in his selection, arrangement, and modification of the material he received, brought renewed interest in Matthew as an effective communicator and sophisticated theologian (Redaction Criticism). However, such an assessment was ultimately grounded in the hypothesis of Marcan priority and the subsequent evaluation of how Matthew used Mark as his primary literary source. The result has been an exegetical method overly preoccupied with slight literary deviations from Mark, with little sensitivity to the interconnected sequence of events, and their contribution to the whole Gospel.

Recent years have witnessed a resurgence of studies on Matthew, with many books and articles concerned to elucidate Matthew's Gospel as a "unified narrative" or "story" told by a competent story-teller who organizes his thought into a coherent sequence of events. The new concern for the Gospels as literary masterpieces demands that the reader be attentive to how Matthew develops his themes and focuses his account on a retelling of the story of Jesus in a way that does not merely rehearse the past, but speaks meaningfully as a guide for Christian discipleship.

Rather than reading Matthew through the lens of other Gospels or a hypothetical reconstruction of the evangelist's sources, priority has shifted to the whole Gospel as a unified coherent narrative. It follows that whatever written or oral sources the evangelist may have had access to, the writer has so shaped his composition that it has a life of its own, discernable only by attention to the structure of the parts and their contribution to the whole.

In order to read and appreciate Matthew's story of Jesus one must be attentive to the codes and conventions that govern the literary and social context of the first century. A coherent reading of any document demands an awareness of the literary rules that govern the various types of literature. Knowing the general category of literary genre of a text enables the reader to know what types of questions can legitimately be asked of the material. For example, if one is reading poetry, questions of factual accuracy or scientific precision may not be the most relevant inquiry for ascertaining a text's meaning. Knowing the genre of a writing enables one's understanding to be informed by the features and intentions that characterize the writing, and not by our modern expectations and concerns we may impose upon the text.

While Matthew's Gospel has certain affinities with the literary genres of biography and historiography, the Gospel is not strictly an historical biography. No Gospel writer was driven by an impulse simply to record the facts of what happened with strict chronological precision. In fact, one need only to read the Gospels side by side to see the freedom and creative manner with which each writer communicated his message. The authors have selected, arranged, and interpreted events, characters, and settings in the best way to communicate with their respective audiences. The result is four unique accounts of Jesus' life and teachings told from a particular "point of view," informed both by the primary events and the theological concerns and needs of the expanding church.

Matthew's Gospel builds reflectively upon the primary events to capture the significance of what happened in story form. An appreciation of the literary and communicative skills of the author enables one to recognize in the dramatic sequence of events a carefully constructed "plot." In this way the storyteller communicates his values and theological commitment and seeks to persuade the reader to accept his perspective.

COMPOSITION OF THE GOSPEL

Some issues and questions that may be extremely important for understanding one category of literature may contribute little to the understanding of another. For example, an informed interpretation of Paul's letters necessitates a reconstruction of the world that produced the text. The modern reader would need to know as much as possible about the author, destination of the letter, and the factors that gave rise to the text. The letter itself will constitute a prime source for acquiring such information.

However, when one approaches Gospel narratives with the same concerns the matter is complicated by the lack of information afforded by the text. The anonymity of the Gospels, alongside their silence concerning the place, time, and circumstances that may have generated their writings, necessitates that such historical inquiries be answered in terms of probability. What this means is that there is no direct access, via the text, to the historical author or primary recipients of his document. The difficulty is centered in the fact that the text is not primarily designed to function as a "window" through which to gain access into the mind and environment of the author and original readers. The author does not purport to tell his own story or that of his readers, but the story of Jesus of Nazareth. Fortunately, following the sequential development and sense of Matthew's story of Jesus does not depend on identifying with certainty the author or the historical and social matrix that may have prompted his writing.

In what follows, traditional introductory questions will be briefly discussed, alongside important insights afforded by literary theorists who focus on the Gospels as narratives.

A. AUTHORSHIP

The anonymity of the canonical Gospels necessitates heavy reliance on external evidence as a point of departure to establish Gospel authorship. The external testimony from the second century is virtually unanimous that Matthew the tax collector authored the Gospel attributed to him. Even before explicit patristic testimony regarding Gospel authorship there is convincing evidence that no Gospel ever circulated without an appropriate heading or title (e.g., KATA MAQQAION, "according to Matthew"), identifying the person thought to be the author. The common assumption that the Gospels circulated anonymously until the mid-second century when titles were finally affixed to them has been seriously challenged by Martin Hengel. While certain details of Hengel's theory regarding the origins of Gospel headings have been challenged, the lack of variation in the second-century tradition regarding Matthean authorship could well owe its origin to the time when the Gospels first began to circulate among the Christian communities.

The earliest patristic source addressing Gospel authorship comes from Papias, the Bishop of Hierapolis (ca. 60-130), whose comments are available only in quotations preserved by Eusebius, Bishop of Caesarea (ca. 260-340, H.E. 3.39.14-16). Eusebius' citation of Papias regarding Matthean authorship has been subject to various interpretations dependent upon the translation of key terms. The citation reads:

Matthew collected (sunetavxato, synetaxato , "composed," "compiled," "arranged") the oracles (taÉ lovgia, ta logia , "sayings," "gospel") in the Hebrew language (dialevktw/, dialektô, "Hebrew or Aramaic language," "Semitic style") and each interpreted (hJrmhvneusen, hçrmçneusen, "interpreted," "translated," "transmitted") them as best he could (Eusebius, H.E. 3.39.16).

It appears that patristic testimony subsequent to Papias was dependent upon his testimony and thus perpetuated the tradition of Matthean authorship alongside the notion of an original Semitic version. The testimonies of Irenaeus ( Adv. Haer. 3.1.1), Pantaenus (quoted in H.E. 5.10.3), Origen (quoted in H.E. 6.25.4), Eusebius himself ( H.E. 3.24.6), Epiphanius (quoted in Adv. Haer. 29.l9.4; 30.3.7), Cyril of Jerusalem ( Catecheses 14.15), Jerome ( DeVir. III.3), as well as Gregory of Nazianzus (329-389), Chrysostom (347-407), Augustine (354-430), and Syrian and Coptic authorities are all unanimous in affirming that Matthew authored the first Gospel originally in a Semitic language. However, since the tradition seems ultimately to rest upon the view of Papias, as cited by Eusebius, the accumulated evidence of patristic testimony, in the view of some, has very little independent worth. Especially since the idea of an original Semitic Matthew, from which our Greek Matthew has been translated has been challenged on textual and linguistic grounds. Matthew simply does not read like translated Greek. These and other difficulties with the view of Papias have resulted in many dismissing all patristic testimony concerning Matthean authorship.

While much critical opinion has assumed that Papias' errant view of an original Semitic Matthew discounts his testimony about Matthew being the author, in recent times the evidence afforded by the testimony of Papias has been reassessed. On the one hand, some scholars have argued that the terms Ebrai?di dialevktw/ (Ebraidi dialektô), do not refer to the Hebrew or Aramaic language, but rather to a Jewish style or literary form. In this view, Papias would be referring to Matthew's penchant for Semitic themes and devices, not an original Semitic Gospel. Others have rejected such an interpretation as an unnatural way to read the passage from Papias, and prefer to acknowledge that Papias was simply wrong when he claimed that Matthew was originally written in a Semitic language. However, such an admission does not warrant the complete dismissal of the testimony of Papias concerning the authorship of Matthew. One must still explain how Matthew's name became attached to the first Gospel. The obscurity and relative lack of prominence of the Apostle Matthew argues against the view that the early church would pseudonymously attribute the Gospel to Matthew. Surely, patristic tradition had some basis for attributing the Gospel to Matthew. Therefore, as noted by Davies and Allison, "the simplistic understanding of Papias which dismisses him out of hand must be questioned if not abandoned."

There is nothing inherent in the Gospel itself that convincingly argues against Matthean authorship. Contrary to the view of a few, the decided Jewish flavor of the Gospel argues decisively for the author of the first Gospel being a Jew. Other scholars have noted that Matthew's background and training as a "tax collector" along with other professional skills offers a plausible explanation for the Gospel's sophisticated literary form and attention to detail. Certainly the combined weight of external and internal considerations make the traditional view of Matthean authorship a reasonable, if not a most plausible position. However, in the words of R.T. France there is "an inevitable element of subjectivity in such judgments." Not only is hard data difficult to come by to establish the authorship of any of the Gospels, what is available is often subject to diverse but equally credible explanations. It follows that while the issue of authorship is an intriguing historical problem, it is extremely doubtful that any consensus will ever emerge given the nature of the available evidence.

The question must be raised whether the veracity of the first Gospel or its interpretation are ultimately dependent upon one's verdict concerning authorship. While one's theological bias concerning authorship may influence how the text is evaluated, the two issues are not integrally connected. Since the first Gospel offers very little (if any) insight into the identity of its historical author, recreating the figure behind the Gospel is neither relevant or particularly important for understanding Matthew's story of Jesus. Thus, while I see no compelling reason to abandon the traditional attribution of Matthean authorship to the first Gospel, no significant exegetical or theological concern hangs on the issue.

B. NARRATION OF THE STORY

Of much greater importance than deciding the identity of the author, is an evaluation of the way the author has decided to present his story of Jesus. In literary terms the way a story gets told is called "point of view." A storyteller may tell his story in the first person (i.e., "I"), and portray himself as one of the characters in the story. From a first person point of view the storyteller would necessarily be limited to what he personally has experienced or learned from other characters. Matthew's story is told in a third person narration, wherein the storyteller is not a participant in the story, but refers to characters within the story as "he," "she," or "they." From such a vantage point the Matthean narrator provides the reader with an informational advantage over story characters, and thereby, situates the reader in an advantageous position for evaluating events and characters in the story.

Perhaps the most prominent characteristic of a third person narration is the storyteller's ability to provide the reader with insights which are not normally available to one in real life. His ability to move inside his characters to reveal their innermost thoughts, feelings, emotions, and motivations, enables the reader to use these insights to form evaluations and opinions about characters and events within the story. For example, the narrator reveals when the disciples are amazed (8:29; 21:20), fearful (14:30; 17:6), sorrowful (26:22), filled with grief (17:23), and indignant (26:8). He knows when they understand (16:12; 17:13), and when they doubt (28:17). The overall impact of these insights enables the reader to better evaluate the traits exhibited by the disciples.

Similar insights are provided into the thoughts, emotions, and motivations of minor characters in the story. The inner thoughts of Joseph (1:19), Herod (2:3), the crowds (7:28; 22:33; 9:8; 12:13; 15:31), the woman (9:21), Herod the tetrarch (14:59), Judas (27:3), Pilate (27:14,18), the centurion (27:54), and the reaction of the women at the tomb (28:4,8) are all accessible to the Matthean narrator. The narrator even supplies the reader with inside information about the thoughts and motivations of the Jewish leaders (2:3; 9:3; 12:14; 21:45-46; 26:3-5; 12:10; 16:1; 19:3; 22:15). These insights function to establish in the mind of the reader the antagonist of the story.

The Matthean narrator is also not bound by time or space in his coverage of the story. Matthew provides the reader access to private conversations between Herod and the Magi (2:3-8), John and Jesus (3:13-15), Jesus and Satan (4:1-11), the disciples (16:7), Peter and Jesus (16:23), Judas and the chief priest (26:14-16; 26:40), and Pilate and the chief priest (27:62-64). He makes known to the reader the private decisions made by the chief priest and the Sanhedrin (26:59-60), and the plan of the chief priest and elders concerning the disappearance of the body (28:12-15). The narrator is present when Jesus prays alone, while at the same time he knows the difficulties of the disciples on the sea (14:22-24). He easily takes the reader from the courtroom of Pilate to the courtyard of Peter's denial (26:70f.), and eventually to the scene at the cross (27:45). For the most part, the narrator in Matthew's story stays close to Jesus, and views events and characters in terms of how they affect his main character.

Whoever the actual historical author may be, it is clear that the Matthean storyteller narrates his Gospel in a way to reliably guide his readers through the story so as to properly evaluate events and characters. On occasion the narrator will interrupt the flow of the story in order to provide the reader with an explicit comment or explanation. These intrusions may take the form of various types of descriptions (e.g., 3:4; 17:2; 28:3-4; 27:28-31), summaries (e.g., 4:23-25; 9:35-38; 12:15-16; 14:14; 15:29-31), or explicit interpretive commentary (1:22-23, 2:15, 17-18, 23; 4:15-16; 8:17; 12:17-21; 13:35; 21:4-5; 27:9-10). Detecting the narrator's voice in the story enables the reader to be sensitive to the manner in which Matthew instructs, leads, and encourages the reader to adopt a particular point of view.

SETTING OF THE GOSPEL

Traditional approaches to Gospel introduction usually treat under the heading of "setting" such issues as the date and place of the Gospel's writing, alongside the identity and problems confronting the community addressed. It is important to remember that practically speaking our exclusive source for information about the time and circumstantial factors generating the Gospel's production come only from the Gospel itself. No explicit outside information speaks directly to the issue of the social and historical conditions of the Gospel's primary readers. Essentially, scholarly efforts to establish a life-setting for the writing of the Gospel must search the Gospel for possible clues that hint at the time and circumstances of the writing. The fact that, although reading the same evidence, scholarly proposals for the setting of Matthew's Gospel have resulted in reconstructions that are opposed to one another should give one caution about dogmatic claims in such areas.

A. DATE

Efforts to recover the environmental setting that best explains the form and content of Matthew's Gospel have not resulted in a scholarly consensus. Concerning the date of the Gospel's composition scholars are divided into two broad proposals. The majority view is that Matthew was written after Mark sometime between the dates of A.D. 80-100. However, the arguments adduced to establish such a dating scheme are largely based upon prior judgments concerning the order of Gospel composition or hypothetical reconstructions of developments in the first century. Pivotal to the post-70 dating of Matthew is the contention that Matthew knew and used Mark as a major source for the writing of his Gospel. Since the consensus of scholarly judgment dates Mark in the 60s, it is therefore likely that Matthew composed his Gospel sometime after A.D. 70. Of course, if one rejects Marcan priority or the suggested date for Marcan composition, the argument fails to be convincing.

A post-70 date has also been assumed based upon Matthew's explicit language concerning the destruction of Jerusalem and his references to the "church" (16:18; 18:17). Such language is thought to be anachronistic and therefore indicative of a post-70 composition. The reference to a "king" in the parable of the wedding feast who "sent his army and destroyed those murderers and burned their city" (22:7), appears to reflect historical knowledge of Jerusalem's destruction retrojected into Jesus' ministry as prophecy. However, apart from the fact of whether Jesus could predict Jerusalem's fall, the wording of 22:7, as France observes, "is precisely the sort of language one might expect in a genuine prediction of political annihilation in the Jewish context, and does not depend on a specific knowledge of how things in fact turned out in A.D. 70." There also is no need to read a developed ecclesiology into Jesus' references to the "church." The term ejkklhsiva (ekklçsia) in Matthew says nothing about church order, and with the communal imagery attached to the term in Jewish circles (cf. Qumran), it becomes entirely credible that Jesus could speak of his disciples as constituting an ekklçsia.

Perhaps the most heavily relied upon argument for dating Matthew in the last decades of the first century is the decided Jewish polemic that seemingly dominates the first Gospel. It is thought that formative Judaism in the post-70 period provides the most suitable background for Matthew's portrayal of the Jewish leaders and his underlying view of Israel. After the destruction of the temple in A.D. 70 it was the Pharisaic movement that emerged as the normative form of Judaism. Pharisaism was particularly suited to bring stability and a renewed sense of Jewish identity after the tragedy of A.D. 70. The Pharisees saw themselves as "the most accurate interpreters of the law" (see Josephus, JW 1.5.1; 2.8.14; Life 38.191), and definers of both the social and cultic boundaries delimiting the covenanted people of God. The community addressed by Matthew's Gospel is thought to be a rival to a post-70 formative Judaism, having endured severe hostility and rejection by official Judaism.

However, the evidence does not warrant the supposition that Matthew's community has severed all contact with the Jewish community. Furthermore, not enough is known about pre-70 Pharisaism to emphatically deny a setting for Matthew's Gospel before Jerusalem's destruction. Indeed, an impressive list of scholars have cogently argued for a pre-70 dating of Matthew. Not only does such a view have solid patristic evidence, some passages in Matthew may be intended to imply that the temple was still standing at the time of the Gospel's writing (cf. Matt 5:23-29; 12:5-7; 17:23; 16:22; 26:60-61). It appears that the evidence is not sufficiently decisive so as to completely discredit all competitive views. Fortunately, understanding Matthew's story of Jesus is not dependent upon reconstructing the historical context from which the Gospel emerged.

B. PLACE OF ORIGIN

Even less important for a competent reading of the first Gospel involves the effort to decide the Gospel's precise place of origin. Because of its large Jewish community and strategic role in the Gentile mission most Matthean scholars have opted for Antioch of Syria as the Gospel's place of origin. Other proposals have included Jerusalem, Alexandria, Caesarea, Phoenicia, and simply "east of the Jordan." While certain evidence may tend to weigh in favor of one provenance over another, in the final analysis we cannot be certain where Matthew's Gospel was composed. Nevertheless, as observed by France, deciding "the geographical location in which the Gospel originated is probably the least significant for a sound understanding of the text." Much more relevant to the interpretation of the gospel is the dimension given the discussion of "setting" by a literary reading of the first Gospel.

C. NARRATIVE WORLD

In literary terms the discussion of "setting" does not involve the delineation of factors generating the text, but rather the descriptive context or background in which the action of the story transpires. Settings, as described by the narrator, are like stage props in a theatrical production. Oftentimes, the narrator's description of the place, time, or social conditions in which action takes place is charged with subtle nuances that may generate a certain atmosphere with important symbolic significance. For example, early in Matthew's story the narrator relates places and events to create a distinct atmosphere from which to evaluate his central character, Jesus. The story opens with a series of events that are calculated to evoke memories of Israel's past, and thereby to highlight the significance of the times inaugurated by Jesus. By means of a genealogy, cosmic signs, dream-revelations, the appearance of the "angel of the Lord," and the repeated reference to prophetic fulfillment, the narrator highlights God's renewed involvement with his people and the climactic nature of the times realized in Jesus. The locations of Jerusalem, Bethlehem, and Egypt evoke feelings of continuity between Jesus' history and that of Israel's. Other locations such as the "desert" and "mountain" function to create a certain aura around events and characters in the story. Later in the story specific locations such as "synagogue," the "sea," and the "temple" all contribute to a distinct atmosphere from which to evaluate the course of events. While real-life settings of the author and his readers can only be reproduced in terms of probability, the temporal and spatial settings established in the story provide an integral context for interpreting Matthew's story.

THE LITERARY CHARACTER OF MATTHEW

A. LITERARY AND RHETORICAL SKILL

Since Matthew's text would have been handwritten without systematic punctuation or modern techniques for delineating structural features such as bold print, underlining, paragraph indention, or chapter headings, any clues for discerning the structure and nature of the composition is dependent upon "verbal clues" within the narrative itself. Within both Hebrew and classical traditions communication on a literary level assumed a level of competency in conventional communicative techniques. While NT authors may not have been formally trained in rhetoric, an effective exchange of ideas demands some awareness of conventional patterns for communication. A study of Matthew's literary style puts emphasis on the literary devices he employs to lead the reader to experience his story in a certain way.

Reading Matthew's story (whether orally before an audience, or in private), would have demanded that the reader attend to the various structural features which might illumine the meaning and flow of the narrative. Some of these literary strategies function on a broader structural level providing the text with a sense of progression and cohesion (e.g., Matt see the formulaic phrases in 7:28; 11:1; 13:53; 19:1; 26:1; and 4:17; 16:21). However, most structural features primarily contribute to a sense of cohesion within smaller textual units. These features may highlight or bracket unifying themes by opening and closing distinct units with similar words or phrases (see, e.g., 4:23-24 and 9:35); build anticipation by foreshadowing subsequent events (e.g., ch. 2 foreshadows the passion narrative); or stimulate reflection and a sense of development in the story by verbal repetition and episodic similarities (cf. 8:23-27/14:22-33; 9:27-31/20:29-34; 9:32-34/12:22-34; 14:13-21/15:32-38). These elements along with Matthew's fondness for grouping materials according to a thematic or even numerical scheme, are indicative of an environment largely educated through oral proclamation not the written word. Matthew's compositional scheme greatly facilitated learning by providing the listener (or reader) with a coherent and orderly presentation that aided comprehension and memorization.

The meticulous structural concerns, both in the whole and the smaller details of Matthew, have been widely recognized by scholarship. However, as we shall see in the next section, there is great diversity with respect to the overall structural pattern of the first Gospel. The difficulty lies with going from clearly delineated structural features in the smaller units of text, to the use of the same devices to explain the total composition. Often the analysis seems forced and unable to fit the details into a single coherent pattern. It may not always be easy to identify the precise contribution that a particular literary device makes to the overall composition of a literary work, and certainly there always exists the danger of reading too much into a text by artificially imposing symmetrical patterns where none exist. However, these problems are overcome by a greater sensitivity to the nature and function of literary devices, and not by ignoring these features of a text. The question remains concerning what features might provide clues to the overall structure of Matthew's Gospel.

B. STRUCTURAL-PLOT

Consideration of Matthew's skill in the smaller portions of his text has stimulated numerous efforts to locate structural indications that may provide the organizing pattern for the entire Gospel. Structural appraisals of Matthew's Gospel usually begin with the discovery of a literary device or formulaic expression that appears to be unique to the evangelist. However, while scholars may agree on the existence of a literary device or formula, they may diverge widely concerning the function or theological significance of a literary feature. For example, although the expressions kaiÉ ejgevneto o{te ejtevlesen oJ =Ihsou'" (kai egeneto hote etelesen ho Içsous, "and when Jesus had finished;" 7:28; 11:1; 13:53; 19:1; 26:1), and ajpoÉ tovte h[rxato oJ =Ihsou'" (apo tote erxato ho Içsous, "from that time Jesus began," 4:17; 16:21) are recognized to be structurally significant, it is difficult to establish that Matthew consciously adopted these expressions as the organizational key to his entire Gospel. As helpful as these phrases are for marking off the major discourses of Jesus or highlighting major new developments in the story, neat structural schemes based upon repeated formulae cannot do justice to the subtle twists and turns of the dramatic flow of Matthew's story.

Several scholars have centered on Matthew's use of Mark to determine the structure of his Gospel. Attention has been called to the peculiar Matthean organization of 4:12-13:58 in contrast to the faithful following of Marcan order in 14:1-28:20. Certainly a source-critical study of Matthew must account for the seemingly independent structural form and sequence in the first half of the Gospel as opposed to the latter half. However, it is doubtful that Matthew intended his readers to compare his Gospel with Mark in order to understand his structural scheme. If Matthew could clearly structure patterns on a smaller scale, independent of Mark, why not on a larger scale? Furthermore, there are too many structural peculiarities even in the second half of the Gospel to assume that Matthew merely succumbed to a slavish reproduction of Mark in the second half of his Gospel.

More recent investigations have delineated the Gospel's structure in terms of how the individual events or episodes connect sequentially to form a discernable plot. It is the organizing principle of plot which determines the incidents selected, their arrangement, and how the sequence of events or episodes are to impact the reader. Given the episodic and thematic flavor of Matthew's narrative, his plot development does not exhibit a linear tightness or the flair for the dramatic found in other narratives (cf. Mark). Nevertheless, Matthew does tell a story, and thus the various episodes are carefully interrelated by causal and thematic developments. There are definite major and minor story lines and character development, with certain episodes marking key turning points in the unfolding drama. An analysis of plot has the advantage of moving the discussion away from isolated literary devices or contrived symmetrical patterns, to a consideration of how the sequence of events and portrayal of characters connect meaningfully to tell a continuous and coherent story.

Matthew's story is organized around several narrative blocks comprised of events that are interconnected according to a particular emphasis or theme. The unifying factor giving coherence to the overall sequence of events is the explicit and implicit presence of the central character Jesus in virtually every episode. Within this story-form events of similar nature are often clustered or repeated for their accumulative impact, as various themes are reinforced and developed. An analysis of the sequence and function of Matthew's major narrative blocks enables the reader to discern an overall progression of events according to a consciously constructed plot. The following seven narrative blocks provide the story with a clear sense of dramatic progression:

1:1-4:16 Establishing the identity and role of Jesus, the protagonist of the story.

4:17-11:1 Jesus embarks upon a ministry of teaching and healing to manifest God's saving presence in Israel.

11:2-16:20 While faulty interpretations of Jesus' ministry lead to misunderstanding and repudiation, the disciples, through divine revelation, are provided special insight into Jesus' person and mission.

16:21-20:34 During Jesus' journey to Jerusalem he engages his disciples in explicit discussion concerning the ultimate values, priorities, and intentions of his messianic mission.

21:1-25:46 Upon entering Jerusalem Jesus' actions and teachings lead to conflict and rejection by the Jewish authorities.

26:1-27:50 While hostility and misunderstanding coalesce in betrayal, desertion, and death, Jesus is resolved to consciously and voluntarily fulfill the divine plan.

27:51-28:20 God ultimately vindicates his Son as evidenced by cosmic signs and by raising him from the dead and giving him authority to commission his disciples to a worldwide mission.

-College Press New Testament Commentary: with the NIV

BIBLIOGRAPHY

SELECTED COMMENTARIES:

Albright, W.F. and C.S. Mann. Matthew . AB. Garden City: Doubleday, 1971.

Beare, Francis Wright. The Gospel According to Matthew . San Francisco: Harper and Row, 1981.

Blomberg, Craig L. Matthew. New American Commentary 22. Nashville: Broadman, 1992.

Carson, D.A. "Matthew." In The Expositor's Bible Commentary , 8:3-599. Edited by Frank Gaebelein. 12 vols. Grand Rapids: Zondervan, 1984.

Davies, Margaret. Matthew Readings: A New Biblical Commentary . Sheffield, U.K.: JSOT Press/Sheffield Academic Press, 1993.

Davies, W.D. and Dale C. Allison. Introduction and Commentary on the Gospel According to Saint Matthew I-VII . Vol. 1 of A Critical and Exegetical Commentary on the Gospel According to Saint Matthew. International Critical Commentaries. 3 vols. Edinburgh: T&T Clark, 1988.

. Introduction and Commentary on Matthew VIII-XVIII . Vol. 2 of A Critical and Exegetical Commentary on the Gospel According to Saint Matthew . International Critical Commentaries. 3 vols. Edinburgh: T&T Clark, 1991.

France, R.T. Matthew. Tyndale New Testament Commentaries. Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1985.

Gardner, Richard B. Matthew. Believers Church Bible Commentary. Scottdale, PA: Herald Press, 1991.

Garland, David. Reading Matthew: A Literary and Theological Commentary on the First Gospel . New York: Crossroad, 1993.

Gundry, Robert. Matthew: A Commentary on His Literary and Theological Art . Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1982.

Hagner, Donald. Matthew 1-13 . Word Biblical Commentary 33A. Dallas: Word, 1993.

. Matthew 14-28. Word Biblical Commentary 33B. Dallas: Word, 1995.

Harrington, D.J. The Gospel of Matthew . Sacra Pagina 1. Collegeville, MN: Liturgical, 1991.

Hill, David. The Gospel of Matthew . New Century Bible. Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1972.

Keener, Craig S. Matthew . The IVP New Testament Commentary Series. Ed. Grant R. Osborne. Downers Grove, IL: InterVarsity Press, 1997.

Luz, U. Matthew 1-7 . Minneapolis: Fortress, 1989.

Malina, Bruce J. and Richard L. Rohrbaugh. Social Science Commentary on the Synoptic Gospels . Minneapolis: Augsburg Fortress, 1992.

Meier, J.P. The Vision of Matthew . New York: Crossroad, 1979, 1991.

Morris, Leon. The Gospel According to Matthew . Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1992.

Patte, Daniel. The Gospel According to Matthew: A Structural Commentary on Matthew's Faith . Philadelphia: Fortress, 1987.

Schweizer, Eduard. The Good News According to Matthew . Translated by David E. Green. Atlanta: John Knox Press, 1975.

SELECTED STUDIES:

Allison, Dale C. The New Moses: A Matthean Typology . Minneapolis: Fortress, 1993.

Bauer, D.R. The Structure of Matthew's Gospel: A Study in Literary Design . JSNTSup 31. Sheffield: Almond, 1988.

Borg, Marcus. Conflict, Holiness, and Politics in the Teachings of Jesus . New York: Edwin Mellen Press, 1984.

France, R.T. Matthew: Evangelist and Teacher . Grand Rapids: Zondervan, 1989.

Hill, David. "Son and Servant: An Essay on Matthean Christology." JSNT 6 (1980) 2-16.

Kingsbury, Jack D. Matthew As Story. 2d ed. Philadelphia: Fortress, 1988.

Lohr, C. "Oral Techniques in the Gospel of Matthew." CBQ 23 (1961): 339-352.

Luz, U. The Theology of the Gospel of Matthew . Translated by J. Bradford Robinson. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1995.

Matera, Frank. "The Plot of Matthew's Gospel." CBQ 49 (1987): 233-253.

. Passion Narratives and Gospel Theologies . New York: Paulist, 1986.

Powell, M.A. God With Us: A Pastoral Theology of Matthew's Gospel . Minneapolis: Fortress, 1995.

Senior, D. The Passion of Jesus in the Gospel of Matthew . Wilmington: Michael Glazier, 1985.

. What Are They Saying About Matthew? Revised and Expanded Edition. New York: Paulist Press, 1996.

Stanton, Graham. A Gospel For a New People: Studies in Matthew . Edinburgh: T&T Clark, 1992.

. "The Origin and Purpose of Matthew's Gospel: Matthean Scholarship from 1945 to 1980." In ANRW II.25.3. Edited by W.Haase. Pages 1889-1895. Berlin and New York: Walter de Gruyter, 1985.

Verseput, Donald J. "The Title Son of God in Matthew's Gospel." NTS 33 (1987): 532-556.

Westerholm, Stephen. Jesus and Scribal Authority . ConNT 10. Lund, Sweden: CWK Gleerup, 1978.

Wilkens, M.J. The Concept of Discipleship in Matthew's Gsopel as Reflected in the Use of the Term Mathçtçs. Leiden: E.J. Brill, 1988.

Witherup, Ronald D. "The Death of Jesus and the Rising of the Saints: Matthew 27:51-54 in Context." SBLASP. Pages 574-585. Atlanta: Scholars Press, 1987.

Wright, N.T. Jesus and the Victory of God. Minneapolis: Fortress Press, 1996.

. The New Testament and the People of God . Minneapolis: Fortress Press, 1992.

-College Press New Testament Commentary: with the NIV

ABBREVIATIONS

ABD Anchor Bible Dictionary

AnBib Analecta Biblica

ANTJ Arbeiten zum Neuen Testament und zum Judentum

BAGD A Greek-English Lexicon of the New Testament by Bauer, Arndt, Gingrich, and Danker

BETL Bibliotheca ephemeridum theologicarum lovaniensium

Bib Biblica

BibRev Bible Review

BSac Bibliotheca Sacra

BZNW Beheifte zur ZNW

CBQ Catholic Biblical Quarterly

ConBNT Coniectanea biblica, New Testament

ConNT Coniectanea neotestamentica

DJG Dictionary of Jesus and the Gospels

ETL Ephemerides theologicai lovanienses

ExpTim The Expository Times

HTR Harvard Theological Review

ICC International Critical Commentary

IDB Interpreter's Dictionary of the Bible

Int Interpretation

ISBE International Standard Bible Encyclopedia

JBL Journal of Biblical Literature

JETS Journal of the Evangelical Theological Society

JSNT Journal for the Study of New Testament Theology

LXX Septuagint

NIDNTT New International Dictionary of New Testament Theology

NIGTC New International Greek Testament Commentary

NIV New International Version

NovT Novum Testamentum

NT New Testament

NTM New Testament Message

NTS New Testament Studies

OT Old Testament

RevQ Revue de Qumran

RQ Restoration Quarterly

SBLASP Society of Biblical Literature Abstracts and Seminar Papers

SBLDS SBL Dissertation Series

SBLMS SBL Monograph Series

SJT Scottish Journal of Theology

SNTSMS Society for New Testament Studies Monograph Series

Str-B Kommentar zum Neuen Testament by Strack and Billerbeck

TDNT Theological Dictionary of the New Testament by Kittel and Friedrich

TIM Tradition and Interpretation in Matthew by Bornkamm, Barth, and Held

TrinJ Trinity Journal

TynBul Tyndale Bulletin

UBSGNT United Bible Society Greek New Testament

USQR Union Seminary Quarterly Review

WUNT Wissenschaftliche untersuchungen zum Neuen Testament

ZNW Zeitschrift für die neutestamentliche Wissenschaft

-College Press New Testament Commentary: with the NIV

College: Matthew (Outline)

OUTLINE

I. ESTABLISHING THE IDENTITY AND ROLE OF JESUS THE CHRIST - Matt 1:1-4:16

A. Genealogy of Jesus - 1:1-17

B. The Annunciation to Joseph - 1:18-25

C. The Infancy of Jesus - 2:1-23

1. The Gentile Pilgrimage - 2:1-12

2. The Messiah's Exile and Exodus - 2:13-23

D. The Mission and Message of John the Baptist - 3:1-12

E. The Baptism and Commission of Jesus - 3:13-17

F. The Testing of the Son - 4:1-11

G. Introducing the Ministry of Jesus - 4:12-16

II. GOD'S SAVING PRESENCE IN THE MIDST OF HIS PEOPLE - 4:17-10:42

A. Programmatic Heading: Proclamation of the Kingdom - 4:17

B. Call of the Disciples - 4:18-22

C. Programmatic Summary - 4:23-25

D. Sermon on the Mount: Ministry in Word - 5:1-7:29

1. The Setting - 5:1-2

2. The Beatitudes - 5:3-12

3. Salt and Light - 5:13-16

4. Jesus and the Law - 5:17-20

5. Practicing Greater Righteousness Toward One's Neighbor - 5:21-48

a. Murder - 5:21-26

b. Adultery - 5:27-30

c. Divorce - 5:31-32

d. Oaths - 5:33-37

e. An Eye for an Eye - 5:38-42

f. Love Your Enemies - 5:43-48

6. Practicing Greater Righteousness Before God - 6:1-18

a. Summary - 6:1

b. Giving to the Needy - 6:2-4

c. Prayer - 6:5-15

d. Fasting - 6:16-18

7. The Priorities and Values of the GreaterRighteousness - 6:19-34

a. Treasures in Heaven - 6:19-24

b. Worry - 6:25-34

8. The Conduct of Greater Righteousness - 7:1-12

a. Judging Others - 7:1-5

b. Honor What Is Valuable - 7:6

c. Ask, Seek, Knock - 7:7-11

d. The Golden Rule - 7:12

9. The Call for Decision - 7:13-27

a. The Narrow and Wide Gates - 7:13-14

b. A Tree and Its Fruit - 7:15-23

c. The Wise and Foolish Builders - 7:24-27

10. Conclusion - 7:28-29

E. Ministry in Deed - 8:1-9:34

1. Cleansing of a Leper - 8:1-4

2. Request of a Gentile Centurion - 8:5-13

3. Peter's Mother-in-Law - 8:14-15

4. Summary and Fulfillment Citation - 8:16-17

5. Two Would-Be Followers - 8:18-22

6. Stilling of the Storm - 8:23-27

7. The Gadarene Demoniacs - 8:28-34

8. Healing of the Paralytic - 9:1-8

9. Jesus' Association with Tax Collectors and Sinners - 9:9-13

10. Question on Fasting - 9:14-17

11. Raising the Ruler's Daughter and Cleansing the Unclean Woman - 9:18-26

12. Healing Two Blind Men - 9:27-31

13. Healing of a Deaf Mute - 9:32-34

F. A Call to Mission - 9:35-10:4

G. The Missionary Discourse - 10:5-42

1. Instructions for Mission - 10:5-15

2. Persecution and Response - 10:16-23

3. The Disciples' Relationship to Jesus - 10:24-42

III. ISRAEL'S MISUNDERSTANDING AND REPUDIATION OF JESUS - 11:1-14:12

A. John's Question from Prison - 11:1-6

B. The Person and Mission of John - 11:7-19

1. Identification of John by Jesus - 11:7-15

2. Rejection of John and Jesus - 11:16-19

C. Unrepentant Cities - 11:20-24

D. Jesus' Response and Invitation - 11:25-30

E. Sabbath Controversy: Incident in the Grainfield - 12:1-8

F. Sabbath Controversy: Healing in the Synagogue - 12:9-14

G. The Character and Mission of God's Servant - 12:15-21

H. The Beelzebub Controversy - 12:22-37

I. The Request for a Sign - 12:38-42

J. A Concluding Analogy - 12:43-45

K. Jesus' True Family - 12:46-50

L. The Parables of the Kingdom - 13:1-52

1. The Parable of the Four Soils - 13:1-9

2. The Purpose of the Parables - 13:10-17

3. The Interpretation of the Parable ofthe Soils - 13:18-23

4. Parable of the Weeds - 13:24-30

5. Parable of the Mustard Seed - 13:31-32

6. Parable of the Leaven - 13:33

7. The Purpose of Parables - 13:34-35

8. The Interpretation of the Parable of the Weeds - 13:36-43

9. Parables of the Hidden Treasure and the Pearl - 13:44-46

10. Parable of the Dragnet - 13:47-50

11. Trained in the Kingdom - 13:51-52

M. Rejection at Nazareth - 13:53-58

N. The Death of John the Baptist - 14:1-12

IV. EDUCATING THE DISCIPLES: IDENTITY AND MISSION - 14:13-16:20

A. Feeding of the Five Thousand - 14:13-21

B. Walking on the Water - 14:22-33

C. Summary: Healings at Gennesaret - 14:34-36

D. Jesus and the Teachings of the Pharisees - 15:1-20

E. The Canaanite Woman - 15:21-28

F. Feeding of the Four Thousand - 15:29-39

G. Request for a Sign - 16:1-4

H. The Leaven of the Pharisees and Saducees - 16:5-12

I. Confession at Caesarea Philippi - 16:13-20

V. THE WAY OF THE CROSS - 16:21-20:34

A. The Things of God Versus the Things of Men - 16:21-28

B. Transfiguration - 17:1-8

C. The Coming Elijah - 17:9-13

D. The Power of Faith - 17:14-21

E. The Second Passion Prediction - 17:22-23

F. Jesus and the Temple Tax - 17:24-27

G. Fourth Discourse: Life in the Christian Community - 18:1-35

1. Becoming Like a Child - 18:1-5

2. Avoiding Offense - 18:6-9

3. Value of the "Little Ones" - 18:10-14

4. Reconciling an Offending Brother - 18:15-20

5. Importance of Forgiveness - 18:21-35

H. Transition from Galilee to Judea - 19:1-2

I. Marriage and Divorce - 19:3-9

J. The Bewildered Response of the Disciples - 19:10-12

K. The Little Children - 19:13-15

L. The Rich Young Man - 19:16-22

M. Wealth, Reward and Discipleship - 19:23-30

N. The Generous Landowner - 20:1-16

O. Third Passion Prediction - 20:17-19

P. Requests on Behalf of the Sons of Zebedee - 20:20-28

Q. Two Blind Men Receive Sight - 20:29-34

VI. CONFLICT IN JERUSALEM - 21:1-25:46

A. Jesus' Entry into Jerusalem - 21:1-11

B. Demonstration in the Temple - 21:12-17

C. The Fig Tree - 21:18-22

D. The Authority Question - 21:23-27

E. Parable of the Two Sons - 21:28-32

F. Parable of the Tenants - 21:33-46

G. Parable of the Wedding Feast - 22:1-14

H. Confrontations with the Religious Leaders - 22:15-46

1. Paying Taxes to Caesar - 22:15-22

2. Marriage in the Afterlife - 22:23-33

3. The Greatest Commandment - 22:34-40

4. The Son of David - 22:41-46

I. Denunciation of the Scribes and Pharisees - 23:1-39

1. Do Not Practice What They Preach - 23:1-12

2. Woes against the Teachers of the Law andthe Pharisees - 23:13-36

3. Lament over Jerusalem - 23:37-39

J. Fifth Discourse: Judgment to Come - 24:1-25:46

1. Introduction - 24:1-3

2. Warnings Not to Be Deceived - 24:4-14

3. The Coming Tribulation in Judea - 24:15-28

4. The Climactic Fall of Jerusalem within "This Generation" - 24:29-35

5. The Coming Judgment of the Son ofMan - 24:36-25:46

a. The Coming Son of Man~ - 24:36-51

b. The Ten Virgins - 25:1-13

c. Parable of the Talents - 25:14-30

d. Judgment of the Son of Man - 25:31-46

VII. THE PASSION AND RESURRECTION OF JESUS - 26:1-28:20

A. The Plot to Arrest and Execute Jesus - 26:1-5

B. Anointing in Bethany - 26:6-13

C. Judas' Betrayal - 26:14-16

D. Preparation for Passover - 26:17-19

E. The Last Supper - 26:20-30

F. Jesus Predicts the Disciples' Desertion and Denial - 26:31-35

G. The Gethsemane Prayer - 26:36-46

H. The Arrest of Jesus - 26:47-56

I. The Hearing Before Caiaphas - 26:57-68

J. The Denial of Peter - 26:69-75

K. Transition to the Roman Authorities - 27:1-2

L. The Suicide of Judas - 27:3-10

M. The Trial Before Pilate - 27:11-26

N. Mockery and Abuse of Jesus - 27:27-31

O. The Crucifixion - 27:32-44

P. The Death of Jesus - 27:45-56

Q. The Burial of Jesus - 27:57-61

R. Keeping Jesus in the Tomb - 27:62-66

S. The Empty Tomb - 28:1-7

T. The Appearance of Jesus to the Women - 28:8-10

U. The Bribing of the Guards - 28:11-15

V. The Great Commission - 28:16-20

-College Press New Testament Commentary: with the NIV

Lapide: Matthew (Book Introduction)

PREFACE.

——————

IN presenting to the reader the Second Volume [Matt X to XXI] of this Translation of the great work of Cornelius à Lapide, I desire to mention that it has not been within my purpose to give an equivalent for every word of the original. This ought to have been stated at the commencement of the first volume, and I greatly regret the omission.

The stern exigencies of publication have compelled me to compress the translation of the Commentary upon the Gospels within five octavo volumes, when a reproduction of the Latin original, verbatim et literatim , would have probably necessitated seven.

The matter standing thus, I have had to exercise my own judgment as to the character of the necessary omissions and compression. I am perfectly aware that in omitting or compressing anything at all, I expose myself to the full fury of the blasts of unkind, bitter, or unscrupulous criticism; though criticism of this kind has, I am thankful to say, been confined to a single print.

I have no fault whatever to find with the criticism of the R. Catholic Tablet . It was dictated by a thoroughly honest and commendable, but certainly mistaken fear, that I had made omissions for controversial purposes. Of this, I hope I am incapable.

With regard to the other adverse criticism to which I have alluded, I am sorry that I cannot regard it as either just or righteous. One reason is this; the reviewer in question concludes his remarks by saying—"Those who are familiar with Cornelius' work are aware of the terseness and pungency of the author's style. Whether it would be possible to give this in English we cannot say, but the present translators do not appear to have even attempted the task, either in their literal rendering, or in their paraphrased passages, so that much of the sententiousness of the original has evaporated."

It would be almost impossible to single out from the whole range of the history of criticism a more telling example of its frequent utter worthlessness and disregard of a strict adherence to truth. In the first place, with regard to Cornelius himself, those who are best acquainted with him—his greatest lovers and admirers—are aware that if there is one thing more than another which they are disposed to regret, it is his great prolixity, and the inordinate length of his sentences.

Secondly, if the hostile reviewer had examined my translation solely for the purposes of an honest criticism, he could not have helped becoming aware of the fact that there is scarcely a page in which I have not broken up what is a single sentence in the Latin into two, three, and sometimes even more sentences in the English.

Lastly, I need not tell scholars that it would be far more easy and pleasant to myself to translate literally, without any omission whatever, than to have continually to be, as it were, upon the stretch to omit or compress what must be omitted, when very often all seems valuable. I can truly say I have often spent as much time in deliberating what to omit, or how to compress a passage, as would have sufficed to have written a translation of it in full twice over.

About two-thirds of the twenty-first chapter of S. Matthew, the last in this second volume, have been translated without any omission, or compression whatever. A note is appended to the place where this unabridged translation begins. This will enable any one who cares to do so, to compare the abridged portion with the unabridged, and both with the original.

T. W. M.