Then one possessed by a demon, blind and mute, was brought to him and he healed him, so that the blind and mute man both spoke and saw. All the multitudes were amazed, and said, “Can this be the son of David?” But when the Pharisees heard it, they said, “This man does not cast out demons, except by Beelzebul, the prince of the demons.”
Knowing their thoughts, Jesus said to them, “Every kingdom divided against itself is brought to desolation, and every city or house divided against itself will not stand. If Satan casts out Satan, he is divided against himself. How then will his kingdom stand? If I by Beelzebul cast out demons, by whom do your children cast them out? Therefore they will be your judges. But if I by the Spirit of God cast out demons, then God’s Kingdom has come upon you. Or how can one enter into the house of the strong man, and plunder his goods, unless he first bind the strong man? Then he will plunder his house.
“He who is not with me is against me, and he who doesn’t gather with me, scatters. Therefore I tell you, every sin and blasphemy will be forgiven men, but the blasphemy against the Spirit will not be forgiven men. Whoever speaks a word against the Son of Man, it will be forgiven him; but whoever speaks against the Holy Spirit, it will not be forgiven him, neither in this age, nor in that which is to come.
“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. You offspring of vipers, how can you, being evil, speak good things? For out of the abundance of the heart, the mouth speaks. The good man out of his good treasure brings out good things, and the evil man out of his evil treasure brings out evil things. I tell you that every idle word that men speak, they will give account of it in the day of judgment. For by your words you will be justified, and by your words you will be condemned.”
Geneva Bible translators 1599 · Public Domain On vv22, 25, 32, 34, 36 A truth be it never so manifest, is subject…
A truth be it never so manifest, is subject to the slander of the wicked: yet notwithstanding it ought to be avouched stoutly.
Geneva Bible (1599) marginal notes — public domain.
John Trapp 1656 · Public Domain On vv22–37 22 Then was brought unto him one possessed with…
22 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.
Ver. 22. One possessed with a devil, blind and dumb] A heavy case, and yet that may be any man’s case. {a} Cuivis potest contingere, quod cuiquam potest. Every one that seeth another stricken, and himself spared, is to keep a passover for himself; and to say, "Thou hast punished me less than my sins have merited," Ezr 9:13. The devil had shut up from this man all passages to faith, saith Theophylact, by bereaving him of the use of his eyes, ears, and tongue. See a mercy in the use of our senses, &c. Multo plures sunt gratiae privativae quam positivae, saith Gerson.
Read full note →
{a} παν προσδοκαν δει ανθρωπον οντα. Xenophon.
John Trapp, A Commentary or Exposition upon All the Books of the Old and New Testament (1647–1656) — public domain. Text from a community e-Sword module.
Matthew Poole 1685 · Public Domain On vv22, 23, 24, 25, 27, 28, 29, 30, 31, 33, 34, 36 Some think this person was the same mentioned Luk…
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.
Matthew Poole's English Annotations on the Holy Bible (1683–1685) — public domain. Text from a community e-Sword/MySword module.
William Burkitt 1703 · Public Domain On vv22, 25, 31, 33, 34, 35, 36, 37 As a farther instance of Christ’s miraculous power, he…
As a farther instance of Christ’s miraculous power, he healeth one whom the devil had cast into a disease which deprived him both of speech and sight: at this miracle the multitude wonder, saying, Is not this the son of David? that is, the promised Messias. The Pharisees hearing this, with great bitterness and contempt said, This fellow casteth out devils by Beelzebub the prince of devils.
Observe from hence, How obstinacy and malice will make man misconstrue the actions of the most holy and innocent; Christ casteth out devils, say the Pharisees, by the help of the devil. There never was any person so good, nor any action so gracious, but they have been subject both to censure and misconstructions. The best way is to square our actions by the right rule of justice and charity, and then let the world pass their censures at their pleasure. When the holy and innocent Jesus was thus assaulted, what wonder is it if we his sinful servants be branded on all sides by reviling tongues! Why should we expect better treatment than the Son of God.
William Burkitt's Expository Notes on the New Testament (1700–1703) — public domain. Text from a community e-Sword module.
Matthew Henry 1710 · Public Domain On v22 In these verses we have,
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,
Read full note →
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, Sa1 18:7, Sa1 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 (Kg1 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, Ti1 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 transformed, the life will never be thoroughly reformed. 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, Sa1 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.
Matthew Henry's Commentary on the Whole Bible (1708–1710) — public domain (CC PDM 1.0). Text via the HelloAO Bible API.
John Gill 1763 · Public Domain On vv22–37 And if I by Beelzebub cast out devils,.... As…
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),
Read full note →
"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.''
(w) Justin Martyr, adv. Tryphon. p. 311. (x) In Gloss. in T. Bab. Yoma, fol. 57. 1. Meilah, fol. 17. 2. (y) Raziel, fol. 41. 2.
John Gill's Exposition of the Whole Bible (1746–1763) — public domain (CC PDM 1.0). Text via the HelloAO Bible API.
John Wesley 1765 · Public Domain On vv22, 23, 24, 25, 26, 27, 29, 30, 31, 32, 33, 34, 36, 37 A demoniac, blind and dumb - Many undoubtedly supposed…
A demoniac, blind and dumb - 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? Luke xi, 14.
John Wesley, Explanatory Notes Upon the Whole Bible (1754–1765) — public domain. Text via the GEBible commentary corpus.
Adam Clarke 1810 · Public Domain On vv22–37 Verse 22. One possessed with a devil, blind and…
Verse 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, &c. None but Jesus can redeem from this threefold captivity.
Adam Clarke's Commentary on the Bible (1810–1826) — public domain. Text from a community e-Sword/MySword module.
Joseph Benson 1811 · Public Domain On vv22, 25, 27, 29, 31, 32, 33, 36 Mat 12:22-24. Then was brought unto him — Namely,…
Mat 12:22-24. Then was brought unto him — Namely, By the person’s friends, one possessed with a devil, blind and dumb — Many, no doubt, 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 other disorders, seemingly natural, may even now be owing to the same cause! And he healed him — He immediately expelled the evil spirit, and in an instant removed the effects of his diabolical influence: And all the people were amazed — At so extraordinary a miracle, by which the noblest sense, and likewise the most useful faculty of the human body, were restored together: and said, Is not this the Son of David? — that is, The Messiah. But when the Pharisees — Who were present, and the scribes, who had come down from Jerusalem, heard it, that is, heard this natural reflection of the people, and observed that they were beginning to infer, from the wonderful miracles which they saw Jesus perform, that he was the expected Messiah; fearing lest such a belief, if it should gain ground, would put an end to their credit with, and authority over, the people, they said, This fellow doth not cast out devils but by Beelzebub, &c. — Thus giving the most malicious and unreasonable turn to the matter which could be imagined.
Joseph Benson's Commentary on the Old and New Testaments (1811–1818) — public domain. Text from a community e-Sword module.
Albert Barnes 1834 · Public Domain On vv22, 31, 33, 34, 36, 37 Then was brought unto him one possessed with a…
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
Read full note →
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:
To concede to the people that here was a “miracle,” or a work above mere human power. 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.
Albert Barnes' Notes on the Bible (1834–1885) — public domain. Text from a community e-Sword/MySword module.
Haydock's Catholic Bible Commentary 1859 · Public Domain On vv25, 27, 28, 29, 30, 31, 32, 33, 34, 36 Every kingdom. Strong as a kingdom may appear, it…
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)
George Leo Haydock (1774–1849), Haydock's Catholic Family Bible and Commentary, 1859 edition — public domain. Excludes Psalms (Douay-Rheims chapter numbering differs from Protestant) and Deuterocanonical books (Catholic canon only).
Lange's Commentary on the Holy Scriptures 1864 · Public Domain On v22 3. Miraculous healing of a demoniac, blind and dumb.…
3. Miraculous healing of a demoniac, blind and dumb. Blasphemous accusation of the Pharisees, that Jesus was in league with Beelzebub; and reply of Christ about the blasphemy against the Holy Ghost. The Pharisees seek a sign from heaven; but Jesus promises them a sign from the deep, and announces the impending spiritual doom of an apostate and unbelieving race. Mat_12:22-45
(Mar_3:20-30; Luk_11:14-26; Luk_11:29-32.)
Read full note →
22Then was brought unto him one possessed with a devil, blind, and dumb: and he healed him, insomuch that [so that, ὥστε] the blind and dumb19 both spake and saw. 23And all the people were amazed, and said, Is not this [Is this]20 the Son of David? 24But when the Pharisees heard it, they said, This fellow [man]21 doth not cast out devils, but by Beelzebub [Beelzebul], the prince of the devils. 25And 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: 26And if Satan cast [casts] out Satan, he is divided against himself; how shall then his kingdom stand? 27And if I by Beelzebub [-l] cast out devils, by whom do your children cast them out? therefore they shall be your judges. 28But if I cast out devils by the Spirit of God, then 29the kingdom of God is come unto you [upon you].22 Or else, how can one enter into a strong man’s23 house, and spoil [take from him, seize upon his]24 his goods [instruments, σκεύη, i. e., here the demoniacs], except he first bind the strong man? and then he will spoil [plunder] his house. 30He that is not with me is against me; and he that gathereth not with me scattereth abroad. 31Wherefore I say unto you, All manner of sin and blasphemy shall be forgiven unto men: but the blasphemy against the Holy Ghost [of the Spirit] shall not be forgiven unto men. 32And whosoever speaketh a word against the Son of man, it shall be forgiven him: but whosoever speaketh against the Holy Ghost [Spirit], it shall not be forgiven him, neither in this world [æon], neither in the world [that which is] to come. 33Either make the tree good, and his [its] fruit good; or else make the tree corrupt, and his [its] fruit corrupt: for the tree is known by his [its] fruit. 34O generation of vipers, how can ye, being evil, speak good things? for out of the abundance of the heart the mouth speaketh. 35A good man out of the good treasure of the heart25 bringeth [sendeth] forth good things: and an evil man out of the evil treasure bringeth [sendeth] forth evil things. 36But I say unto you, That every idle word that men shall speak, they shall give account thereof in the dayof judgment. 37For by thy words thou shalt be justified, and by thy words thou shalt be condemned.
38Then certain of the scribes and of the Pharisees answered [him],26 saying, Master,we would see a sign from thee. 39But he answered and said unto them, An evil and adulterous generation seeketh after a sign; and there shall no sign be given to it, butthe sign of the prophet Jonas [Jonah the prophet]: 40For as Jonas [Jonah] was three days and three nights in the whale’s belly [belly of the great fish]; so shall the Son of man be three days and three nights in the heart of the earth. 41The men of Nineveh shall rise in [the, ἐν τῇ] judgment with this generation, and shall condemn it: because [for]27 they repented at the preaching of Jonas [Jonah]; and, behold, a greater than Jonas [Jonah] is here. 42The queen of the south shall rise up in the judgment with this generation, and shall condemn it: for she came from the uttermost parts [the ends] of the earth to hear the wisdom of Solomon; and, behold, a greater than Solomon is here. 43When the unclean spirit is gone out of a man, he walketh through dry places, seeking rest, and findeth none. 44Then he saith, I will return into my house28 from whence I came out; and when he is come, he findeth it empty, swept, and garnished. 45Then goeth he, and taketh with himself [him] seven other spirits more wicked than himself, and they enter in and dwell there: and the last state of that man is worse than the first. Even so shall it be also unto this wicked generation.
EXEGETICAL AND CRITICAL
Chronological Arrangement.—Luke relates these addresses imperfectly, and in another, but apparently more correct, order. This section manifestly describes the close of the public ministry of Jesus in Galilee, and the open breach between the Lord and the pharisaical party in that province, corresponding to the conflict in Jerusalem, related in chs. 21 and 23. Ch. 24 records a prior event; and the two conflicts in chs. Mat_15:1 and Mat_16:1 form only the conclusion of the contest which was now opening. After the festival of Purim, the pharisaical party in Galilee had received instructions from Jerusalem to persecute the Lord. This behest was obeyed, though in a coarser manner than by the chiefs in Jerusalem. The former private accusation, that Jesus was in league with Satan ( Mat_9:34, comp. Mat_10:25), was now publicly and boldly brought forward. “The resemblance between this occurrence and that recorded in Mat_9:32, is not owing to the circumstance that different facts are mixed up (Schneckenburger), nor to a traditionary embellishment of one and the same history (Strauss, de Wette). The two events are in reality different, though analogous. The former demoniac was dumb, while this one is both dumb and blind; which latter circumstance Luke, following a less accurate tradition, does not record.” Meyer.
Mat_12:22. One possessed with a devil, blind and dumb.—Not blind and dumb by nature, but by demoniac possession. To relieve one so fearfully under the power of the enemy, was the most difficult miracle, especially as the Pharisees watched Him with unbelief and in bitterness of heart.
Mat_12:23. Is this the Son of David?—The people were here on the point of openly proclaiming Jesus as the Son of David, or the Messiah. But they were prevented by the hierarchical party, who now came forward with their blasphemous accusation.
Mat_12:24. This (significantly put first)—should it be this one? This one does not cast out devils, etc.29—We have already shown that the term Beelzebul is equivalent to, the prince of the devils; hence the latter expression (ἅρχοντι, without an article) serves as explanation of a name invented by them, probably with reference to Beelzebub, the god of the Philistines.
Mat_12:26. If Satan casts out Satan.—Meyer rightly argues against the rendering, If one Satan cast out another. “There are many demons, but Satan alone is the chief of them.” Hence the charge implied, that Satan was represented both by the demon who possessed the individual, and by the demoniac exorcist; or, that in reality he cast himself out. In the same sense Christ employs also the simile of a city or a house divided against itself. Not that He denied that discord prevails in the kingdom of darkness; but this does not amount to an absolute breach, or to complete self-negation, which would necessarily lead to immediate annihilation. On the other hand, it is to be observed, that the kingdom of Satan had been of long standing, and hence must possess a certain measure of unity and consistency. The argumentation of Jesus was based on the distinction between this relative and an absolute division in the kingdom of Satan, and not, as de Wette supposes, on transferring the principles of the kingdom of light to that of darkness. Meyer is also right in suggesting, that the supposition of the Pharisees, that Satan might in this instance have damaged his own cause, is refuted by the constant antagonism waged between Christ and the kingdom of darkness. Besides, it deserves notice, that Christ here claimed to cast out, not merely individual demons, but Satan himself.30
Mat_12:27. Your children—i. e., in a spiritual sense, your disciples, Jewish exorcists, Act_19:13. Argumentum ex concessis. On the exorcism of the Pharisees, see von Ammon, Leben Jesu, ii. p. 151. “In the schools of the Pharisees, a so-called higher magic was taught, by which demons were to be expelled and drawn out of the noses of persons possessed, by means of certain roots, by exorcism, and by magical formulas, supposed to have been derived from king Solomon.” Comp. Joseph. Ant. viii. 2, 5; De Bello Jud. vii. 6, 2.—It were an entire misunderstanding, with Gerlach, to apply the expression, “your children,” to the disciples of Jesus. Nor is there any ground for apprehending that the authority of the miracles of Jesus might be invalidated by an acknowledgment of Jewish exorcism. Compare the contrast between Moses and the magicians of Egypt.
Mat_12:28. The kingdom of God is come upon [not: unto] you.—As in 1Th_4:15, so here, the term ἕφθασεν must be taken in its full meaning: It has come upon you in a sudden manner, by surprise, and finds you unprepared. The statement also implied that Jesus stood before them as the Messiah. Thus Mat_12:28 forms a transition from the defensive to the offensive; while the expression, ἐν πνεὐματι Θεοῦ, which refers to the contrast with Beelzebul, serves as introduction to what is afterward said about the blasphemy of the Holy Spirit.
Mat_12:29. Or else, how can one.—This is not merely “another argument,” but at the same time also a more explicit statement of the idea, that, compared to Satan, Jesus was the stronger, or the Lord of the kingdom of heaven.—The strong man (τοῦἰσχυρου), with the article—with special reference to the τίς, who combats him; but also with a view to the fact, that the preceding explanation rendered the figure completely perspicuous. Comp. Isa_49:24.—“And take from him his instruments,” σκεύη).—Referring to those who were possessed. [The author, version, “spoil his goods,” gives a different sense.] The casting out of devils implied the binding of the strong man, i. e., a spiritual victory over Satan. No doubt the Lord here alludes to the history of the temptation in Matthew 4. At a later period, Christ had, indeed, to enter on another physical, psychical, and spiritual conflict with Satan, when He was assailed by the enemy in connection with the sorrows and the misery of the world. But His former victory over the temptation from the lust of the world, laid the foundation and prepared the way for His later conquest.
Mat_12:30. He that is not with Me.—The decisive moment of the breach with the opposition in Galilee was approaching. The idea is further carried out in Mat_21:43-44. On this occasion, however, it was still couched in hypothetical and general language. Still, the alternative here presented evidently applied to the Pharisees and scribes; and any other interpretation overlooks the importance of that decisive moment. (Bengel, Schleiermacher, and Neander apply it to Jewish exorcists; Chrysostom, to Satan, etc.) This is further shown by what follows: wherefore I say unto you; viz., with reference to your blasphemy of My Person, by which your enmity appears. Know then what this enmity implies. In significant contrast the Saviour says in reference to the disciples, Mar_9:40 and Luk_9:50. “He that is not against us is for us.” [Alford: I believe Stier is right in regarding it as a saying setting forth to us generally the entire and complete disjunction of the two kingdoms, of Satan and God. There is and can be in the world no middle party; they who are not with Christ are against Him and His work, and as far as in them lies are undoing it.”—P. S.]
Mat_12:31. All manner of sin and blasphemy.—i. e., Every sin shall be forgiven to men, even to blasphemy in the general sense, provided they do not progress to blasphemy against the Holy Spirit, but turn from it. Hence, on the supposition of repentance. And thus shall it be in every case—they shall either return, or progress to blasphemy against the Holy Spirit. The blasphemy which is still capable of being forgiven, is both a species and an aggravation of general sin. De Wette: “βλασφημία, not merely blasphemy against God; but, on the other hand, not simply evil-speaking generally, but defaming of what is holy, as, for example, of Christ, the Sent of God.” In general, the idea of a malicious attack upon a person, whose fame is calumniously injured (βλάπτειν τὴν φήμην), attaches to the term, blasphemy. Hence, defamation of what is good, noble, and holy, on its appearance in the world, with malicious (lying and murderous) intent. Up to this point blasphemy forms the climax of sin, but of sin which may still be forgiven; because, in his fanatical enthusiasm for what he deems noble, good, and holy, a man may overlook and misunderstand even a higher manifestation of it. But blasphemy against the Holy Spirit cannot be forgiven. It is open and full opposition to conversion, and hence to forgiveness. The Holy Spirit, who is here spoken of in distinct terms, is the last and highest manifestation of the Spirit of God, who completes and perfects the revelation of God, and in that capacity manifests Himself in the human consciousness. Blasphemously to rebel, in opposition to one’s better knowledge and conscience, against this manifestation and influence of the Holy Spirit, is to commit moral suicide, and to destroy one’s religious and moral susceptibility. In fact, this can never be fully accomplished, on account of the infinite contrast between blasphemy and the Holy Spirit. But the approximation thereto implies impending judgment, which extends far beyond the present world into endless existence. Although blasphemy against the Holy Spirit, in its full idea, is infinite, yet blasphemy against the Son of Man, or against Christ in the form of a servant, constitutes an approximation to it. Hence the Lord adds, Mat_12:22, by way of explanation, as approximating to this sin: Whosoever speaketh a word (in passing) against the Son of Man. The person whom, from prejudice or ignorance, a word of blasphemy may escape against Christ—whom in His form as a servant he may possibly mistake—shall be forgiven; but whosoever speaketh (without the addition, a word)—whosoever speaketh decidedly against the Holy Spirit, etc. In this case, to speak and to blaspheme is identical.—Meyer and other critics maintain that the accusation of the Pharisees, in Mat_12:24, was an instance of blasphemy against the Holy Spirit. But theirs was, in the first place, only a blasphemy against the Son of Man, and against the power in which He wrought. In committing this sin, they necessarily approximated blasphemy against the Holy Spirit; but how closely (see Joh_7:39), our Lord does not express, as appears even from the peculiar warning given them of their danger. In these circumstances, criticism cannot help us in defining the matter more clearly. In the Gospel of Mark, the first statement (about blasphemy) alone is mentioned; in that of Luke, the second (about speaking a word).
Mat_12:32. Neither in this world; or, rather, in this Æon.—̔Ο αἰὼνοὗτος, עוֹלָם הַזֶּה; όαἰὼν μέλλων, עוֹלָם הַבָּא. See Lightfoot, Wetstein, and others. In the first place, the period before and after Christ’s “appearing”; then, secondarily, the contrast between the one and the other order of things, as based on the old and the new era. It should not be overlooked that His historical advent laid the foundation for His future παρουσία, and consequently that the new æon, like the kingdom of heaven, is already at hand, and unfolding itself in the old, breaking through it and gradually abolishing it. Hence the Jewish theology was not wrong in dating the new æon from the advent of the Messiah; only they were wrong in not making a proper distinction between the suffering and the glorified Messiah.
Mat_12:33. Either exhibit, present (in the authorized version, make).—The term ποιεῖν cannot refer to “planting,” as we have here an allusion not only to the tree but also to its fruit. It must refer to a mental act, or to a representation, and alludes here to the ποιεῖν of the poets.31 Those who blaspheme are bad and self-contradictory poets. In the strangest manner, they conceive and represent as a poisonous tree (Christ as inspired by Satan) that which only yielded good fruit (casting out of devils). Hence, not in the sense of a declarative judgment—make (Theophylact, Erasmus, Meyer, etc.); least of all with exclusive reference to the Pharisees (Münster, Castellio, de Wette); nor yet as equivalent to vut, or plant, regarding and treating these blasphemies as fruits (Ewald); but in the sense of, to suppose, to represent (Grotius, Fritzsche, etc.). The first tree is manifestly intended as an emblem of Christ; the second, of the Pharisees, who manifested their inward state by their outward fruit, or their blasphemy. For the tree is known by its fruit; comp. Mat_7:20.
Mat_12:34. O brood of vipers.—The terms in which the Baptist had from the outset addressed the Pharisees ( Mat_3:7), are now taken up even by the merciful and compassionate Saviour. The expression γέννή ματα ἐχιδ νῶν is closely allied with the δένδρον σαπρόν. Poisonous plants, and a generation of vipers, were the noxious remnants of pre-Adamic times, and hence served as allegorical figures of satanic evil (which are not to be confounded with the thorns and thistles consequent upon the curse). Hence the first symbol of coming salvation was, that the seed of the woman should bruise the head of the serpent.—How can ye? etc.—The physical impossibility that a generation of vipers could give forth what was salutary, served as an emblem of the moral impossibility of this moral generation of vipers speaking good things.
For out of the abundance, the overflowing.—But this abundance is not passive; it is organic, and reproducing itself. With this it may be well to connect the biblical idea of περισσεύειν, to develop organically.
Mat_12:35. Out of the good treasure.—Another figure in which the heart is represented as a spiritual treasury. Each one can only give forth what he finds in his treasury. The expression, heart, implies the sum-total of all the thoughts, words, and works of a man; in short, his entire spiritual possessions.
Mat_12:36-37. Every idle word.—The term ῥῆμα, in its connection with ἀργόν, meaning morally useless, and at the same time hurtful,—πονηρόν, as some minuscule MSS. read. This judgment according to their words, would not exclude that according to their deeds. From Mat_25:31, we gather that the actions of the righteous and of the wicked are sealed by their words. A man’s speech, as elucidating, and elucidated by, his life, will serve as a sufficient index of his character in the day of judgment—as Heubner explains it, partly from its wickedness, and partly from its pharisaical severity, which recoils on him who is guilty of it.
Mat_12:38. Then certain of the scribes and of the Pharisees answered.—His opponents felt that, in these statements, Jesus had confronted them in His character as the Messiah, invested with royal and judicial authority. Accordingly, they were constrained either to acknowledge or to reject His claims. In this difficulty, some of them tried to tempt Him; i. e., partly in derision, and partly with a lingering desire after the manifestation of a worldly Messiah, they asked for a sign, by way of accrediting His claims. No doubt they referred to the chiliastic sign from heaven. Thus we notice here the appearance of a new hostile device, which appears in its full proportions in Mat_16:1, just as that which had first appeared in Mat_9:34 had now been fully brought out. Gerlach and Lisco suggest that these Pharisees were better inclined, and less opposed to Jesus, than the others. But in our opinion, they were rather the worst among the bad.
Mat_12:39. An adulterous generation.—Μοιχαλίς. Theophylact: ὠς ἀφιστάμενοι ἀπò τοῦ Θεοῦ. Adultery, taken in a spiritual sense, according to the Old Testament idea, equivalent to apostasy or idolatry; Isa_23:17. Jesus foreknew that the apostasy of the Pharisees would lead them even to an outward alliance with the heathen in the act of His crucifixion.
There shall no sign be given to it.—Christ considered His miracles as signs, Joh_11:41. The perfect sign of His Messiahship, however, was His death on the cross, and His resurrection. And as the true Messiah was exactly the opposite of the carnal counterfeit which the Pharisees had drawn for themselves, so was the true and great sign of the Messiah the direct contrary to their carnal and unwarranted clamor for a sign from heaven. This applies especially to the solemn call to repentance which His answer contained. The Pharisees sought a sign from heaven, to confirm and to crown with success their own corrupt views and state: the Lord offered them a sign from the deep of the realm of death, to condemn their hypocritical worldliness. Hence the sign of Jonah; i. e., the sign which had typically appeared in the history of Jon_2:1.
Mat_12:40. The belly of the great fish: τοῦ κήτους, דָּג גָּדוֹל.—The expression does not necessarily mean a whale [as the E. V. translates], but any sea-monster. We suppose it was a shark [the white shark, squalus carcharias, also called lamia, which is found to this day in the Mediterranean, sometimes as long as sixty feet.—P. S.] rather than a whale. Heubner relates an instance of a sailor who was swallowed by a shark, and yet preserved.
So shall the Son of man be three days and three nights.—A round number according to the popular mode of Hebrew reckoning, 1Sa_30:12; although Christ lay only one day and two nights in the grave.32—In the heart of the earth.—1. In the grave. So most interpreters. 2. In hades (Tertullian, Irenæus, etc.).33 Meyer pronounces in favor of the interpretation hades, on the supposition that it is analogous to καρδία τῆς θαλάσσης in Jonah 2, which referred to the depths of the sea. Besides, in Luk_23:43, Christ Himself had designated His death as a descent into hades [or rather an entrance into paradise as a part of hades].—But we remark, first, that these two things, the grave and the realm of the dead, cannot be disjoined. Secondly, that the Lord frequently uses the term, “earth,” in reference to the ancient hierarchical and political constitution of the world. Jonah was only buried in the depths of the sea; Christ in that of the ancient earth (the grave and hades), and of the ancient world (its condemnation and contumely). Paulus, Schleiermacher, Neander, and others, apply the expression, “sign of Jonah the prophet” to the preaching and appearance of the Lord. But this view requires no formal refutation. Such could scarcely have been designated as in any specific sense a sign of the prophet Jonah; not to speak of the fact that it ignores the explanation furnished in the Gospel of Matthew itself. We do not deny, however, that the expression may contain some reference to the universal mission of Jonah, which constituted him a type of Christ. Jonah was unwilling to preach to the heathen Ninevites, and was buried in the depths of the sea, which is an emblem of the sea of nations. Jesus designed His gospel for all nations, and was hurled by the Jewish hierarchy into the depth of the earth, and into that of their theocratic and hierarchical condemnation. But Jonah emerged once more to preach repentance to the Gentiles; so Christ also rose to preach the gospel to the nations.—The circumstance, that our Lord repeats this simile in Mat_16:4, shows that He attached considerable importance to it.
Mat_12:41. Shall rise—i. e., as witnesses in the judgment. “So קוּם in Job_16:8.”—“̔Οτι, for; not, because [as in the author version].—This judgment is that of the Lord.
Mat_12:42. The queen of the south.—See 1 Kings 10, and the article Sheba in Winer’s Real Worterb. [and in Calmet’s Diction. of the H. Bible, Taylor’s edit., Lond., p. 815 sqq.]. Sabæa, a district in Arabia Felix. Josephus erroneously represents her as a queen of Ethiopia (Ant. viii. 5, 5). Similarly, modern Abyssinian tradition assigns to her the name of Maqueda, and represents her as a convert to Judaism, and as having had a son by Solomon, whose name was Menilek. The Arabs mention her, under the name of Balkis, among the rulers of Yemen.
Mat_12:43. When the unclean spirit is gone out of a man.—A simile referring to the state of the Jewish nation, with special reference to the casting out of devils, and to the blasphemy of the Pharisees and scribes, which had just taken place. The man set free from the unclean spirit is an emblem of the Jewish nation as under the sway of Pharisaism. Hence the healing represents the blessed and gracious activity of Jesus in Israel.—The unclean spirit who is cast out walketh through dry desert places—deserts being represented as the habitation of devils, Job_30:3; Bar_4:35; Rev_18:2; Lev_16:21. The wilderness, an emblem of their dwelling-place in another world, of their activity, of their desolation and their banishment into desolation.
Mat_12:44. He findeth the house empty, swept, and garnished.—Not, as de Wette has it, the soul restored, but inviting to the unclean spirit,—not being inhabited by a good spirit.
Mat_12:45. Seven other spirits more wicked than himself.—This evidently refers to a more full possession by devils,—i. e., to a voluntary and damnable self-surrender to Satan by a wicked life, or to such hardening of unbelief as that of which the Jewish hierarchy and nation were guilty.—And the last state is worse than the first.—Their former low and miserable estate is followed by moral guilt, and a voluntary surrender to the power of evil,—such, alas! as has been manifested in the history of Israel.
From the details of Christ’s dealing with the Pharisees, as recorded by Luke, we derive a clear view of His increasing earnestness and directness in reproving them. What in the beginning He had only said to the disciples in the first Sermon on the Mount, and in His instruction to the Apostles, He now publicly repeated,—partly in the hearing of the Pharisees themselves, and partly in presence of all His professing disciples.
DOCTRINAL AND ETHICAL
1. “From this and other passages of Scripture ( Mat_12:26-30), we learn that the kingdom of darkness has also its head, who serves as a centre of connection, combining all the isolated forces into common resistance to Christ and His kingdom.”—Lisco. See Matthew 13.
2. The position of the Lord with reference to the Pharisaical party had now reached that stage of decision when each one must choose a distinct part. This was clearly indicated in the solemn statement—He that is not with Me (in this conflict) is against Me (and hence on the side of Satan, against whom the conflict is waged); and he that gathereth not with Me (in the harvest) scattereth abroad (is a destroyer of God’s harvest).
3. Blasphemy against the Holy Spirit, Mat_12:31-32.—For a full discussion of this subject, we must refer to other works, especially my Leben Jesu, Mat_2:2, p. 825; my Posit. Dogmatik, p. 453, and the exegetical, dogmatical, and ethical treatise of Phil. Schaff: Die Sünde wider den Heil. Geist, Halle, 1841 (written with reference to the dissertations on the same subject by Grashof, and Gurlitt in the Studien und Kritiken for 1833 and 1834; Tholuck in his Miscellanies, 1839; Nitzsch, System der christlichen Lehre, etc., and with a historical appendix on the terrible end of Francesco Spiera).34 “In all the legislations of antiquity, a distinction was made between inexpiable and expiable transgressions. Blasphemy of the Divine name belonged to the former class. If, therefore, there was anything inexpiable and unpardonable under the New Testament dispensation, blasphemy would naturally be the Old Testament symbol of it. Nor can there be any doubt that the Lord had, in this respect, warned His hearers against the sin of blasphemy; at the same time distinguishing various degrees of it (Mat_12:31; Mar_3:28; Luk_12:10). More especially do we gather from the Gospel of Mark, that Jesus here intended to define more accurately, or to give a more correct explanation of, the law of Moses, in Leviticus 24. In that passage, a punishment was denounced (יְנָשָׂא חֶטְאוֹ) against any blasphemy of the Deity (קִלֵּל אֱלֹהִים), while the punishment of death was awarded to express blasphemy of שֵׁס־י׳. This distinction between simply punishable and absolutely unpardonable blasphemy (κακολογία, 1Sa_3:13, Sept.), was explained by the Saviour, in the Gospel of Mark, in the sense that the pardonable, sin consisted in blasphemy against Elohim, while in the Gospel of Matthew, He applied it to blasphemy against the Divine Messenger, or the Son of Man. In both Gospels, however, the unpardonable blasphemy against the name of Jehovah, is further explained as being the blasphemy against the Holy Spirit. We cannot, therefore, see sufficient ground for the view advocated by Olshausen in his Commentary, that there were three degrees in the sin of blasphemy—that against the Father, that against the Son, and, finally, that against the Holy Spirit.” (Nitzsch, System, etc., p. 200.) The following dogmatical points seem to us of special importance: (1) From its very nature, every sin tends toward blasphemy, and every blasphemy toward blasphemy against the Holy Spirit. (2) It is unscriptural to identify blasphemy against the Holy Spirit with sin against the Holy Spirit.[35] This mistake has given rise to much distress of mind, and should be carefully avoided.36 (3) Accordingly, we must reject as unsatisfactory and dangerous the patristic and other specifications of this sin as if it referred to rejection of the gospel (Gnosticism, according to Irenæus), or to denial of the divinity of Christ (Athanasius and Hilarius), or to every mortal sin committed after baptism (Origen), or “duritia cordis usque ad finem hujus vitœ,”—meaning thereby every impenitent death in the judgment of the Church (Augustine), or to the sin of the Pharisees, as recorded in the text (as some modern interpreters have it). (4) A complete commission of this sin can scarcely be conceived, since the Holy Spirit would withdraw His manifestations from the blasphemer; and the latter would be staggered, being unable always to perceive the presence of the Spirit of God. (Hence the view of H. L. Nitzsch the elder is not without a measure of truth: de peccato homini cavendo, quamquam in hominem non cadente. Viteb. 1802.) (5) Still, according to the statement of the Lord, and from the very nature of the thing, a man may approach most closely to this sin, even to the insuring of his own certain condem nation. (6) Consequently, this state must be regarded as a hardening of the mind, which leads to, and manifests itself in, blasphemies. But we cannot agree with Grashof and Tholuck, in regarding this state as pure hatred against what is holy; nor yet with Nitzsch, as decided deadness and complete indifference. We conceive, with Schaff, that these two elements are here combined, since it is impossible to hate the true life without complete deadness, or, on the other hand, to be completely dead to the true life without hating it. (7) It is necessary to bear in mind that, following the example of the Lord, this warning must be cautiously handled. He only employed it at a season of extreme peril, and in the prospect of that sin. Heubner: “The Holy Spirit is referred to in the text more operative than personaliter, as a Divine principle, working on the heart of man in the way of awakening, rousing, and urging them, of all which man is conscious.” Still the complete revelation of the Holy Spirit includes also that of His personal glory; and blasphemy against what is holy is closely allied to blasphemy against the Person of the Spirit. Compare, however, the instructive communications of Heubner, p. 170 sqq., on this question.
4. Neither in this world, nor in the world to come, Mat_12:32.—De Wette: “The expression is evidently equivalent to never, in the absolute sense, no matter whether we understand the terms ὁ αἰὼν ὁ μέλλων of the kingdom of Messiah and of eternity, or only of the latter. But, in order to deduce from it the eternity of future punishments (Olshausen), we would require to take the words of Jesus in their strict literality, while they are evidently a proverbial expression (see Wetstein). The mild Chrysostom saw nothing in them beyond the idea of highest guilt,—or, perhaps, more correctly, difficulty of amendment.”37—But what if this difficulty were here declared absolute, or amounting to an impossibility? Nor must we lose sight of the fact, that there can be nothing general or unmeaning in a declaration which contains some most important dogmatic distinctions. The following ideas are evidently laid down in it: (1) In every sin there is hope of pardon, except in this,—the blasphemy against the Holy Spirit. (2) Pardon may be accorded in the world to come, as well as in this world. Comp. 1Pe_3:19; 1Pe_4:6. (3) There is no pardon either in this world, or in the world to come, for blasphemy against the Holy Spirit. (4) To blaspheme against the Son of Man, is to approximate to this sin; but in how far and how closely, the Lord does not warrant us to say. (5) The decision as to the amount of difference between the damnable approximation to the sin of blasphemy against the Holy Spirit, and that sin itself, belongs to God alone, who rules both in this world and in that which is to come. (6) Even an approximation to this sin leads to corresponding punishment in this world. (7) It is of the utmost importance that this sin should be described as one manifesting itself in a completely hardened state of mind, and in analogous outward expressions. This may be popularly explained as follows: God cannot forgive this sin, because it consists in perfect hardening and impenitence; and therefore will He not forgive it. True, such hardening is itself a judgment of God; yet in the sense that its guilt arises from, and depends upon, the moral state of man, and not on any fate or decree connected with time, place, or anything that is external.
[The importance of the subject justifies and demands some remarks, explanatory and cautionary, on the second inference of Dr. Lange from Mat_12:32, concerning the remission of sins in the future world, since it runs contrary to the old Protestant doctrine, and the prevailing views of the Anglo-American churches.
St. Augustine was the first, I believe, who clearly and decidedly drew this inference from the passage, De Civit. Dei, Mat_21:24 (Opera ed. Bened. vol. vii. p. 642 sq.): “Sicut etiam facta resurrectione mortuorum non deerunt quibus post pœnas, quas patiuntur spiritus mortuorum, impertiatur misericordia, ut in ignem non mittantur œternum. Neque enim de quibusdam veraciter diceretur, quod non eis remittatur neque in hoc sœculo, neque in futuro (Mat_12:32), nisi essent quibus, etsi non in isto, tamen remittetur in futuro.” Since that time, this passage, together with 1Co_3:15 (αὐτὸς δὲ σωθήσετα ι, οὕτως δὲ ὡς διὰπυρός), has been often quoted by fathers, schoolmen, and modern Roman divines, in favor of the doctrine of purgatory, and a probationary state after death. Compare Maldonatus ad loc.: “Cœterum recte Augustinus et Gregorius, Beda, Bernardus, ex hoc loco purgatorium probaverunt,.… colligentes aliqua in futuro sœculo peccata remitti.” Several modern Protestant commentators of Germany, including Olshausen (vol. i. 460, in Kendrick’s edition, who lets it pass without protest), find a similar idea implied in this declaration of our Lord, but they divest it, of course, of the Romish figment of purgatory.
The Roman system, according to the principle extra ecclesiam (Romanam) nulla salus, hopelessly condemns to hell all unbaptized persons, including children, though, of course, with different degrees of punishment, according to the measure of guilt (see Dante’s Inferno), and confines the second probation of purgatory exclusively to imperfect Christians, who are too good for hell and too bad for heaven, and consequently must pass after death through a tedious and painful process of penances and self-purifications before their final entrance into heaven. The modern German Protestant opinion in its evangelical form, starting from the idea of the absolute justice and universal love of God, maintains that Christ will ultimately be revealed to all human beings, and prove to them, according to their faith or unbelief, either a savor of life unto life, or of death unto death; that there is therefore a possibility of pardon and salvation in the state between death and the resurrection for unbaptized children, heathen, and all others who die innocently ignorant of Christ; and that pardon can be obtained there on the same condition as here, viz., repentance and faith in Christ whenever He is presented to them. Some lay the stress on the declaration that all sins are pardonable save one, and conclude, that final condemnation will not take place till after the blasphemy of the Holy Spirit, which implies a previous knowledge of Christianity. Several Greek fathers, and Luther and Zwingli, likewise, entertained hopeful views concerning the final fate of virtuous heathen.
But the orthodox Protestant divines of England, Scotland, and America almost unanimously reject the whole idea of a probationary state and the possibility of forgiveness after death, and deny that this passage justifies any inference favorable to it. We quote some of the latest commentators on Matthew. Alford: “No sure inference can be drawn from the words οὕτεἐν τῷ μέλλοντι with regard to forgiveness of sins in a future state. … In the most entire silence of Scripture on any such doctrine, every principle of sound interpretation requires that we should hesitate to support it by two difficult passages [1Pe_3:19; 1Pe_4:6], in neither of which does the plain construction of the words absolutely require it.” Wordsworth (who in this case omits to quote from his favorite fathers): “Some have hence inferred that sins not forgiven in this world may be forgiven in another. But this inference contradicts the general teaching of Scripture (Luk_16:26; Joh_9:4; Heb_3:13; Heb_9:27). … The phrase taken together signifies nunquam, and is a Hebraism found in the Talmud.” Owen: “The whole expression, ‘neither in this world, neither [nor] in the world to come,’ is beyond all question an emphatic never.” Then he contradicts Olshausen, and adds that the idea of the remission of sins in the other world “is neither taught here, nor in 1Pe_3:18 [19], and is directly at war with many other passages, expressly declaring the immutability of the soul’s condition beyond the grave.” Nast: “Neither in this world nor the world to come. The Greek word for world is αἰών, age; it was a proverbial expression among the Jews, meaning neither at present nor in future, that is: never, as Mark also expresses it in the parallel passage: ‘He has never forgiveness.’ Most of the modern theologians of Germany infer from this passage that since it is said that the sin or blasphemy against the Holy Ghost alone shall not be forgiven neither in this world nor in the world to come, there is a possibility of pardon for all other sins even in the world to come; that is, that those who die in a state of impenitence, not involving the blasphemy against the Holy Ghost, will either proceed in the spirit-world in their downward course, till their sin is the blasphemy against the Holy Ghost, or that, if they should repent, they may find pardon.” Then, after quoting Alford against this opinion, Dr. Nast adds: “So much is certain, that it would be reckless folly to put off the one thing needful to an uncertain futurity or the state after death, of which the Bible says so little, where the means of grace are, even if not entirely cut off, not as powerful as here; add to this, that the longer conversion is put off the more difficult it becomes.”
At the same time, however, American Protestant divines generally incline to the belief that all infants who die in infancy, whether baptized or not, will be saved by the atonement of Christ. This would involve the salvation of the greater part of the human family, since one half of them are supposed to die in infancy; while the Roman Catholic orthodoxy, by asserting the necessity of baptism for salvation, excludes all the unbaptized from the kingdom of heaven.
A full discussion of the final fate of the countless millions of human beings who live and die without any knowledge of Christ, would require us to take into consideration the various passages which relate to the heathen, Mat_11:21-24; Mat_12:41-42; Mat_15:28; Act_10:35; Act_14:16-17; Rom_1:19-21; Rom_2:11-15; Rom_2:26-29, and to the manifestation of the Logos before His incarnation, Joh_1:5; Joh_1:9-10, together with the Old Testament examples of the working of divine grace outside of the covenant of circumcision among such persons as Melchisedek (the priest-king and type of Christ), Jethro, Rahab, Ruth (who are in the genealogy of Christ), Hiram, the Queen of Sheba, Naaman, Job, and the wise men from the East, who, following the star of promise and hope, came to worship the new born king of the Jews; also the passages on Christ’s descent into hades, and preaching to the spirits in prison, Act_2:27; Act_2:31; 1Pe_3:19; 1Pe_4:6, about which, however, there is a wide difference of interpretation.
In these passages carefully compared, as well as in the general Scripture doctrine of the absolute justice and goodness of God, I see much to encourage the charitable hope that God in His infinite mercy will ultimately save, in some way, all infants who die before having committed actual transgression, and such adult heathen as live and die in a frame of mind predisposed to receive the gospel or in an humble and earnest desire after salvation (such as we find, for instance, in Cornelius before the arrival of Peter). But even this is not to be taught as an article of faith, since the Bible, wise in its silence as in its teaching, gives us no explicit revelation on the subject.
The following general propositions on this whole question will probably be approved as sound and scriptural by the majority of evangelical divines, at least in America:
(1) There can be no salvation out of Christ.
(2) There is no second probation after death, but the present life determines the final fate of every man. “In the place where the tree falleth, there it shall be” (Ecc_11:3). “Whatsoever a man soweth, that shall he also reap” (Gal_6:7).
(3) We are bound to the ordinary means of grace, but God is free, and “will have mercy upon whom he will have mercy” (Rom_9:15).
(4) God will judge every man according to his measure of light and opportunity, and it will be “more tolerable” for the heathen at the judgmen day than for such as sinned against a positive revelation (comp. Mat_11:22-26).
(5) God “who is no respecter of persons” comp. Act_10:35), and is infinitely more just and merciful than we can conceive of, will clear up, in the future world, all the mysteries of Providence in a manner that will call forth the everlasting praise and adoration of His people.—P. S.]38
HOMILETICAL AND PRACTICAL
Opposite effects produced by the glorious manifestations of the Lord, in those who are susceptible, and in those who are opposed to Him: 1. Admiration, indignation; 2. confession, praise—rejection and blasphemy; or, recognition of the power and majesty of God, and reviling of the Divine revelation as the power of Satan.—The healing of one most fully possessed by an unclean spirit, more easy than the recovery of a hypocrite.—It argues a devilish mind to represent as satanic what is Divine.—Marks of the devilish cunning of the wicked: 1. They impute this cunning to the Holy One; 2. they surrender themselves to this cunning; 3. they are ensnared by the cunning of the Evil One without being aware of it.—The wicked artifice which attempts to represent that which is holy as an artifice, is itself the prey of the worst artifice.—Christ victorious over the calumny of His opponents: 1. In His defence; 2. in His justification and manifestation of Himself; 3. in His accusation of the Pharisees; 4. in His warning.—The consequences of sin.—In what sense can Satan be said to have a kingdom?—Christ the Almighty One, who has bound the strong man.—Any power which the Evil One wields here, belongs not to him of right, but is usurped and arrogated.—Unclean spirits envying and grieving at the happiness of man.—Solemn effect on His people in the world, to the last day, of the indignation of Christ, occasioned by the charge, that He carried on His work in conjunction with Satan.—The great hour of decision between Christ and Israel: 1. How awful; 2. how solemn; 3. how glorious.—The watchword of the Lord: For Me, or against Me.—Agreement between these two watchwords: he that is not with Me, etc., and he that is not against us, etc.—It may have been possible not to recognize the Son of Man in the form of a servant, but it is not possible wholly to ignore in our consciousness the Holy Spirit in His glory.—The Holy Spirit glorifies the Son of Man, and makes the cause of Christ His cause.—The sin of prejudice akin to, yet different from, the sin of conscious rejection of what is holy: 1. In its motive; 2. in its consciousness; 3. in its object; 4. in its effects.
Blasphemy against the Holy Spirit. 1. In its source: (a) sin in general; (b) blasphemy in general. 2. In its gradual manifestation: blasphemy of what is divine, of the Son of Man in the form of a servant. 3. In its completion: blasphemy against the highest revelation of God in our consciousness, or against the Spirit of the gospel which had roused the conscience.—A warning figure of that sin in all its fulness, and of complete condemnation.—The sin of the satanic consequence of pride, when man hardens his mind against the Sun of highest revelation, whose rays penetrate into it.—Spiritual suicide, or the sin unto death (1 John 5), the end of one of two ways: 1. Of hardening; 2. of apostasy.—How the warning against blasphemy is to be applied by the children of God: 1. Each one is to beware of it; 2. it is not to be imputed to any one; 3. the tendency to judge others would lead to an opposite course of conduct. (For example, the Pharisees have committed it, but we cannot commit it; heretics, etc., but we the orthodox, etc.; those beyond the pale, etc., but we the priests, etc.; our opponents, etc., but we who are in the right, etc.)—Christ is always the same; and the glorious characteristics of the gospel appear even when He speaks of blasphemy against the Holy Spirit.—All manner of sin shall be forgiven unto men.
The tree is known by his fruit.—If we cannot condemn the fruit, we should not condemn the tree.—If we cannot praise the fruit, we should not commend the tree.—How men may become a generation of vipers in their relationship toward the kingdom of God.—Out of the abundance of the heart the mouth speaketh.—A man’s words as indicating his inward state: 1. As being its fruit; 2. as being its spiritual coinage; 3. as being a decisive deed.—The account demanded of every idle word.—How our justification or condemnation may depend on the fugitive texture of our words.—Hypocrisy ever betraying itself by the base coin of its words.—Spiritual forgery the worst, and therefore the most unpardonable, fraud upon the kingdom of Christ.
The demand of a sign from heaven, made on the Lord of heaven, a sign of unbelief and hardening.—The sign of the Messiah from the deep, the highest sign from heaven.—Jonas a type of Christ.—Devout heathens the strongest witnesses against hypocritical Christians.—The queen of the south; or, holy longing in those who inhabit the dark places of the earth.—A greater than Jonah is here, and a greater than Solomon; or, Christ, the man of sorrows and the Lord of glory, in both respects surpassing all others: or, the glory of the New Testament; or, the combined glory of the preaching of repentance and of the doctrine of life, of deed and of word; or, the Lord going to those who are distant, and those who are distant coming to Him.—Hardening, a sevenfold possession.—The hardening of Israel.—Those who are possessed against their will, in a much better condition than those who voluntarily surrender themselves to be the instruments of unclean spirits.—The worst devils are those who pretend to be the most spiritual.—Lamentable condition of an individual, but especially of a nation, which renounces and contravenes its spiritual experiences.—The signs of an evil generation.
Starke:—The tyranny of Satan is great; for he deprives man both of the natural and spiritual gifts bestowed upon him.—Hedinger: Christ came into the world that He might destroy the works of the devil, 1Jn_3:8.—Is Satan a king who has a mighty kingdom; then who would not beware of him?—Christ alone is able to destroy the kingdom of Satan, Act_10:38.—Where the Spirit of God is, there also is the kingdom of God, Rom_14:17.—What concord hath Christ with Belial? 2Co_6:15—Majus: The divinity of the Holy Spirit appears also from this, that the sin against Him is unpardonable, Heb_3:10-11.—Osiander: Ministers should speak with caution of the sin against the Son of Man, and of that against the Holy Spirit, lest tender consciences be frightened and cast down.—Quesnel: The resurrection of Christ the greatest miracle, and the seal of His mission, 1Co_15:16.—The example of the Ninevites.—Canstein: Those who are nearest to the gospel often despise it most; but thereby they condemn themselves, so that they are without excuse, Heb_2:2.—Hedinger: Away, false security; though driven out, the devil may return in greater force.—Let him who has escaped take care lest he be ensnared again.—Those who invite the devil to take them, garnish the house of their heart for his reception.—The more frequently man resists the grace of God, the worse does he become, 2Pe_2:22.
Lisco:—The Ninevites: There only a prophet, but here the Son of God Himself; there only a call to repentance, but here the announcement of mercy, and the gift of grace to repentance; there repentance, here impenitence, and hence the punishment which they escaped by their penitence, Luk_11:32.—The queen of the south: She came from a far country, despite the difficulties in the way, while here they reject what is pressed on their acceptance; yonder longing and faith, here satiety and unbelief; yonder Solomon, here Christ, with His infinite wisdom.
Gerlach:—A man’s words are the evidence on which he is to be tried before God.
Heubner:—One stronger must come, viz., Christ, by whom we can do all things.—Neutrality in matters of religion and of faith, will receive the severest condemnation.—Sin a poison.—The heart and the mouth cannot be separated.—The mouth betrays the heart.—An evil treasure a wretched possession.—A good treasure is inexhaustible.
[Wordsworth (on the sign of Jonah, Mat_12:39-40):—Here is an observable instance of the uses of the Gospels in confirming the Old Testament. By this specimen of Divine exposition, our Lord suggests the belief, that whatever we may now find in the O. T. difficult to be understood, will one day be explained, and perhaps be seen to be prophetic and typical of the greatest mysteries of the gospel; and that in the mean time it is an exercise of their faith and a trial of their humility,—a divinely-appointed instrument of their moral probation. And it is because they are strange and marvellous, that such histories as those of Jonah and Balaam are the best tests of the strength of our faith.—P. S.]
Footnotes:
[19] Mat_12:22.—1. B., D., [Cod. Sinait.], Lachmann, Tischendorf, [Alford]: τὸν κωφόν, [the dumb]. 2. L., X., D., Syr.: κωφὸν καὶ τυφλόν, [dumb and blind]. 3. Latter Codd., the text. rec., Griesbach, Meyer, [Wordsworth, Stier and Theile, etc.]: τὸν τυφλὸν καὶ κωφόν, [the blind and dumb]. We suppose that in the second place κωφός is used in a more general sense, signifying stupidity.
[20] Mat_12:23.—[Μήτι οὗτός ἐστιν, etc. Lange, correctly, according to the German idiom: Ist doch dieser nicht etwa? Conant and the revised version of the A. B. Union: Is this, etc. This is the original rendering of the English Version in the editions of 1611 and of 1613, in this passage (though not in Joh_4:29): Is this the Son of David? But most editions including that of the Am. B. Soc., read: Is not this, etc. A change for the worse. For μήτι or μή, both in the N. T and in classic Greek, always implies some loubt and the expectation or the wish of a negative answer; while οὐ in questions looks to an affirmative answer. witer, Grammatik, 6th ed., p. Matt 453: μή (μ ήτ ι) steht wo eine Vernrinende Ant-wort vorausgesetst oder erwartet wird, doch nicht?. … Der Fragende legt es immer auf eine negative Antwort an und würde nicht überrascht sein, wenn er eine solche erhielte, Joh_6:33; Joh_8:22; Mat_12:23; Joh_4:29; Joh_7:26; Joh_7:35.”—P. S.]
[21]Ver 24.—[Fellow implies contempt, which is not warranted by the use of the demonstrative pronoun οὗτος, either here or in the preceding verse. Howard Crosby (The N. T. with explanatory Notes or Scholia): “Fellow is an unhappy word to introduce here, although it was not so objectionable when our version was formed. There is no word in the Greek, the pronoun ‘this’ standing alone. We may say ‘this one.’ ”—P. S.]
[22] Mat_12:28.—[Εφθασεν ἐφ̓ ὑμᾶς, which the E. V., in the parallel passage Luk_11:20 renders: the kingdom of God is come upon you. Φθάνειν with the Classics means prœvenire, to precede, anticipate, overtake, and so 1Th_4:15 (E. V.: “shall not precent—i. e., in the old English sense of prœvenire—them which are asleep”); but in Hellenistic and in modern Greek it means also pervenire, to come hear, to come upon, yet often with the idea of surprise, as here. Wesley and Stier: Is already upon you, i. e., before you looked for it.—P. S.]
[23] Mat_12:29.—[Lit.: the strong man’s, τοῦ ἰσχυροῦ, with reference to the particular case in hand, but not: the strong one, viz. Satan (Campbell); for the Saviour draws an illustration from common life to show his relation to Satan.—P. S.]
[24] Mat_12:29.—[According to the true reading ἁρπάσαι, instead of ο͂͂͂͂ιαρπάσαι, which occurs in the following verse.—P. S.]
[25] Mat_12:35.—The best MSS. [including Cod. Sinait.] omit τῆς καρδίας (of the heart), which seems to be an interpretation.
[26] Mat_12:38.—The best MSS. [also Cod. Sinait.] add αὐτῷ after ἀπεκριθησαν.
[27] Mat_12:41.—[A ὅτι is correctly translated in the parallel case Mat_12:42 : for she came.—P. S.]
[28] Mat_12:44.—The best authorities favor the emphatic position of into my house at the beginning of the sentence. [The Cod. Sinait. likewise reads: εἰς τὸν οἷκόν μου ἐπιστρέψω. But this does not do as well in English, as in the Greek and German languages.—P. S.]
[29][Meyer: “Μήτι οὗτος, etc. Question of surprise, where the emphasis lies on οὗτος: It can hardly be that this man. who otherwise has not the appearance of the Messiah, should be the Messiah.”—P. S.]
[30][We add the remarks of Trench (Notes on the Miracles of our Lord, 6th ed., p. 59): “There is at first sight a difficulty in the argument which our Saviour draws from the oneness of the kingdom of Satan—namely, that it seems the very idea of this kingdom, that it should be an anarchy, blind rage and hate not merely against God, but each part of it warring against every other part. And this is most deeply true, that hell is as much in arms against itself as against heaven; neither does our Lord deny that in respect of itself that kingdom is infinite contradiction and division: only he asserts that in relation to the kingdom of heaven it is one: there is one life in it and one soul in opposition to that. Just as a nation or kingdom may embrace within itself infinite parties, divisions, discords, jealousies, and heart-burnings; yet if it is to subsist as a nation at all, it must not, as regards other nations, have lost its sense of unity; when it does so, of necessity it falls to pieces and perishes. To the Pharisees He says: ‘This kingdom of evil subsists; by your own confession it does so; it cannot therefore have denied the one condition of its existence, which is, that it should not lend its powers to the overthrowing of itself, that it should not side with its own foes; My words and works declare that i am its foe, it cannot therefore be siding with Me.’ ”—P. S.]
[31]See the well-known beginning of Horace’s Ars pocvica.
[32][St. Jerome: “This is to be explained by a figure of speech called synecdoche, by which a part is put for the whole; not that our Lord was three whole days and three nights in the grave, but part of Friday, part of Sunday, and the whole of Saturday were reckoned as three days.” Meyer: “Jesus war nur einen Tag und zwei Nächte todt. Allein nach populärer Weise (vergl. 1Sa_30:12 sq.) sind die Theile des ersten und dritten Tages als ganse Tage gesählt, wozu die darsustellende gegenbildliche Aehnlichkeit mit dem Schicksal des Jonas veranlasste.” Alford: “If it be necessary to make good the three days and nights, it must be done by having recourse to the Jewish method of computing time. In the Jerusalem Talmud (cited by Lightfoot) it is said ‘that a day and night together make up a עוֹנָה (a νυχθήμερον), and that any part of such a period is counted as the whole.’ See Gen_40:13; Gen_40:20; 1Sa_30:12-13; 2Ch_10:5; 2Ch_10:12; Hos_6:2.” Wordsworth: “The days of Christ’s absence from His disciples were shortened in mercy to them as far as was consistent with the fulfilment of the prophecy (?).—P. S.]
[33][So also Theophylact, Bellarmin, Maldonatus, Olshausen, König (Lehre von der Höllenfahrt Christi. 1842, p. 54), Alford. Wordsworth, while D. Brown and all the American commentators of Matthew, A. Barnes, J. A. Alexander, Owen, Whedon (Jacobus’ Notes I have not at hand), understand the heart of the earth to mean simply the grave. But hades agrees better with the parallel of the belly of the sea-monster, than the tomb of Joseph of Arimathea, which was on the surface of the earth rather than in the heart thereof; secondly, Jonah himself calls the belly of the sea-monster בֶּטֶז שְׁאזֹל, LXX: ἐκ κοιλίας ᾅδου, “out of the belly of hades” (not hell as in the E. V.), Jon_2:3 (2); and finally, there should be no more dispute now as to Christ’s actual descent into hades, see Luk_23:43; Act_2:27; Act_2:31 (Greek text); Eph_4:9; 1Pe_3:19. But no doctrinal statements concerning the locality of hades can be justly derived from such popular expressions, which must necessarily adapt themselves to our imperfect finite conceptions.—P. S.]
[34][Comp. also Julius Müller: Die christliche Lehre con der Sünde, 3d ed., in the latter part of the second volume. An English translation of this profound and important work by Wm. Pulsford (The Christian Doctrine of Sin exhibited) appeared at Edinburgh, 1852, as a part of Clark’s Foreign Library.—P. S.]
[35][In the wider sense every sin of the believer who has experienced the power and influence of the Holy Spirit, may be called a sin against the Holy Spirit, although far from approaching the nature and guilt of blasphemy. The Scripture speaks of quenching the Spirit, 1Th_5:19, grieving the Holy Spirit of God, Eph_4:30, resisting the same, Act_7:51, and vexing him, Isa_63:10; but all these sins are still within the reach of pardon. M. Henry: “It is not all speaking against the person or essence of the Holy Spirit, 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?”—P. S.]
[36]The common reply to such doubts is well known. It is to the effect, that he who is guilty of the sin against the Holy Spirit would not feel sorrow for it; and that the fact of such sorrow is itself an evidence that this sin has not been committed. [So also M. Henry in loc.: “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.”—P. S.]
[37][In the same way even Wordsworth weakens the force of οὐκ ἀφεθήσεται: “is very unlikely to obtain forgiveness.” He quotes from Augustine, Retract. Mat_1:9 : “De nullo quamvis pessimo in hac vita desperandum est.” This is true enough, because we never know whether a man has committed the unpardonable sin, and we must go on the assumption that he has not. The only hopeless case was that of Judas after Christ Himself with His infallible knowledge had called him the son of perdition, for whom it were better never to have been born. Meyer (p. 268. note) correctly observes: “The eternity of punishment here taught is not to be explained away and changed into ‘difficulty of amendment’ (de Wette), or reduced to the milder conception of the highest degree of guilt (Chrysostom), or greatest difficulty of forgiveness (Socinians), and such like.” Whrdon: “It is difficult to say in what words the eternity of retribution could be more unequivocally expressed.”—P. S.]
[38][This annotation of the Am. editor was partly rewritten (Febr. 1865) for the third edition, with a view to make it more clear and explicit.—P. S.]
Lange's Commentary on the Holy Scriptures (Critical, Doctrinal, and Homiletical), ed. John Peter Lange, English translation edited by Philip Schaff (1864–1880) — public domain. Text from a community e-Sword module.
Robert Jamieson, A. R. Fausset & David Brown 1871 · Public Domain On vv22–36 A BLIND AND DUMB DEMONIAC HEALED AND REPLY TO…
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)
Then was brought unto him one possessed with a devil--"a demonized person."
Read full note →
blind and dumb, and he healed him, insomuch that the blind and the dumb both spake and saw.
Jamieson, Fausset & Brown — Commentary Critical and Explanatory on the Whole Bible (1871) — public domain (CC PDM 1.0). Text via the HelloAO Bible API.
Daniel D. Whedon 1874 · Public Domain On vv22–37 22. One possessed with a devil, blind, and dumb…
22. One possessed with a devil, blind, and dumb — The kingdom of wickedness naturally associates with the natural evils of men. Disease and possession are the product of sin, and they are thus found going naturally together. See note on Mat_4:24.
Daniel D. Whedon (gen. ed.), Commentary on the Old and New Testaments (1874–1909) — public domain. Text from a community e-Sword module.
The Cambridge Bible for Schools and Colleges 1878 · Public Domain On vv22, 24, 25, 27, 28, 29, 30, 31, 32, 33, 34, 35, 36, 37 22, 23. Cure of a Blind and Dumb Man
22, 23. Cure of a Blind and Dumb Man
Luk_11:14-16.
The Cambridge Bible for Schools and Colleges (gen. ed. J. J. S. Perowne; Cambridge University Press, 1878–1918) — public domain. Text from a community e-Sword module.
Ellicott's Commentary for English Readers 1878 · Public Domain On vv22–37 (22) The narrative that follows is again a stumbling-block…
(22) The narrative that follows is again a stumbling-block in the way of harmonists. St. Luke (Luk_11:14) places it after the feeding of the five thousand; St. Mark (Mar_3:22) immediately after the mission of the Twelve. A like narrative has met us in Mat_9:32, and it is probable enough that the charge was repeated as often as the occasion presented itself, and as often answered in identical or like words. St. Mark states that the Pharisees who brought it were those who had come down from Jerusalem, and this falls in with all that we have seen of the activity of those emissaries of the party.
Possessed with a devil, blind, and dumb.—In Mat_9:32, the man was simply dumb; here the phenomena of the suspension of conscious sensation and volition were more complicated.
A Bible Commentary for English Readers, edited by Charles John Ellicott (1878–1897) — public domain. Text from a community e-Sword module.
The Pulpit Commentary 1880 · Public Domain On vv22–37 Vers. 22-32. The healing of a man blind and…
Vers. 22-32. The healing of a man blind and dumb, and the consequent blasphemy of the Pharisees. The miracle leads them to the extreme of spiritual opposition. (On the assimilation to our vers. 22-24, found in Mat_9:32-34, see notes there) The parallel passages are Luk_11:14-23 and, for the blasphemy and our Lord"s consequent defence only, Mar_3:22-30.
Then was brought. So Westcott and Herr margin, but text, "then they brought," as in Mat_9:32. Unto him one possessed with a devil, blind (this fact is not mentioned by Luke), and dumb. "The devil had shut up each entrance by which be might come to faith, his sight and his hearing, yet Christ opened each" (Chrysostom). And he healed him, insomuch that the blind and dumb both spake and saw. The case was worse than even that of Mat_9:32, where the man was not blind.
Read full note →
Vers. 22-37. The blasphemy of the Pharisees.
I ITS CAUSE.
1. The demoniac. The poor man was blind and dumb, and that not from natural causes, but by the cruel agency of an evil spirit. Like the dumb man, (Mat_9:32) he was brought to Christ. He was helpless; he could not see his way; he could not express his wants. The Lord healed him at once; he both spake and saw. We must do our part to bring the helpless to the Lord. There are many, alas! whose eyes the God of this world has blinded, who know not how to pray. It is a good and holy deed to show the way to Christ, to help the helpless, to guide them to the Lord. He can open the lips of the dumb; he can give sight to the blind; he can drive away the evil spirit that keeps the sinner from his Saviour. His arm is not shortened, that it cannot save; neither his ear heavy, that it cannot hear.
2. The wonder of the people. They were astonished at the Lord"s power; they said, "Is this the Son of David?" They felt in their hearts that these mighty works were the signs of the Messiah, the proper works of the Christ. They were ready to believe.
II THE ACCUSATION.
1. The envy of the Pharisees. The people were on the point of recognizing Jesus as the Messiah; the Pharisees interfered. The miracle filled the crowd with admiration; it filled the Pharisees with anger and malignity. God"s grace hardens those whom it does not save. The very cross is a savour of death unto death to the impenitent. Good men love goodness; evil men hate it.
2. The charge of complicity with Satan. They could not deny the fact of the miracle; in their wicked jealousy they attributed it to the help of Satan. Once before they had said the same thing privately amongst themselves; (Mat_9:34) now they said it openly to prevent the people from owning the Messiahship of Jesus. "Yes," they said, "he casts out devils; but it is through the power of the devil, in union with him." Oh, what an evil thing is jealousy, it vents its spite upon the best and holiest! How lovely is that charity which thinketh no evil, which rejoiceth in the truth!
III THE LORD"S REPLY.
1. His knowledge. He knew their thoughts. Indeed, they had not only conceived the wicked thought; they had uttered it. But it seems they had not spoken in the Lord"s hearing; they had disseminated their falsehoods among the crowd. But he read their thoughts. He reads the envious, unloving thoughts which, alas! dwell sometimes in our hearts. We are ashamed of them, we would not utter them to our nearest friends; but they are known to the Lord. Reverence his presence; strive to entertain no thought displeasing to him.
2. His wisdom. He refers his adversaries to principles which they could not deny. A kingdom divided against itself cannot stand. The existence of political parties, as we see them now, is not an unmixed evil; they balance one another; they check one another"s excesses. But when they stand opposed in the fierceness of civil war, then the kingdom cannot stand. So there may be anarchy in the kingdom of Satan; it is the kingdom of burning hatred, of envy, of malice; but, like the Pharisees and the Herodians, like Pilate and Herod, it is united against the kingdom of God. The dreaded presence of the Holy One of God gave unity to the hosts of Satan. They were banded together in one in their intense opposition to the Saviour. Satan would not cast out Satan when Christ was at hand: "The serpent was more subtile than any beast of the field." Satan had too much wisdom in his wickedness to weaken himself when his power was beginning to wane before the majesty of the Son of God. Union is strength, division is weakness. Oh that the children of light could learn a lesson from the enemy, and be reunited in one faith and love in the face of the impending struggle with scepticism and unbelief!
3. His argumentum ad hominem. The disciples of the Pharisees practised certain forms of exorcism; they professed to cast out evil spirits. (comp. Mar_9:38 and Act_19:14) Did they do it by the aid of Beelzebub? They were not punished; on the contrary, they were held. in esteem. Why should Christ"s miracles be attributed to the agency of Satan, when others, not holy as he was, professed to have the power of casting out devils, and yet were not supposed to be in confederation with the prince of darkness? To say the least, it would be only fair that the actions of Jesus should be judged by the same rule as those of these Jewish exorcists. How unfair people are! How constantly they judge themselves and their friends by one rule, those from whom they differ by another! The Christian must aim at absolute honesty and impartiality.
4. The true explanation of his power. He used none of the strange forms practised by the exorcists, none of the appliances and manipulations which were employed either to impress the patient or to collect the energy of the operator. He simply spoke the word of power. He cast out devils by an energy contrary, antagonistic to theirs the energy of the Holy Spirit of God which abode upon him. He was full of the Holy Ghost (Luk_4:1) when he met Satan face to face in the wilderness of the temptation. He cast out devils with the finger of God. (Luk_11:20) The three blessed Persons are One God; the work of Christ was the work of the Three in One. And if so, the kingdom of God was come. It had come unawares, not with observation; but it was already in the world, active and energetic in the immediate neighbourhood of these unbelieving Pharisees. How else could the kingdom of Satan be invaded? Satan was strong; he had seized upon many of the creatures of God, and made them the vessels of his accursed wickedness. The Lord was despoiling him; he was driving him from the unhappy men over whom he had tyrannized. Then the Lord Jesus was stronger than Satan. lie had bound the strong man. By the mystery of his incarnation, by his own victory over the tempter, he had overcome the wicked one. The power of Satan is not now what once it was. The Lord triumphed over him on the cross; by his atoning sacrifice of himself he broke the devil"s power over man. He will spoil his house. The Lord has not yet gathered in all the fruits of his victory; he will go on, conquering and to conquer, till all things are put under his feet.
5. The warning.
(1) The kingdom of God was come. The two kingdoms, the kingdom of light and the kingdom of darkness, are in intense, energetic antagonism to one another. There is no middle point, no possible neutrality: "He that is not with me is against me." For Christ the Lord was perfect in holiness, hating evil with a Divine hatred. He came down from heaven to light against it; he gave himself to die in the awful conflict, and by his death he triumphed. His disciples must imitate the Lord; indifference cannot coexist with the service of him who was so earnest, so full of holy energy. There must be no indecision, no halting between two opinions. The true disciple must give his heart to Christ; he must range himself with Christ under the banner of the cross; he must fight the good fight of faith, and quit himself like a man, steadfast unto death. For the struggle is real; its issues are momentous. Christ calls the soldiers of the cross; each has his place in the ranks of the great army; every one, however weak, must do his part and take his share in the lifelong battle. "He that is not with me is against me." In that sharp opposition indifference puts a man on the side of Satan against the Lord, against him who loved us and died to save us, against him who will one day judge us. It is an awful word, but it is the word of Christ, and he is the Truth.
(2) The Lord died "that he should gather together in one the children of God that were scattered abroad." And he saith, "lie that gathereth not with me scattereth abroad." He who is with Christ, distinctly, actively on his side, gathereth souls. Christ is with him, and he with Christ; and Christ"s power working in him draws souls out of the kingdom of darkness into the kingdom of light. Every true Christian life is a powerful instrument for spreading the knowledge of Christ. But he who is not with Christ doth not only not gather; he scattereth. Indifferent, lukewarm Christians not only do no good, they do real harm to souls; their example, especially if they are persons of influence and of respectable life, leads others to acquiesce in the same spiritual indolence. Thus they are against Christ; they scatter the souls which he would gather into his little flock. Their opposition is not active; they do not suppose themselves to be enemies of Christ; they do not think of the mischief which they are doing; but in reality their conduct tends to scatter the sheep quite as certainly as that of the open opponents of religion.
(3) The life is wasted that is not given to Christ. He that gathereth not with Christ may gather many things riches, honours, earthly comforts but he cannot gather the true riches; they are offered him, but he scatters them abroad. He despises them in the time of health and strength; in sickness and in death he will be poor, desolate, hopeless.
IV THE SIN AGAINST THE HOLY GHOST.
1. What is it? The Pharisees needed the warning; they had come perilously near to the unpardonable sin; they had attributed miracles which were wrought by the Spirit of God to the agency of Satan. But it was Christ against whom they had spoken directly, not the Holy Ghost. Blasphemy against the Holy Ghost is the sin of those who "were once enlightened, and have tasted of the heavenly gift, and were made partakers of the Holy Ghost," but yet have fallen away, and "done despite to the Spirit of grace." Such blasphemy is the expression of that "eternal sin" of which our Lord speaks in Mar_3:29 eternal, unchangeable hostility against God, the strife of the flesh against the Spirit (Gal_5:17) matured into complete antagonism. The blasphemy which cannot be forgiven seems to be the expression of this awful state in wicked words: that defiance of God, that contemptuous rejection of his revelation which is the ultimate outcome of the wilful quenching of the Spirit in the individual heart.
2. It cannot be forgiven. St. Paul had spoken against Christ, he had been a blasphemer; (1Ti_1:13) but he did it ignorantly; it was not a sin against light, not the blasphemy against the Holy Ghost. That blasphemy hath never forgiveness; for he who thus blasphemes sets himself in direct hostility to that Holy Spirit who is the only Source of spiritual life. He could not so blaspheme unless he had first quenched the Spirit; such blasphemy is a proof that the blasphemer would not retain God in his knowledge, and that God hath given him over to a reprobate mind. Many deep, perplexing thoughts gather round these most awful words. Are there sins which, unforgiven here, may obtain forgiveness in the world to come, in the future age? We cannot help asking the question; the answer we must leave to God. It is one of the secret things which he has not revealed, of which we must be content to be ignorant. Only let us remember the awful holiness of the good Spirit of God, let us listen to his faintest whispers; to grieve the Holy Spirit is full of danger, to quench the Spirit is deadly sin.
V PARABLE OF THE TREE AND THE FRUIT.
1. If the fruit is good, the tree,is good. If the works of Christ are good, they must proceed from a good source. The Pharisees could not deny the goodness of the works; it was wicked folly to attribute deeds so holy to the evil one. It is a grievous sin to misrepresent the conduct of good men, to suggest unworthy motives for their good deeds.
2. Out of the abundance of the heart the mouth speaketh. The Pharisees could not be expected to speak good things, for they were corrupt at the heart. They had said wicked things of Christ; the Lord knew the wickedness of their hearts. Merciful and gentle as he was, he repeated the strong words of condemnation which John the Baptist had used already, "O generation of vipers!". (Mat_3:7) Their heart had its hidden store of unholy thoughts, sinful imaginations, wicked motives; out of that evil treasure came their evil words. They could not speak good things, for good things issue out of the heart"s precious treasure of holy love, heavenly thoughts, blessed hopes; and that they had not. A wicked man may, indeed, speak good things at times, when he is playing the hypocrite. But hypocrisy has always something forced and unnatural about it; it betrays itself sooner or later. In sudden emergencies, in seasons of excitement, when the man is off his guard then, "out of the abundance of the heart the mouth speaketh.
3. The judgment of wicked words. We must give account of our words in the awful day. The idle, vain, unprofitable word is sin; it shows the state of the heart. Words, thoughts, deeds, all will be brought into judgment; each department of human life must form a part of the great account. lie whose words were good will so far be acquitted; he whose words were evil will so far be condemned. Then words, fleeting as they may seem, forgotten sometimes almost as soon as spoken, assume an awful character. Let every man beware.
LESSONS.
Bring the helpless to Christ; he can heal the sick soul.
1. Flee from envy; hate it; crush it out; it is sin; it is the parent of deadly evil.
2. Remember always, God reads the thoughts.
3. Be decided in your religion; range yourself on the side of Christ.
4. Grieve not the Spirit; keep a strict watch over thoughts and words, as well as deeds.
Vers. 22-37. (see also Mar_3:22-30 Luk_11:14-23) The bathos of detracting blasphemy.
In introduction, note the unity of this passage of sixteen verses. While the linking of one portion of the accounts contained in the Gospels to another is very often exceedingly evident, and that, link by link, a oneness of a different and complete kind marks this marvellous episode. Observe also upon the fact that the criticism of all the ages from the earliest Christian writings of the centuries has fastened upon these verses with no mistaken instinct. And grant that the crucial question, which they undoubtedly own to, considering the words and the tone of the Lord Jesus, may be approached, ought to be approached, investigated, and pondered with prayer, but will not allow itself to be dogmatized upon. The certain meaning eludes this treatment at any rate; and demands most reverential handling quite as really as it commands the awed meditating of the true student of the words of Christ. Treating the passage in the simplest manner, the likelier to lead to a better appreciation of the central difficulty, notice
I THE SIGNIFICANT RISE OF THE OCCASION, WHICH TOOK SO WIDE A RANGE AFTERWARDS.
1. The prompt, manifest, and undisputed healing of a man who suffered from the deprivation (presumably) of three out of the five senses which belonged to his nature.
2. The modus of this healing, to wit, the relieving the man of the tyrannous incubus of an evil spirit. This dispossessed, the man"s dispossession vanished; the devil"s possession challenged, disturbed, dislodged, and evicted, the man"s rightful possession and possessions came to him, like some dawn of day.
3. Inspiration"s presentation of this event and transaction to the uncounted millions of its readers. That is, not in its personal aspects, without one word of rehearsal of the circumstances of the faith and inner desire and subsequent conduct of the man healed. He is here; be is healed possibly he joins the amazed multitude, possibly he goes his way, and gratefully so; but the mighty work of Christ is left, and this becomes the sole absorbing subject.
4. The world of observers wended different ways the way of the "people," and the way of the "Pharisees.
II THE DARING IMPUTATION, SUICIDAL SLANDER, AND PRONOUNCED BLASPHEMY THEREUPON, OF THE PHARISEES. A type to infernal perfection of that vice that has discredited so often in less degree fallen human nature, the detracting from the goodness of the good and their good deeds, and from the greatness of the great and their great deeds, is before us here. What are the facts? They are:
1. A great work done, a good work done, an absolutely merciful work done, the same being done not on the sabbath day," and the same, all in one, done manifestly and to absolute undenied certainty; done, not merely alleged, not even offered the charge of simulation.
2. An evil work undone, a devil"s work undone, with the devil who had done that, work turned out; and an exceeding bitter calamity and deprivation to an integral, individual part of God"s creation graciously undone.
3. The Doer of the work answering to the above description he ispresent, and his prerequisites for such work are, and (by the confession and in the words of one of that very body from whom the blasphemy proceeds) are known to be," that he be come from God," and that "God be with him". (Joh_3:2) It must be added that the credentials of this accused but wonderful Personage are already multiplied, and of the most pronounced character, alike in deed and in word. The blasphemy is that his detractors say that his work is not of that God whose working he does, but of the devil whose working he undoes!
III THE EXPOSURE AND REBUKE OF THIS BLASPHEMY. The Pharisees spoke their blasphemy as an aside; or perhaps from a little distance off, whence they come, and now draw near enough to Christ for him to address them and "their thoughts" personally, though "their thoughts" had not been openly and with any "courage of conviction" addressed in language to him.
1. Universal reason expressed in universal proverb exposes and rebukes the blasphemy. Satan won"t divide against himself, says Christ; and they all know it.
2. A practical alternative question storms the position and abashes the blasphemy. "If," says Christ, "I by Beelzebub cast out devils," dare to put it in words," by whom your children cast them out?" "but if I by the finger of God," which is "the Spirit of God, cast them out, then that kingdom of God " which you are refusing to enter, and which you are striving to prevent, is veritably come to yon." What about your neglect of it, and your malignant opposition to him who brings it? Strong and armed as confessedly Satan is, and his "palace" long time "kept," now it is before your eyes, though you may not, will not, confess it with the tongue, that a Stronger has "come upon him," has "overcome him," has "bound him," has "taken from him all his armour, wherein he trusted, and has divided his spoils." It is upon the ruins of that house, that palace, that kingdom which your blasphemy says is already divided against itself, that "the kingdom of God is come unto you." And now henceforth, he that does not know me, know to be "with me," and to gather with and for me, "is against me," and dooms himself to "scatter," and be scattered.
IV THE TERRIBLE WARNING IN THE MATTER OF BLASPHEMY, VIZ. THAT "AGAINST THE HOLY GHOST," NOW PRONOUNCED BY CHRIST. The language of Christ on this subject offers itself for the simplest acceptance, and humble and awed faith of all. Notwithstanding its brevity, its exceedingly simple diction, and the apparently designed wording of it, so that it shall not fail to reach its aim, it remains, after all the centuries, a passage that finds no absolutely satisfactory exposition, and that can command not one really just parallel by aid of which to determine and define it. To generalize upon it is easy, and to say continuous resistance of the Holy Spirit is likely, only too likely, to lead to final resistance of him, and that to the fatal doom here pronounced, is safe enough, and at the same time safely far enough from the exactness of the language and the point of its warning, here found. The apostle warns not to "quench" the Holy Spirit of God, after warning not to "grieve" him. But at what point long and repeated grieving may avail to quench we cannot fix, nor, if we could, would this enable us any more certainly to decipher what is here written, not of some prolonged rebellion against the Holy Spirit, but apparently of some such state of heart as may in a moment precipitate the unforgivable sin. We believe that it must be a "merciful and wise obscurity" that lies upon this passage; none the less solemn, but perhaps more so; none the less useful, but perhaps more so. The comment of St. Mark, (Mar_3:30) "Because they said, He hath an unclean spirit," seems to bring us nearest of all to the exact description of the sin, already adjudicated on by Christ, both for the time before the full gospel day, and thence to the end. And we believe that the dread testimony and warning goes to this that there is a blasphemy of the tongue against the Holy Ghost, which speaks a blasphemy of the heart against him, such and of such sort, that though not to be pronounced upon (while wheat and tares grow together), the all-seeing One knows, and declares of it, that it cannot know the grace of repentance, and cannot have the infinite boon of forgiveness extended to it.
V CHRIST"S EMPHATIC DENIAL OF ANY FORM OF CONVENTIONAL AND ARTIFICIAL DISTINCTION BETWEEN THE HEART AND INNER QUALITY AND INGRAVEN CHARACTER OF MEN, AND THEIR WORDS AND ACTIONS. It is as true of the highest as of the lowest; and it is also as true of them both, and of all others whomsoever, as of the tree and its fruit. So literally and precisely true is this, that though it were possible that a "word," for instance, were so "idle," so light, so useless, so inactive, devoid of energy, inoperative, that it inferred no danger to any one in all the world outside, it should not the less be true that it inferred danger to the speaker of it. What witness must it needs bear about him , and against him! These concluding verses are, without mistake, a summing up of most practical and forcible application to the "generation of vipers" in the first instance, and also a reminder of widespread and deeply significant importance to all of us. B.
Vers. 22-37. Casting out devils, and blasphemy against the Holy Ghost.
The opposition of the Pharisees on this occasion much less excusable than when charging the Lord with sabbath-breaking. Contrasts with honest amazement of the people, exclaiming," Is not this," etc.? Pharisees felt evidence of miracle as much as common people, but refused to follow their own convictions. Make what they know to be a flimsy and insufficient explanation. Our Lord makes a threefold reply.
1. It is absurd to suppose that any prince would counterwork his own agents. Argument addressed to common sense.
2. Introduces more serious difficulties. "If I by Beelzebub cast out devils, by whom do your children," etc.? Exorcism not uncommon in our Lord"s day. Necessary to notice unusually formidable assault made on gospel narrative. It has been urged that the age and nation were extremely credulous, that accurate observation and exact reporting are very rare, tendency to misstate and exaggerate much increased by religious excitement. Jews believed in power of many subordinate spirits in causing maladies and misfortunes. Therefore little credit due to their reports. Reply, in first place, modern critics also guilty of exaggeration in collecting all evidences of this taste for marvels to the exclusion of all other features of the age, as if no countervailing sense or knowledge of men. But granting all the credulity and superstition, the fact cuts both ways. If marvels were so common, what gave our Lords miracles so decisive an influence on the world"s history? Why did this imagination of the Christians alone prove so solid a basis for life? But the whole force of our Lord"s reference to exorcism by the Jews is not exhausted by saying it was a form of quackery, sometimes benefiting feeble, nervous patients, but otherwise an imagination. One cannot but be struck by the contrast between the Jews" method charlatanry too silly to be quoted and our Lord"s sober, simple word of command. How is it that he stands absolutely clear of all professional methods? It is true he believes in a demoniacal possession of which modern science takes no account now called epilepsy, lunacy, etc. Argument that our Lord might be ignorant of the nature of the diseases he cured. Not necessary to suppose that he knew and anticipated all discoveries of modern science. This were to deny to him a true and proper humanity, and so fall into one of the most dangerous of heresies. His miracles displayed his power and his love, not his medical skill. But our knowledge on these very points still too limited to admit of pronouncing positively. And to reason thus does not remove the difficulty, for the Lord"s idea of actual devils is verified in the recorded facts they not only obeyed him, but on one occasion passed into the swine, indicating separate personalities. Alternative between veracity of Gospels and existence of devils.
3. Third reply most significant for us. Blasphemy against the Spirit, a sin of quite unique enormity. Pharisees had often judged and found fault with his conduct as man; but these were works admittedly Divine, yet they ascribed them to Satanic agency. The distinction broad and important. In the one case it might be a mistake, though a blamable one; in the other, an evasion of evidence and resistance to light which must result in utter darkness. Jesus ever seeks to be judged by his works. If the fruit is good, must not the tree be good? If he gives us what is best, shall we not own him, and give him our best? From attitude of Pharisees two important warnings:
(1) "He that is not with me," etc. After abundant evidence neutrality impossible. Difficulty of being entirely honest in inquiry; danger of state in which not reason, but pride, indifference, reluctance, find difficulties. Make sure that you are allowing due weight to all that God says to your conscience.
(2) "Every idle word," etc. Judged by words, because "out of abundance of heart," etc. Every such word an index of heart. Evading conviction or decision by foolish or ill-natured words. Whenever good is done, heartily welcome it. Meanest of all occupations to stand idle and criticize. D.
Vers. 22-32. The blasphemy against the Holy Ghost.
Many persons have been tempted to believe that they had committed this dreadful sin, and thereby put themselves beyond the reach of mercy. Correct judgment upon this very important subject may best be attained by considering the more fearfully emphatic words of our Lord in their connection.
I THE NATURE OF THE BLASPHEMY MAY BE GATHERED FROM THE STORY.
1. Our Lord had wrought a notable miracle.
(1) The subject was both blind and dumb. The case of Laura Bridgman, and another, seem to be the only examples of this double affliction which have occurred in modern times. But this wretched man was, moreover, a demoniac.
(2) What a type of the sinner is here! Blind to spiritual truth. Having no voice for God"s praise. "Carried captive by the devil at his will.
(3) But Jesus "healed him, insomuch that the blind and dumb both spake and saw." The devil also owned the presence of a Superior. So can Jesus open the blind eye of the soul. He also can put a new song into the praiseless mouth. And he can deliver our hearts from infernal domination.
2. The people were convinced of his Messiahship.
(1) They cried out, "Is not this the Son of David?" The prophecies authorized the expectation of Messiah in the lineage of David. That Jesus was in that lineage could not be denied.
(2) "Is not this" Miracle-worker the Messiah? The prophecies authorized the expectation of Messiah as a Worker of miracles. (see Isa_35:5)
(3) Is not this Vanquisher of demons the illustrious Personage destined to appear as the Seed of the woman and crush the serpent"s head? (Gen_3:15)
(4) Who can now dispute that with Jesus is the Spirit of God, that he is the Anointed One, the Messiah, the Christ of God?
3. But the Pharisees blasphemed.
(1) Against the clearest evidence, through pride, envy, and malignity, they refused to recognize the Messiah. None are so blind as those who will not see. (cf. Joh_9:39-41)
(2) To defend their unbelief and to retain their credit with the people they invented the libel that Jesus had cast out devils through the prince of the devils. Thus the work of the Spirit of God was blasphemously attributed to diabolical agency. Thus the blessed Spirit of God was blasphemously confounded with the very devil.
(3) This horrible libel was whispered. They did not speak it openly in the hearing of Jesus. They feared to encounter his convincing words. But Jesus "knew their thoughts." There is no evading the scrutiny of that eye.
(4) "This fellow," viz. a sabbath-breaker and blasphemer! What venom can be condensed into a single word!
4. The Heart-searcher exposed their malignity.
(1) He confounded their logic, reasoning first from the general to the particular. Factions will ruin any kingdom. Are devils so foolish as by promoting factions to ruin their kingdom? Note: If devils are more wicked than men they are not so foolish.
(2) He proceeds to use the argumentum ad hominera, retorting, "If I by Beelzebub cast out devils, by whom do your children cast them out? Therefore they shall be your judges." They will at least convict you of partial and unjust judgment.
(a) Some of the disciples of the Pharisees pretended to exorcise devils. Whether they did so in reality is open to question. Josephus (see "Ant.," 7:6. 3; 8:2. 5), Justin Martyr, Irenaeus, Origen, Tertullian, and other early Fathers are quoted to show that such exorcisms were successfully practised. The sons of Sceva attempted it to their cost. (see Act_19:16) If they only pretended to do it, then our Lord"s words here are ironical , but the argument is equally good.
(b) The disciples of the Pharisees professed not to cast out devils by the aid of devils. They did it, or attempted to do it, by the invocation of the God of Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob.
(3) He applies the reasoning to the confusion of the unbeliever. "If I cast out devils by the Spirit of God, then the kingdom of God is come unto you." It were blasphemy to charge the Spirit of God with working to confirm a falsehood. The disciples of the Pharisees did not claim to be the Messiah.
(4) He emphasizes the proof of his Messiahship in that superiority to devils which he had evinced in the miracle. The strong man"s house can only be entered by the stronger than he; and who but Messiah is stronger than Satan?
(5) In this war between Christ and Belial there is no neuter. We obstruct if we do not promote the kingdom of God. (see Luk_9:49, Luk_9:50) "He that gathereth not with me scattereth." The sense is, says Stier, "He that gathereth, but not with me, his gathering is itself a scattering.
(6) Then he marks the dreadful character of their blasphemy, "Wherefore I say unto you," etc.
II THE DIFFICULTIES OF THE SUBJECT MAY NOW BE CONSIDERED.
1. Is not the blasphemy against the Holy Ghost the final rejection of Jesus as the Christ?
(1) "Not a particular act of sin, but a state of wilful, determined opposition to the Holy Spirit, is meant" (1Jn_5:16 2Ti_3:8 Jud_1:4, 12, 13 Heb_10:26-31 Heb_6:4-8) (Alford).
(2) That there is no forgiveness for such a state, viz. while the sinner remains in It, is obvious. The one sin to which damnation is appended is persevering unbelief.
(3) To speak against the Son of man is to resist the testimony of Christ coming without the demonstration of miracles. To speak against the Holy Ghost is to resist that testimony when confirmed by miracles. (cf. Exo_8:19 Luk_11:20 Joh 10)
(4) "The sin denounced is, probably, the rejection of the last and greatest evidence of the Messiahship of Christ the dispensation of the Spirit" (Harris). in this view, with respect to the Pharisees, our Lord"s words are admonitory, "If you persist in this temper you will place yourselves beyond the reach of mercy." The nation of Israel was not destroyed until after the evidence of the Spirit proved unavailing.
(5) There is absolutely no sin that may not be repented and forgiven through the mercy of the gospel. Impenitence wilful unbelief is the one unpardonable crime.
2. Yet are there degrees of difficulty in respect to repentance.
(1) Sins of ignorance could be readily expiated by sacrifice under the Law. (see Num_15:28) And so still are they more easily forgiven under the gospel. (see 1Ti_1:13)
(2) For presumptuous or high-handed sins there were under the Law no sacrifices. (see Lev_20:10 Num_15:30, 31 35:31 1Sa_2:25)
(3) Yet for presumptuous sins there was forgiveness from the Lord upon repentance in anticipation of the mercy of the gospel. The pardon of high-handed sins belongs properly to the age of Messiah. (cf. Ps 51 Act_2:36, 38 3:17 5:31) The converting grace of Christ masters the strong man in the heart. Once the devil could make the sinner swear, get drunk, neglect his soul; but now things are changed, and he has no such power.
(4) When sin becomes desperately malignant, as in the case of these Pharisees, repentance becomes extremely difficult. The spirit of the words of Christ is that all manner of sis and blasphemy is more easily forgiven than the blasphemy against the Holy Ghost. Thus when our Lord says, "Heaven and earth shall pass away, but my words shall not pass away", (Mar_13:31) the meaning is that heaven and earth will more easily pass away than that his words should fail of accomplishment. For so it is expressed in Luke. (Luk_16:17)
3. Is there here any countenance to the doctrine of purgatory?
(1) The words "world to come" (abh "age to come," are commonly used in Jewish writers to express the age of Messiah. The age to come, then, is the gospel age, which did not set in fully until the great Sacrifice was offered upon Calvary and the Spirit poured out on the Day of Pentecost, and which was contrasted with the Levitical age then current.
(2) The Jews expected a freer forgiveness of sins in the age of Messiah than they enjoyed under the Levitical dispensation.
(3) The import of our Lord"s words, then, simply is that the difficulty is extreme in bringing to repentance a malignant and unreasonable blasphemer.
(4) And if he pass the age of Messiah unforgiven, then he will have to encounter the horrors of "eternal damnation", (Mar_3:29) or, as the New Version puts it, "is guilty of an eternal sin. J.A.M.
The Pulpit Commentary (1880–1919), ed. H.D.M. Spence-Jones & Joseph S. Exell — public domain. Text from a community e-Sword module.
John A. Broadus 1886 · Public Domain On v22 Mat 12:22-37.
Mat 12:22-37.
The Blasphemy Against The Spirit
Read full note →
In the course of those labours in Galilee of which the Evangelist has just given a general account, (Mat 12:15 f.) there occurred the events narrated in the remainder of Matthew 12, followed by other events on the same day. (See on "Mat 13:1".) This was a good deal later than the two Sabbaths of Mat 12:1-13. Between that time and this, I the Sermon on the Mount was delivered. (See on "Mat 12:15", and compare Mar 3:19) Consulting unity of topic rather than chronological order, Matthew throws together these several instances of opposition to Jesus. Our present section treats of the blasphemous accusation; the other cases of opposition will follow. Luk 11:14-22, describes a similar blasphemous accusation, probably belonging to the ministry in Judea and Peres, during the six months preceding the crucifixion. (Wieseler, Clark.)
Then, not necessarily on the same day as the preceding, but some time more generally, at the same period (see on "Mat 3:13"Mat 11:20); here it means, at the time when he was engaged in the labours of Mat 12:15 f. One possessed, etc., (a demoniac) blind and dumb, see on "Mat 8:28", where it has been remarked that various bodily affections were frequently connected with the demoniacal possessions, whether as cause or effect. Insomuch, etc., so that the dumb man spake and saw is the correct text.[1] And all the people (crowds), same word as in Mat 5:1, and often. Jesus was in a house, and the throng was so great that he and his disciples could not even eat bread. (Mar 3:20) Is (omit not) this the son of David? meaning the Messiah, see on "Mat 9:27". The Greek has an interrogative particle which uniformly implies that a negative answer is expected, as in Mat 7:16, Mat 11:23, and it is quite erroneous to render ’Is not this,’ etc., as in Tyndale, Cram, Gen., and in all the recent editions of Com. Ver., while the two earliest editions, AD. 1611 and 1613, give it without the ’not’; found already in Hammond, 1659 (Trench on Rev.). It is true that sometimes the speaker may intend to intimate that perhaps the answer ought to be affirmative, as here and in Joh 4:29 (Winer, p. 511 642); but the form of expression is otherwise, and it ought to be translated accordingly. Colloquial English, could give it quite exactly. "This is not the Messiah, is it?"Eng. Rev. give "Is this," Am. Rev., "Can this be the son of David,"as in Joh 4:29. The miracle suggested to the crowds the idea that Jesus might he the Messiah; yet surely, they would think, it cannot be so, since he does not appear and act as Messiah will do, viz., as a mighty conqueror and splendid monarch. Observe that the miracle suggested the possibility that he was the Messiah; and in Mat 12:38, some of the Pharisees express their wish to see a ’sign’ from him, after it had been intimated (Mat 12:28) that he was the Messiah. So the Jews did expect the Messiah to work miracles, though Maimonides (twelfth cent.) declares that no miracles are to be expected from the Messiah, perhaps departing from the older view in order to secure an argument against Jesus.
[1] So à B. D., Old Latin (some copies), Old Syriac, Memph., Aeth. This was easily altered into ’the blind and dumb man,’ as in most documents and Common Text, or ’the dumb and blind man’ as in many documents: while Old Latin (most copies) and Latin Vulgate omit both terms, and read simply ’so that he spake and saw.’ These variations are instructive to the student. The first reading accounts for all the others.
Mat 12:24. But when the Pharisees heard it. Mark (Mar 3:22) describes them more particularly as ’the scribes that came down from Jerusalem.’ They had no doubt come to Galilee for the purpose of observing the miracles and teaching of Jesus, and seeking to prevent the people from believing on him. (Compare on Mat 12:14 and Mat 15:1) The Scribes usually belonged to the great Pharisee party, compare Mat 12:38, and see on "Mat 2:3". These men set about their work very vigorously. They saw that if his miracles were recognized the people would believe that be was sent from God, (Joh 3:2) and then all his teachings must be received as true, and all his claims admitted as just. They could not question the reality of the healing, nor ascribe it to mere human agency; they therefore resorted to the absurd idea of a league with Satan, though Jesus was really destroying Satan’s work. ’Heard it,’ viz., the inquiry made among the crowds. This fellow doth not cast out devils (the demons), but by (in) Beelzebub, the prince of the devils (demons). ’This’ corresponds to the inquiry of Mat 12:23; there is nothing to authorize the contemptuous term ’fellow’ of Com. Vet. ’Demons,’ and not ’devils,’ see on "Mat 8:31". ’In’ rather than ’by,’ see on "Mat 9:34"; so also Mat 12:27 f., m Beelzebub, in whom, ’in the Spirit of God’ (so Wyclif and Rheims in all these expressions), everywhere denoting intimate union. ’Beelzebul’ is unquestionably the proper form of the name,[1] though it might not be worth while now to attempt a change in the popular usage. The name was probably derived from Baal-zebub, the Flygod of Ekron, (2Ki 1:2-3, 2Ki 1:6, 2Ki 1:16) but there is doubt as to the reason for changing the last letter, and for applying the name to Satan. (Mat 12:26) This application to Satan is not found in the old Jewish writings, and only in Mat 10:25, Mat 12:24, Mat 12:27; Mar 3:22; Luk 11:15-19, all referring to the blasphemous accusation. Flies are often so terrible a plague in the East that we need not be surprised to find one of the forms under which Baal was worshipped to be Baal-zebub, Baal of the fly, or Lord of the fly; Sept. makes it Baal-fly. So one of the Greek titles of Zeus (Jupiter) was "he who drives off the flies." It would be very natural for the later Jews to express their abhorrence of this Philistine idol by using his name for Satan. The change of the last letter may have been merely euphonic, as Bab-el-mandeb (the strait at the entrance of the Red Sea) is often written Babel-mandel, and Belial is sometimes written Beliar; but more likely the change was designed to give a new meaning, which might be, according to different etymologies, (1)"Lord of dung "—as we know the Jews were fond of contemptuously punning upon the names of idols; or (2)"Lord of the house," which would agree with the image of Luk 11:29. This name for Satan was sufficiently common to be readily understood, as appears from Mar 3:22, ’he has Beelzebul,’ like ’he has a demon,’ and from our Lord’s using it in his reply, Mat 12:27. For the other names, Satan and Devil, see on "Mat 4:1". ’Prince’ is literally ’ruler,’ a general term; we do not know the precise nature of his authority over the demons, but everything indicates that it is absolute. Satan is also called ’prince of this world’, (Joh 12:31, Joh 14:30, Joh 16:11) and ’prince of the power of the air.’ (Eph 2:2) In Mat 9:34, Matthew has already stated that the Pharisees had recourse to this absurd charge, on occasion of a similar miracle of healing; but he did not there pause to tell how Jesus refuted and solemnly rebuked it. Luk 11:15 ff. gives what is probably a third instance in another part of the country; it was very natural that the same class of malignant enemies, involved in the same logical difficulty, should attempt the same blasphemous explanation.
[1] So in all Greek MSS. and most of the early versions. Beelzebub is found in the Old and Vulgate Syriac, the Vulgate Latin, and one or two copies of the Old Latin. The Syriac would naturally take the Hebrew form from 2Ki 1:2 ff., and Jerome likewise probably borrowed it from the Hebrew. The Latin Vulgate made this form familiar to Christendom. Notice that the margin of Com. Version says, Greek Beelzebul.
Mat 12:25 f. His reply divides itself into Mat 12:25 f. (with which Mat 12:29 is closely connected), Mat 12:27 f., Mat 12:30-31 f., and Mat 12:33-37. And Jesus knew their thoughts and said, compare on Mat 9:4. ’Jesus’ was an early addition to the text, being thought necessary for clearness. Such insertions of the name frequently occur. The Scribes and Pharisees appear to have made the blasphemous charge in a low tone to those around them, so that Jesus might not hear. They were at some little distance from him, in another part of the principal room or court of the house, (Mar 3:19) for Mark (Mar 3:23) says he ’called them unto him’ and replied to the charge. They were disposed to suggest their slanderous and insulting accusations in an underhand way, and he chose to reply openly. Mark says he spoke to them ’in comparisons,’ literally ’parables,’ see on "Mat 18:3". Our Lord in his pitying condescension first argues calmly against their insulting charge, before proceeding to declare their awful guilt in making it. He does this, we may suppose, partly to leave the blasphemers not even a seeming excuse, and partly to prevent the bystanders from imagining for a moment that there was any ground for the charge (compare on Mat 12:30). His argument from analogy does not mean that every case of internal strife or civil war will destroy a State, but that such is the tendency, and every such act, so far as it goes, contributes to that end. And observe that if this charge was accepted: as applying to a single case of casting out ai demon, it must be understood as extending to all cases; the whole work of Jesus in casting out demons must be ascribed to this cause, and throughout his entire ministry he would be having the help of Satan in breaking down Satan’s power. That wise "prince of the demons" is too cunning to pursue so suicidal a course. And if Satan cast out Satan. For the prince of the demons to cast out his subjects would be virtually casting out himself, since they were doing his work. Those persons who so dislike the rendering ’deliver us from the evil one’ ought (Mat 6:13, Rev. Ver.) to notice that here and often Jesus distinctly recognizes Satan as personal.
Mat 12:27 f. Condescending, as he did with reference to the Sabbath, (Mat 12:3 f.) to present the argument in a variety of ways, our Lord here gives it a new and startling turn, being what logicians call argumentum ad hominem, an appeal to their own case. Your children (sons) means those who had been instructed by the Pharisees, like "sons of the prophets" in 2Ki 2:3; compare the use of ’father’ for revered teacher in Mat 23:9, 1Co 4:15, and ’disciples’ of the Pharisees in Mat 22:16. Exorcists would naturally belong to the Pharisee party, for no Sadducee would profess the expulsion of demons, since that party did not believe in spirits, evil or good. To make ’your sons’ mean Christ’s own apostles, as Chrys. and other Fathers, and some modern writers do, seems unwarranted and absurd, leaving the argument without force. It doubtless arose from an unwillingness to admit that the Jewish exorcists did really cast out demons, and a failure to observe that our Lord does not affirm that they did, but only argues from the point of view of the blasphemers. He appeals to the case of their own followers to silence them, without then stopping to examine the question whether their pretended expulsions were real. (Paul uses the same kind of argument in 1Co 15:29) It was very common, about the time of our Lord, for Jews to profess to cast out demons. Curious accounts of the methods they employed, such as the use of a remarkable root, with incantations, which they pretended were handed down from Solomon, are given by Josephus,"Ant.," 8, 2, 5,"War.," 7, 6, 3; compare Tob 8:2; Justin Martyr, Trypho, ch. 85. In Act 19:13 we read of strolling Jewish exorcists who thought there must be some magical charm in the name of Jesus which Paul named when working miracles, and tried to use it themselves. Therefore they shall be your judges (’they’ being emphatic, as in Mat 5:4 ff.; compare on Mat 1:21), i.e., shall convict you either of being yourselves in league with Beelzebul, or of unreasonable and wicked conduct in accusing another of league with him for doing what they claim to do. But if I cast out devils (demons) by the Spirit of God, assumes that he does; and he has just shown that the contrary supposition would charge Satan with sheer folly, and would involve the accusers in self-condemnation. The chief emphasis of the sentence (according to the correct reading of the Greek) is on the words ’by the Spirit of God’; but ’I’ is also emphatic, and suggests a contrast between his case and theirs. ’Spirit’ has in the Greek no article, but is made definite by the appended genitive, since there is but one Spirit of God. Then is in the similar passage of Luke (Luk 11:20) rendered by Com. Ver. ’no doubt’—another of the numerous unnecessary variations. So ’unto you’ here in Com. Ver. and ’upon you’ in Luke, are for the same Greek preposition. Then the kingdom of God is (or has) come unto you. Matthew here has ’kingdom of God’ instead of his usual ’kingdom of heaven’ (see on "Mat 3:2"), probably because of the verbal connection here between ’Spirit of God’ and kingdom of God.’ The word rendered ’has come’ usually signifies to anticipate, to be beforehand, and so to come unexpectedly and some urge such a sense here—has already arrived, when you simply thought it would come before long—has taken you unawares. But the word appears in the later Greek usage to have sometimes meant simply come, arrive, etc. (1Th 2:16 Rom 9:31 Php 3:15) The idea then is, the kingdom of God, the Messianic Dispensation, has made its appearance in your presence. (Compare Luk 17:20 f.) Here again, as in Mat 5:17, Mat 7:21-23, Mat 12:8, our Lord strongly intimates that he is the Messiah, yet without distinctly declaring it. The full conviction announced by the apostles in Mat 16:16 seems to have been then recently arrived at. But that conclusion would not preclude, it would rather pre-suppose, a previous stage of perplexed inquiry, like that of John the Baptist, (Mat 11:3) and is not fundamentally inconsistent with an early flush of delighted persuasion when some of them first met him, as recorded by John (Joh 1:41, Joh 1:49) There is thus no such contradiction between John and the Synoptics on this point as some have imagined. Nor is it strange that Jesus should occasionally intimate his Messiahship long before he thought proper publicly to avow it. But what as to the force of the argument in this passage? How did it follow, that if be was casting out the demons by the Spirit of God, then the kingdom of God had arrived? The miracles of Jesus did not directly prove him to be the Messiah, but they proved it indirectly. This constant divine assistance in working his great series of miracles showed that he must have a divine mission, and attested all his claims as just; but he claimed to be the Messiah, as he has before intimated and intimates here; therefore the miracles proved him to be the Messiah. So Paul says he was shown to be the Son of God by the resurrection from the dead. (Rom 1:4) Besides, in casting out demons, he was to that extent destroying the kingdom of Satan, (Mat 12:26) and in so far establishing the correlative kingdom of God. (Compare Mat 12:29)
Mat 12:29. This connects itself closely with the thought of Mat 12:25 f. Or, to look at the matter in another way. (Compare Mat 7:9, Mat 12:5) Else in Com. Ver. (following Cranmer, Gem) has no representative in the original. How can one enter, etc. This is a general truth, with an obvious application to the matter in hand. Jesus was taking away from Satan a part of his property, in delivering the demoniacs, and this could not be unless he were at variance with Satan, and strong enough to bind him. The word translated goods means utensils, implements (as those for cooking, eating, sleeping), and would suggest that the demoniacs were the instruments of Satan. Spoil, or ’plunder,’ at the end of the sentence, represents a compound word, ’thoroughly plunder.’
Mat 12:30. Here again, as in the preceding verses, our Lord speaks in apophthegms, (Mar 3:23) each sentence containing a distinct truth, expressed in general terms. It naturally follows that no connection between these is outwardly indicated, and we are left to see for ourselves the internal connection of the thoughts. (Compare at the beginning of Matthew 7.) The Scribes said that our Lord was in league with Satan, but in reality he is opposing and overthrowing Satan’s power, binding him, as it were, and plundering his house. In this great and deadly struggle, there can he no neutrality. No man can be friends with both sides, nor be indifferent to both. It is probable that many of those present were thinking they would not take sides between Jesus and the blaspheming Scribes. To them, in the first place, this saying would come home; but it is general, and applicable to all times, and all varieties of character and conduct. The sentence contains two parallel and practically equivalent members—the Hebrew parallelism. (Compare on Mat 4:16) The image in the second ’member is from gathering grain in harvest, as in Mat 3:12, Mat 6:26 Joh 4:36. Men often fancy that they are by no means opposing Christ’s service, though not engaged in it; that they are friendly to religion in others, though not personally religious. But in the nature of the case, this is impossible. Stier: "Neutrality here is no neutrality, but a remaining on the side of the enemy; indolence here is no mere indolence, but opposition; the merely not believing and not obeying is still resistance and rejection." The gospel is of such a nature, as to its offers and its claims, that it cannot tolerate indifference. If it deserves our respect, it deserves our entire and hearty reception. If we are not yielding Christ our whole heart, we are really yielding him nothing. Professed neutrality, with real hostility of heart, may even be more offensive to him, and is sometimes more injurious in its influence, than avowed opposition.—In Mar 9:40 Luk 9:50 there is an expression which at first seems to contradict this, viz., ’He that is not against us is for us.’ But so far is this from being the case that both sayings (Alexander) "may be exemplified in the experience of the very same persons. For example, Nicodemus, by refusing to take part with the Sanhedrin against our Lord, although he did not venture to espouse his cause, proved himself to be upon his side; (Joh 7:50 f) but if he had continued the same course when the crisis had arrived, he would equally have proved himself to be against him." Compare the apparently contradictory sayings of Pray. 26; 4f.; Gal 6:2, Gal 6:5 Rom 3:28, as related to Jas 2:24.
Mat 12:31 f. Our Lord now solemnly declares that a blasphemy against the Holy Spirit is the only unpardonable sin; and it is distinctly implied that their accusation, that he cast out demons by the help of Beelzebul, was a blasphemy against the Holy Spirit, and so was past forgiveness. Therefore, viz., on account of all that he has been saying, from Mat 12:25 onward. It was manifest from such analogies that their charge of league with Beelzebul was absurd; and they must have known that it was not true, and that the miracle was really wrought by divine power. Jesus says it was wrought by the Spirit of God, and so their accusation was not merely an insult to a man, but a blasphemy against the Spirit of God. For this reason he solemnly tells them that such blasphemy will never be forgiven. And We can see (Edersh.) that their malignant hostility to the kingdom of heaven, as appearing in a form so contrary to what they expected and would have been willing to recognize, here reached an acme of virulence from which they went straight on to procure his death. I say unto you, see on "Mat 5:18". All manner of sin. Every sin is the exact translation. With the general truth that every sin shall be forgiven unto men,[1] he connects the specific term and blasphemy, to leave no doubt that every blasphemy too (as well as every other sin) will be forgiven; and thus brings out all the more strongly the sole exception, but the blasphemy against the Holy Ghost (Spirit) shall not be forgiven. This promise of forgiveness for every sin and blasphemy is of course to be limited by the conditions of repentance, etc., elsewhere laid down in Scripture, and understood in such a case without being stated. (Compare on Mat 7:7 f.) ’Blasphemy’ has been explained on Mat 9:3 as signifying in general injurious or insulting speaking, and so with regard to God, speaking impiously. Blasphemy was considered among the Jews a very great offence. (Mat 26:65) In Mat 12:32 we find the general expression speaketh against. Here the guilt of what the Pharisees have done is shown by another contrast. The Son of man, see on "Mat 8:20". Our Lord had not distinctly claimed to be more than man. To speak against him personally, regarding him simply as a man (e. g. Mat 11:19), did not involve as great guilt as to speak against the Holy Spirit, whose influences filled his human spirit (see on "Mat 3:16"; and see on "Mat 4:1"), and gave to him, as a man, the power of working miracles. (Mat 12:28) In the phrase, but whosoever speaketh against the Holy Ghost, Spirit,[2] the word ’holy’ is so placed in the Greek as to be emphatic. They said, ’He hath an unclean spirit’; (Mar 3:1) while in truth he was full of the Holy Spirit. (Yet there is no propriety in inserting the word ’holy’ in Mat 12:31, as in Com. Ver.) Their charge of league with Beelzebul was therefore not simply a slander against the man, Jesus of Nazareth, nor simply an insult to the Son of man, the Messiah, but was a blasphemy against the Holy Spirit. And it will not do to say that he was merely warning them against a possibility; for he is surely speaking of the blasphemy they have uttered, as blasphemy against the Holy Spirit. (Compare Mat 12:28) It must be observed that the Holy Spirit, the Spirit of God, (Mat 12:28) here represents the Divinity in general. There is here no allusion to the peculiar gracious office and work of the Spirit in calling, renewing, and sanctifying the soul; it is the Spirit of God as giving power to work miracles. (Compare Act 2:4, Act 8:14-19, etc.) These Pharisees ascribe to the influence and aid of Satan what was manifestly and unmistakably wrought by divine power; and this was not merely an insult to a man, but was a malignant insult to God. Similar, in this particular respect, was the sin of Ananias and Sapphira, who undertook to practice a deception, not merely upon the apostles, but upon the Holy Spirit, who was welt known to give them supernatural knowledge. (Act 5:3 ff.) Paul had blasphemed Jesus of Nazareth, and yet was forgiven, because he "did it ignorantly, in unbelief." (1Ti 1:13) He did not then believe that Jesus spoke by the Spirit of God, and therefore was not blaspheming the Holy Spirit. Afterwards he learned and taught that the Spirit of God is "the Spirit of Christ." (Rom 8:9)
[1] The marginal reading in Rev. Ver. (not in Amer. Revisers) ’unto you men’ has no support but B, a single cursive, and a passage in Athanasius. It may not be strange that Westcott Hort should cling to B and put this in the margin; but it is strange that the revisers should follow when internal evidence yields nothing decisive. After the second ’forgiven’ many documents add ’unto men’ as in Com. text, and some add ’unto them.’
[2] The Rev. Ver. here changes ’Ghost’ to ’Spirit’ as necessary in order to agree with ’Spirit’ in Mat 12:28 and Mat 12:31. It would have been much better had the revisers everywhere made this change. (Compare on Mat 1:18)
The conditions, then, under which this unpardonable sin of blasphemy against the Spirit of God is committed, are (1) that there shall be a work manifestly supernatural, unmistakably the work of God and not of man, and (2) that one shall, in determined and malignant opposition, insultingly ascribe to Satan this which he knows to be the work of God. Now, are these conditions ever fulfilled, except in an age of miracles? Can any other divine work, as, for instance, the conversion of a friend, or a general revival of spirituality, be so unquestionably and unmistakably the work of God, that a person ascribing it to Satan is guilty, not merely of sin, but of that flagrant and deeply malignant blasphemy against God which is unpardonable? This is the question to be decided; and it can hardly be decided in the affirmative. As miracles continued throughout the apostolic age, this blasphemy against the Spirit may very naturally be understood to be meant by that "sin unto death" which John implies (1Jn 5:16) cannot be forgiven. Indeed, we seem compelled so to understand it, since our Lord here says that the blasphemy against the Spirit is the only form of sin that will not be forgiven. The curet phrase, "the sin against the Holy Ghost," is not found in Scripture, and has been formed by combining John’s expression with the passage before us. And the familiar idea of "sinning away one’s day of grace" ought not to be confounded with the blasphemy here spoken of. It has already been remarked that this blasphemy does not at all refer to the gracious work of the Spirit in calling and regenerating, but manifestly and simply to his miraculous work. Through neglect of this distinction, persons often pass from speaking of blasphemy against the Spirit to discussing what is called "resisting the Spirit," without being aware that these are quite different things. Even the passage in 1 John cannot refer to a person who has resisted the Spirit till his influences are withdrawn, for no one else could decide that a man was in that condition, while the apostle intimates that the "sin unto death" can be definitely known to others, since he will not say that one who has committed it shall be prayed for.—Heb 6:4-8 and Heb 10:26 if., relate to the sin of apostasy, and are therefore quite distinct from the blasphemy against the Spirit, though often confounded with it.
Neither in this world, neither in the world to come. This is simply a strong and expanded declaration that it will never be forgiven. ’World’ is here not kosmos, the physical universe, but aion, a period or age. (Compare on Mat 25:46) The Jews constantly spoke of "this period", and "the coming period," as separated by the appearance of the Messiah. In the New Testament "the period to come" is usually conceived of as following the second coming of the Lord. (Compare on Mat 13:22) Weiss : "Neither in this world-period, i.e., in the time up to the Second Coming, nor in the future world-period, which begins with the Judgment; and as the Judgment decides the eternal destiny of men, there can never in that following period be forgiveness of the sin which at the Judgment was established and subjected to punishment." Our Lord’s expression might in itself imply that some sins not forgiven in this world will be forgiven in the world to come (Olsh.); but it does not necessarily, nor even very naturally teach this; and as the idea is unsupported by, and inconsistent with, the general teachings of Scripture on that subject, it is quite improper to base so important a doctrine as that of "a second probation" in the future life, upon the merely possible meaning of this one passage, with perhaps the addition of 1Pe 3:19, according to one possible interpretation. That he only means to say it will never be forgiven, is confirmed by Mar 3:29 (correct text), ’hath never forgiveness, but is guilty of an eternal sin.’ Other sins may be blotted out, and, so to speak, cease to exist; but this must continue, from the time it is committed, always existing, an everlasting sin. The thought of Mat 12:31 f. is not recorded as repeated on the similar occasion of Luk 11:14, Luk 11:23, but on yet another occasion, Luk 12:10.
Mat 12:33-35. It might be said that here was only speech, only words. But the speech came from the heart, and showed the character, as the tree is known from the fruit. This unpardonable blasphemy was just what might be expected from its authors; they were bad men, and they would say bad things. The portion of the discourse in Mat 12:33-37 is recorded by Matthew only. The terms of Mat 12:33 are the same as in Mat 7:16-19, where see Notes. There the thought is that we must test character by conduct; here it is that conduct (including speech) is all the more important because it corresponds to and reveals character. There has been much discussion about the sense of make, some explaining it as signifying ’regard,’ ’consider’; others, ’suppose to be,’ etc. The idea seems to be that the fruit will be like the tree, and if you make the tree good you make its fruit good. The word ’make’ is thus understood in its ordinary sense. His, the old possessive ’his’ from it (hyt), see on "Mat 24:32"; modern its. Generation (offspring) of vipers, the same expression as in Mat 3:7.[1] This was strong language and severe; but the loving Saviour did not shrink from the severest rebukes where they were needed. These would be prompted, indeed, as much by love to sinners, as by indignation at their sin. (Compare on Mat 5:29) How can ye, being evil, speak good things? How is it possible, in the nature of things, that you should? This is a moral, not a constitutional impossibility. For out of the abundance of the heart, more exactly, ’the superabundance.’ The word implies excess, that the heart is full and more than full; the mouth speaks what pours forth from the overflowing heart; (compare Mat 15:18) and as their heart overflows with wickedness, how can it be that they should speak what is good? Compare 1Sa 24:13 Mat 12:35 varies the image to that of a treasure, or store, the word not necessarily indicating something precious. The good man has in him a good store, and he brings out from it good things. This of course means the store of his inner man, heart, and so the word "heart" was early added, in some quarters (as Old Syriac version), by way of explanation, being suggested by Mat 12:34, and passed into many later documents and the Com. text. Bringeth forth is literally casts out, throws out, the word explained on Mat 9:38, and here perhaps implying that the evil things are, as it were, involuntarily thrown out," as a fountain doth its waters, by a natural and necessary ebullition" (Barrow). The fact that men speak good or evil according to their nature, by no means frees them from guilt. This ought to be understood from general principles; but our Lord leaves no room for uncertainty on the subject, for he proceeds to declare that words, even idle words, must be answered for.
[1] What is the propriety of saying (Weiss) that the Evangelist has manifestly taken this phrase from John the Baptist’s discourse? What objection can there be to believing that Jesus used the same phrase? Such arbitrary dicta are far from giving real support to a theory.
Mat 12:36 f. But (and) I say unto you, solemnly introducing an important saying (as in Mat 12:31), see on "Mat 5:18". Though they spoke so heedlessly the most blasphemous words, and doubtless thought, as men are apt to do that what one says is of little importance, yet he assures them that men shall give account for every idle word. ’Idle’ exactly renders the original term, which signifies ’not working,’ and hence inefficient, useless, etc.—words not intended to produce any effect. In the day of judgment, see on "Mat 11:22". In Mat 12:37, by thy words, is literally out of thy words, as a thing proceeding from their words, a result or consequence of them. Of course he does not mean that it will proceed from their words alone; every one admits the fact as to actions, and words are here the subject of remark. The repetition of ’by thy words’ makes the statement more weighty and impressive. Words are important because they reveal character, (Mat 12:33, Mat 12:35) and because they powerfully affect others. The only sin declared to be unpardonable is a sin of speech; and, on the other hand, "if any man offend not in speech, the same is a perfect man, and able also to bridle the whole body." (Jas 3:2) Speech is indeed one of the grand distinctions of human beings, and a mighty power for good or evil. But this passage must not be understood as condemning all light pleasantries of conversation; it simply declares that the idlest nothings we ever utter are included within the range of accountability to God. We must therefore see to it that our pleasantries are not essentially untruthful, that they are free from malice and impurity—in a word, that they are innocent and helpful. (Compare on Mat 5:37)
Homiletical And Practical
Mat 12:23. Different effects produced by the outward evidences of Christianity. (1) Many half convinced that it is divine, but mainly inclined to reject it, Mat 12:23. (2) Some persuading themselves and others that it is not divine, that its effects are to be otherwise explained, Mat 12:24. (3) Some trying to play neutral, Matthew Mat 12:30. (4) Some requiring further evidence, suited to their own notion, Mat 12:38. (5) Some rejoicing to believe and ready to obey, Mat 12:49 f.
Mat 12:24. Anything to explain away the divine power of Christianity; anything, though it be absurd, insulting, blasphemous.
Mat 12:25 f. The forces of evil in the world do not act at hazard, nor by blind fate, but are directed by a lofty and shrewd intelligence.
Mat 12:26. Satan and his kingdom. (1) There is a personal spirit of evil. (2) He has a kingdom. (3) The demons are his subjects, and are striving to make men his subjects forever. (4) Jesus opposes and shakes Satan’s kingdom. (Compare Luk 10:17-19)
Mat 12:30. We must be definitely Christ’s friends, or we are definitely his enemies. Vinet, "Gospel Studies," preaches from this text on "The Intolerance of Christianity," and from Luk 9:50 on "The Tolerance of Christianity."
Luk 9:31. Gladly, in several recorded cases, the Saviour said, "Thy sins are forgiven thee." Sorrowfully he says that this sin "shall not be forgiven."
Luk 9:33. Henry: "Unless the heart be transformed, the life will never be thoroughly reformed."
Luk 9:34. A heart overfull of evil, a mouth overflowing with evil.
Luk 9:37. Chrys.: "Wherefore not the slandered, but the slanderers, have need to be anxious and to tremble. For the former are not constrained to answer for themselves, touching the evil things which are said of Shem, out the latter for the evil they have spoken; and over these impends the whole danger."
Luk 9:36 f. Speech. (1) It is a peculiarity of human beings, and a great power in human life. (2) It reveals character, Luk 9:35. (3) We are accountable not only for purposely wicked, but for idle speech, Luk 9:36. (4) Speech will help to determine our eternal future. Doddridge: "Discourse tending to innocent mirth, to exhilarate the spirits, is not idle discourse; as the time spent in necessary recreation is not idle time "
John A. Broadus, Commentary on the Gospel of Matthew (American Baptist Publication Society, 1886) — public domain. Text from a community e-Sword module.
The Biblical Illustrator 1887 · Public Domain On vv22, 29, 30, 31, 33, 34, 36 Mat_12:22; Mat_12:29
Mat_12:22; Mat_12:29
One possessed with a devil, blind and dumb.
Read full note →
I. What kind of power satan still exercises generally over mankind.
II. All who apply to, Jesus shall surely obtain deliverance.
III. On this deliverance an experience of Christs mercy will excite our admiration and confirm our faith. (W. P. Wait, M. A.)
I. A miracle of singular power and mercy.
II. The effect produced by this miracle on the minds of the people-They were amazed, etc.
III. The impious calumnies of the enemies of Christ. This charge displayed their malignity. There are two principles involved in our Lords reply.
1. That the power of Christ is greater than that of all the powers of darkness.
2. That the manifestation of His superior power establishes His claims as the Author of the new dispensation-Then the kingdom of God is come unto you.
IV. To awake salutary self-inspection the redeemer uttered the solemn admonition respecting the danger of neutrality and indecision in reference to his claims.
1. The danger of an undecided state.
2. Adore the gracious power of Christ.
3. Rejoice in the service and cause of Christ.
4. Dread the thought of being found amongst the enemies of Christ. (J. Fletcher.)
Christ and the Pharisees
I. The good mans relation to the world of want.
1. The good man is approachable.
2. He is sympathetic.
3. He is unostentatious.
II. The devils relation to good men. How did these Devils men use Christ?
1. They resorted to personal abuse-This fellow.
2. They ignored the value of the greatest blessings.
3. They insulted the plainest common-sense.
4. They attempted to trace good results to a bad cause.
5. They falsified the deepest and truest instincts of human nature. (J. Parker.)
The Biblical Illustrator, edited by Joseph S. Exell (c. 1880s–1900s) — public domain. Text from a community e-Sword module.
B. W. Johnson 1891 · Public Domain On vv22, 23, 24, 25, 26, 27, 28, 29, 30, 31, 32, 33, 34, 36, 37 22. Was brought him one possessed with a devil.…
22. Was brought him one possessed with a devil. See note on Matt. 8:28. Compare Luke 11:14.
B. W. Johnson's The People's New Testament with Notes (1889–1891) — public domain. Electronic text from the Christian Classics Ethereal Library (CCEL) ThML edition.
The Preacher's Complete Homiletical Commentary 1892 · Public Domain On v22 Mat_12:23. Is not this the Son of David?—See “The…
CRITICAL NOTES
Mat_12:23. Is not this the Son of David?—See “The Parallel New Testament” (1882). The “not” is omitted in both columns. It “was wisely omitted by King James’ translators. It is not found in the 1611 edition, the primary edition. Neither is it found in the four succeeding folio editions, those of the years 1613, 1617, 1634, 1640. But somehow or other it has got smuggled into our present copies” (Morison). The form of the question expresses bewilderment and hesitation; but hesitation, nevertheless, that inclined to a negative decision. The idea that the Wonder-worker was the Messiah, the Messianic son of David, was forced in upon their minds, but yet they could not entertain it (ibid.).
Read full note →
Mat_12:24. Beelzebub.—See on Mat_10:25. A like narrative has met us in Mat_9:32, and it is probable enough that the charge was repeated as often as the occasion presented itself, and as often answered in identical or like words (Plumptre). The words appear to have been whispered by the Pharisees among the people. They were not addressed to Jesus (ibid.). Two things are here implied:
1. That the bitterest enemies of our Lord were unable to deny the reality of His miracles.
2. That they believed in an organised infernal 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 (Mat_12:25-26) (Brown).
Mat_12:27. By whom do your children cast them out?—The “children” of the Pharisees are their disciples, and in this case, such as practised exorcism, like the sons of Sceva in Act_19:13. The belief in demoniacal possession had as its natural accompaniment the claim, on the part of those who could control the disordered reason of the possessed person, of power to cast out the demon. We need not assume that such power was always a pretence, or rested on spells and incantations. Earnestness, prayer, fasting, faith—these are always mighty in intensifying the power of will, before which the frenzied soul bows in submission or yields in confidence, and these may well have been found among the better and truer Pharisees. Our Lord’s question, indeed, requires for its logical validity the admission that the “children” of the accusers did really cast out demons, and that not by Beelzebub (Plumptre).
Mat_12:28. The kingdom of God.—The Destroyer of Satan is already in the midst of you, and that kingdom which is destined to supplant His, is already rising on its ruins (Brown). Come unto you.—Upon you (R.V.). Literally, surprised you by coming, came upon you unawares (Carr).
Mat_12:31. Blasphemy.—In general, the idea of a malicious attack upon a person, whose fame is calumniously injured, attaches to the term “blasphemy.” Hence, defamation of what is good, noble, and holy, on its appearance in the world, with malicious (lying and murderous) intent (Lange).
Mat_12:32. Neither in this world, etc.—Just an extended way of saying “never.” Cf. Mar_3:29 (Morison).
Mat_12:33. Either make the tree good, etc.—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).
Mat_12:34. O generation of vipers, etc.—Ye offspring of vipers (R.V.). Here the law which had been pressed in its logical bearing in the preceding verse, is brought in to explain the bitter and evil words of the Pharisees (Plumptre). Out of the abundance of the heart, etc.—What is in the well will be in the bucket (Trapp).
Mat_12:37. By thy words.—Words exhibit the righteousness or unrighteousness which is in the heart (Bengel).
SUPPLEMENTARY NOTES
Mat_12:31-32. The sin against the Holy Ghost.—In “Exegetical Studies,” by the Rev. P. J. Gloag, D.D. (T. and T. Clark), there is an able exposition of this subject, in which the various opinions that have been held are stated. Dr. Gloag’s view is similar to that of Dr. David Brown, as given in the outline on p. 309. He says, “The sin, then, against which our Lord cautioned the Pharisees, supposing, as we think most probable, His words to be a caution and not a sentence, was the continuance in their opposition to Him and to His doctrine after the Holy Ghost was given. These blasphemies against Him were pardonable; their malicious disposition had not, as yet, placed them outside the pale of Divine mercy; if, however, they persevered in their opposition after the Holy Ghost was given, they would never have forgiveness, but be guilty of eternal sin. And from this we infer that it is probable that the blasphemy against the Holy Ghost is no particular act of sin, but a malicious disposition; a perseverance in opposition to Christ in spite of the Spirit’s influences to overcome that opposition; an incurable, and therefore, an unpardonable, evil disposition; and this disposition is here called blasphemy against the Holy Ghost, because it consists in a continued resistance to His influences.” An article on the subject in the Evangelical Magazine, from the pen of the Rev. G. S. Barrett, B.A., called forth some valuable discussions and notes in the Expository Times, November 1891 to March 1892.
MAIN HOMILETICS OF THE PARAGRAPH.—Mat_12:22-37
Encountering blasphemy.—The best way of dealing with some adversaries is to leave them alone. So, in our last, with those mentioned in Mat_12:14. Here we read of some adopting a different line. An (apparently) most unusual case of demoniac dispossession had produced a corresponding effect on the people at large. “Is this,” they said—when the “blind and dumb” both “spake and saw”—is this indeed the Son of David? Stirred up by this question, the “Pharisees” fell back, as once before (Mat_9:34), on counsels of despair. Having nothing better to say, they say as before: He casteth out devils “by Beelzebub, the prince of the devils” (Mat_12:24). This time the Saviour, hearing their words, and “knowing their thoughts,” thinks it well to take up the accusation in question, and will be found, in doing so, to point out its extreme folly in the first place, and its extreme peril in the second. He also finally counsels men as to how best to avoid the extreme peril described.
I. The extreme folly involved.—The proposed solution was utterly foolish:—first, because it was not consistent with what was true about Satan. Had things been as they alleged, the “kingdom of Satan” would before now have come to its end (Mar_3:26). That is true of all kingdoms, and therefore of this. A king opposed is a king deposed—if opposed by himself. The very fact, therefore, that there still existed demoniacs to be healed, proved of itself that His way of healing them was not of this kind. The proffered solution, in the next place, was not consistent with what they believed of themselves. Besides the Saviour Himself there were those who were considered capable of effecting similar cures, and who, either because of their birth and extraction (as the Saviour’s own disciples, it may be), or else because of their extraction and faith (as some of their own disciples, it may possibly mean (Act_19:13))—might be described as being their “children.” Anyway, whoever they were, it was to them He appealed. Let them deal with this charge (Mat_12:27). Lastly, the explanation was foolish because it was not consistent with what was true about Christ. For, after all, in the instances before you, what is it you see? Do you not, in fact, see the “strong man” spoiled of his goods? And do you not, therefore, see that there is something present which is stronger than he? And what can that something be except that which we know of as the “kingdom of God’? Who, in a word, can cast out the spirit of evil except the “Spirit of God”? That is the solution—the only solution—of the miracles you behold (Mat_12:28-29).
II. The extreme peril involved.—This the Saviour seems to point out by a succession of steps. To attribute works wrought in the way just described to the spirit of evil is fraught with danger of the extremest kind; first, because it is practically taking the wrong side on this question. If the “kingdom of God” has indeed “come” thus “upon you” (Mat_12:28), you cannot safely, in this way, declare that it has not. If you are not “with Me” in acknowledging this, you are “against Me,” and, in fact, denying it (Mat_12:30). And you are openly putting yourselves, therefore, in other words, against “the kingdom of God.” Also, next you are taking that side in a peculiarly deliberate way. For, to do as you are doing, is not only to sin against light, but against special light as it were. It is to do even worse. It is to turn that light, as it were, into darkness. It is to use the proofs of truth as supports of error. And so, not only to show contempt for the person of the Ambassador but for His very credentials as well. In other words, not only to sin against the “Son of man,” but against the “Spirit of God.” Lastly, you are on the way towards committing yourself to that wrong side in an irreversible manner. For there is a possibility in this direction of going so far as to make it impossible to come back. There is a blasphemy in this sort of blasphemy for which no remedy has been provided. Neither this world—nor yet the world to come—knows anything of the kind. This I say unto you because of that which ye have said now about Me (Mar_3:30).
III. The best way to escape.—It is like the Saviour to conclude this subject with a word on this point. It is like Him also to do so in the way that he does. Some would deliver us from the sin intended by attempting to define it. Of these we may say much as in Mar_14:59. The Master would deliver us from it by impressing on us not to go near. In two ways especially He here seems to impress this upon men. First of al He says to them, take care of thy heart. The sin in question, whatever its after developments, springs up in the heart. This is true of all sin, therefore most so of this. In no other case can a corrupt source produce a wholesome result (Mat_12:33). Least of all, therefore, in the case of this sin of sins—the most “venomous” known (Mat_12:34). Seek, therefore, if you would escape its outgrowth, to have none of its root in your heart. Rather seek to have there a perfect “treasure” of thoughts of the exactly opposite kind (Mat_12:35). In the next place, take care of thy lips. Take care of thy lips lest they should unadvisedly utter any thoughts of this kind. Take care of thy lips because of the part which thy words are to play at the last. They are to provided much of the evidence by which is to be determined thy true state before God (Mat_12:37). Even, therefore, the apparently “idlest” of them may have much weight in this way (Mat_12:36). Also remember—so it seems to be meant—that of all evidence furnished in this way of the true state of the heart, none is more weighty than that furnished by suppression of speech. Evil expressed is evil approved of and brought to the birth (Jas_1:15). Evil suppressed is evil repented of before it is born. Let the evil within thee, therefore,—if there is to be any—be all of this sort. So shalt thou be safe from ever giving utterance to what is here meant! The only proper sequel to these solemn thoughts is in the language of prayer. “Set a watch, O Lord, before my mouth; keep the door of my lips” (Psa_141:3).
HOMILIES ON THE VERSES
Mat_12:22. Blind and dumb.—
1. The fearful condition of men spiritually possessed by Satan may be seen in bodily possessions; and among the rest, in this man, on whom Satan shutteth all doors, that he can neither let in comfort, nor let forth the sense of his misery, for he maketh him blind and dumb, which dumbness is ordinarily accompanied with deafness also.
2. Such as Christ will deliver from Satan, albeit they cannot come of themselves to Him, yet He can furnish means to bring them to Him.
3. Christ is the powerful Physician of evils inflicted by the devil, as here He giveth evidence, in healing this man perfectly.—David Dickson.
Mat_12:25-26. Sound reasoning.—
1. In pondering men’s sins the Lord looks much to the inward disposition, mind, and affection of sinners, whether they sin of infirmity or of presumption; of ignorance, or against their light. “Jesus knew their thoughts.”
2. The way to preserve all societies is union, and the way to ruin them is dissension.
3. Satan hath a kingdom among men, which by all means he goeth about to maintain, and will be loth, really and in effect, wholly to dispossess himself, both of the soul and body of any in whom he hath power and place.—Ibid.
Mat_12:25. Thoughts.—
I. Thought, the seat of greatest sin.—Of sin that men dare not actually commit, or speak.
II. Thought, the seat of grandest wishes and holiest aspirations.—Biblical Museum.
Mat_12:28. The true evidence of Christianity.—The world is growing singularly impatient of institutions which cannot justify themselves by some practical work, by the test of some good effect. The Founder of our religion based His appeal on results. The Apostles took up the same ground. Whenever men seriously attempt to apply to Christian history and Christian experience the processes of scientific investigation, weighing and counting over the effects which the gospel has produced, then the church may calmly and with confidence await the verdict, for then the world will be nearer than it has been to the truth that Jesus Christ is the Saviour of mankind. For one reason, however, the force of this argument is less felt than it deserves to be. We expect from the gospel what it never professes to do, and because we are disappointed, we fancy that it has failed. It is only fair that the gospel should be tried upon its own pretensions.
I. Did Jesus speak as though on the advent of the gospel sin was to be abolished from society?—Did He ever dream of founding a perfect society which should contain no black sheep? On the contrary, the gospel shows that His eyes gauged more accurately than those of His friends the future of the world. He expected, indeed, His religion to fill the land and overshadow the earth. But for all that, the vision before His eyes was of a little company of saints, persecuted and almost crushed by evil, etc. The Apostles predicted schisms and false Christs inplenty, but they never encouraged the hope of a whole world turning to God.
II. What, then, did our Lord and His Apostles profess the gospel should effect?—This, that it could create peace with God for every human being, no matter how degraded, who believed the gospel in its entirety, and should follow the doctrines laid down therein.
III. Has the gospel established its claim by irrefutable facts?—
1. Take all the most characteristic lives we know of such as have attained the character of Christians. These state that they have obtained, though with a struggle, peace of conscience and entered into happier relations with the Most High.
2. They all agree as to the value of Christianity in giving a fresh motive for virtue, more effectual than they possessed before.
3. They are equally at one in referring these happy changes to the power of the indwelling of the Holy Ghost; and while they constantly bemoan their failures, they as constantly blame for these failures only themselves.
4. This is the uniform testimony of Christians in every age.
5. And of every race. Thus,
(1) the gospel does accomplish what Christ promises;
(2) its proper work is limited only by a full and free out and out acceptance of it, and submission to its demands on the part of every human being.
IV. Practical inferences.—
1. How completely it rests upon us to demonstrate the value of Christ’s gospel by our own lives.
2. To inquirers and hesitators—Christianity is in practice and in power. It offers you deliverance from evil; it asks nothing but implicit trust and self-surrender. If you doubt it, then it refers you to its success in others.
3. To those who pretend to be Christians, but do not in their lives show Christ’s work. The only test of being Christ’s is that His work upon us succeeds, and this work is to make us holy. The failure is in yourselves and not in the gospel.—New Outlines.
Mat_12:30. The intolerance of the gospel.—Rejecting the idea that Satan was divided against himself, our Saviour added, that if Satan was not His accomplice, as the Pharisees supposed, it followed that he was His adversary. And why? Because with reference to Jesus Christ it is absolutely necessary to be one thing or another. Thus Jesus Christ took occasion from a particular fact, to proclaim a great truth. Who is the man that is against Jesus Christ? It must be sufficiently obvious to all, that, by this expression, our Saviour designs every man to whom the gospel is an object of aversion and hatred, whether he conceal his sentiments in his heart, or manifest them in his words and actions. Who, then, is the man that is not with or for Jesus Christ? The world is full of persons who are not for Him. We recognise them in all those members of the Christian church who belong to it only by birth, and by certain external usages, but whose whole life proves that the church inspires them with no interest. Religion is to them a matter of high propriety, an interesting fact, a social necessity, but nothing more. It is neither the rule of their life, nor one of their interests. We do not know a better way of establishing the truth of what the Saviour says in reference to such men than by showing the falseness of the contrary proposition, viz. “One may not be for Jesus, and yet not be against Him; he may be neither His friend nor His enemy; he may observe with respect to Him a species of neutrality.” Let us see if such neutrality is possible.
1. A real neutrality is one of the rarest things in the world.—Man is not made for indifference. Whatever affects him nearly, everything which exerts an influence upon his fortune, nay more, everything which he sees exciting general interest, becomes to him an object of some kind of sentiment.
2. This is specially so in the domain of religion.—If a religion is true, it follows that we ought to love it with all our heart, if false, to detest it with all our heart; for the question turns upon a matter of the highest excellence, or a criminal imposture; a work of God, or a work of the devil. Is neutrality, in such a case, possible?
3. If we had even remained indifferent, we would not the less have made, without willing it, a choice.—Because true religion, meriting nothing less than our whole love, not to devote ourselves to it is to be against it; and a false religion, not deserving anything but our deepest hatred, not to oppose it is to be for it.
4. To make this last truth more evident, suppose that God manifest in the flesh has descended to the earth, in the person of a being resembling you; that the character of that being is the ideal of perfection; His work, the salvation of the human race; His precepts, holiness itself; His feelings in reference to you, a boundless compassion. You acknowledge in Him all these attributes, and you say to Him, “Since Thou art the ideal of perfection, the rule of holiness, God Himself manifest in the flesh; since Thou hast shed Thy blood upon the cross for the salvation of my soul, I cannot be against Thee, but I will not be for Thee.” For whom then is that heart? The heart must attach itself to something.
5. The better to appreciate this neutrality, let us enter the heart of the indifferent, and give account of the feelings which reign there. He says he has no hatred. But are there in his heart love and obedience; love especially for Jesus Christ? Assuredly not, seeing he is not for Jesus Christ. Well, to refuse love to Jesus Christ, I affirm, is to do Him all the evil which an open enemy could, or at least, would do. He who loves not obeys not.
6. When circumstances will it, the indifferent becomes an enemy, positively, and in fact.—As long as it is not excited by circumstances, this enmity remains asleep; and, in some persons, it remains in this form, the most dangerous, perhaps, all their life long. But, in many others, unforeseen circumstances awaken it, and cause it to appear in its real character.
7. To hate Jesus Christ—such is the result in which neutrality and indifference eventually terminate.—A Vinet, D.D
Christian work.—We learn:—
I. That Christian work is constructive.—It is gathering together, collecting, saving, preserving. Worldly work is destructive, scattering, altering, tinkering.
II. That Christian work is collective.—It is in accordance with laws. It must follow the direction of Christ, the ways of Christ, the object of Christ, and it must promote the glory of Christ. Worldly work is undisciplined. Every man would be a master, and the scene would become a tower of Babel.—B. in “Homilist.”
Mat_12:32. Sin against the Son of man and against the Holy Ghost.—I. Observe, Christ speaks of Himself here as the Son of man, the Son of God in a disguise, as it were; God under the veil of human flesh. Can we wonder that He should look with a merciful and forgiving eye upon any of His brethren who, not suspecting His greatness, should rudely jostle against Him in the crowd? Suppose, for instance, a king were to assume for purposes of state the disguise of a subject, and to mingle with the simplest and rudest of his people, and suppose that while in such disguise he were to meet with an insult; would not a broad line of demarcation be drawn between an insult so offered and an act of avowed treason against the king upon his throne? A comparison of this kind will be of considerable help to us in understanding our subject. Even the murderers of Christ sinned against the Son of man, against Christ in His human nature; whereas, had they known who it was whom they crucified, many might possibly have been overwhelmed with shame, and have besought His forgiveness.
II. But in the case of blasphemy against the Holy Ghost no such plea can be set up.—Here we have a sin not against God in the guise of Jesus the Son of Joseph the carpenter, but against God in His essential Deity, God upon the throne of heaven, God who does good, and is the Author of all good both in heaven and earth. The sin of the Jews which our Lord rebuked partook of this character; for they had said that He was under the influence of, and in league with, an unclean spirit; to do good, to love mercy, and to perform acts which undeniably tended to overturn the kingdom of Satan and establish the kingdom of God—this, they said, was the work of the devil. Now unquestionably this was to put darkness for light and light for darkness, to confound all distinctions between good and evil, to confuse the works of Satan and those of the Most High God, as though they were not the exact opposites of each other. The person who does fully commit this sin places himself exactly in the position of the lost angels; the sin of Satan is that of deliberately worshipping evil and hating good, and on this account is unpardonable sin—unpardonable for this reason, if for no other, that it cannot be repented of.—Bishop Harvey Goodwin.
The sin against the Holy Ghost.—What, then, is this sin against the Holy Ghost, the unpardonable sin?
I. One thing is clear. Its unpardonableness cannot arise from anything in the nature of the 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?
II. Then, again, when it is said 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 seems to disclose itself at once.
III. 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. The Pharisees had not, as yet, done this; but they were bordering upon, and in spirit committing, the unpardonable sin.—D. Brown, D.D.
Mat_12:36. The connection.—Our first rule in seeking to understand a passage of Scripture must always be to review it in connection with its context. The discourse, of which the words in question form a part, had its rise in the circumstance of the Pharisees attributing our Lord’s miracles (even those of them whose character presented most difficulty to such an explanation) to Satanic agency.… Now, at first sight, it is natural to suppose that by idle words are meant such as the Pharisees had just vented—words of blasphemy against the Holy Ghost. And it is not difficult to perceive what kind of words those were. The Pharisees, like the multitude (Mat_12:23), were internally convinced of the Messiahship of Jesus by the miracle which they had witnessed. But it would have been inconvenient to them to have acknowledged His claims. By doing so, they would have to retract their whole previous career—to place themselves after the fashion of Mary at His feet, as His disciples. This would have humbled the pride of those ecclesiastical rulers, and such a humiliation they could not brook. So, without honestly believing their own explanation, they attributed the cure of the blind and dumb man to the agency of Satan. It was a supernatural cure—that they admitted—but there are, said they, supernatural evil agencies, as well as supernatural good ones, and this particular miracle is due to the first of these causes. It might have occurred to them (probably it did occur to them in the deep of their hearts) that this was a flimsy and transparently false explanation—that, on no recognised principle of craft or policy, could the devil cast out his own agents. Yes, such an account would not serve the turn; it was a dishonest shuffle, and they knew it to be so, to avoid making a confession which was irresistibly forced upon their minds, but which would have involved them in consequences from which their pride and jealousy shrunk. And then came in the corrupt special pleading, so natural to the human mind under such circumstances: “After all, though I am giving an explanation which I do not believe—with which I am not satisfied myself—which finds no response whatever in my convictions—yet these are but words, the breath of the lips, lightly uttered and soon forgotten—my mind recognises the truth, though I cannot bring my tongue to confess it.” The eye of Him who knew what was in man detected this reasoning at the bottom of their hearts; and down came the lightning of His censure to crush and blast a fallacy so dangerous: “Whosoever speaketh a word against the Son of man” (without violating internal convictions, like Paul before his conversion, who spake many things against the Son of man, but spake them ignorantly in unbelief) “it shall be forgiven him—but whosoever speaketh against the Holy Ghost” (violates those internal convictions of truth which are wrought in the mind by the Holy Spirit) “it shall not be forgiven him, neither in this world, neither in the world to come.” As if the Lord had said: “Your language is not, as you vainly imagine, a separate and separable thing from your reason: it has a deep and living connection with your state of mind. Language and reason have their fibres twined up together—so that a corrupt language argues a corrupt reason. And then follows our passage, introduced by the formula, But I say unto you—“Every idle word,” etc.—E. M. Goulburn, D.D.
The idle word.—Now is the idle word to be explained simply and solely by the blasphemy preceding? If so, the warning—though still an awful one—will scarcely possess a general applicability; for the number of those is few, whose circumstances resemble the circumstances of the Pharisees. We think there are reasons for giving to these solemn words a far more extended applicability.
1. They are introduced by a formula, which will be found, I think, to indicate a transition from a more limited to a more extended application, the word translated “but” having the force of moreover, furthermore.
2. The same conclusion will follow from examining the word rendered “idle” (ἀργός). According to its derivation, this word means not working (ἀ-ἔργον). Now, the words of the Pharisees were not simply useless, unfruitful, unprofitable words; but far worse. They were false words; they counteracted conviction; their fault was not that of omission; they were positively bad, mischievous, and wicked words. They were a lie in the teeth of conviction, and they were calculated to do harm, to mislead the ignorant people who looked up to their authority. Hence we infer that when our Lord condemns idle words, He is going a step beyond that sin of blasphemy upon which His censure had, at the outset of the discourse, so heavily fallen; and that our text, rendered so as to exhibit the emphatic transition, would run thus: “Nay, I even say unto you, that every idle word” (not merely every false and blasphemous, but every idle word) that men shall speak, they shall give account thereof in the day of judgment.” Nor is there anything which need surprise us, in this strictness of the Christian law on the subject of words. It is strictly in accordance with the general tenor of evangelical precept. We are often instructed that that precept cannot be satisfied by innocuousness—that we are required not merely to abstain from harm, but to do positive good. What the passage condemns is useless words, words conducive neither to instruction nor to innocent entertainment; words having no salt of wit or wisdom in them—flat, stale, dull, and unprofitable, thrown out to while away the time, to fill up a spare five minutes; words that are not consecrated by any seriousness of purpose whatever.—Ibid.
What are, and what are not, idle words.—Words are idle which do not fulfil the proper end of the existence of words. We may remark, in general, that what constitutes the excellence or virtue of anything, is that it should fulfil its proper end. What, then, is the proper function of words, the end for which they were given, by fulfilling which they become good, and escape the censure of being idle words?
1. The first, and perhaps (by comparison) the lowest end of words, is to carry on the business of life.
2. The second end which words should fulfil, and for which they were no doubt designed, is to refresh and entertain the mind.—Ibid.
Responsibility for idle words.—The Pharisees might have imagined that as they had but spoken, and had perpetrated no real act of enormity, no guilt was contracted. Christ disabuses them here of such an impression. “Every idle word.” There are three considerations which may serve to show us the responsibility that attaches to idle words.
I. Their reactive force.—“Those things which proceed out of the mouth come forth from the heart, and they defile the man.”
II. Their social influence.—Science affirms that every movement in the material creation propagates an influence to the remotest planet in the universe. Be this as it may, it seems morally certain that every word spoken on the ear will have influence lasting as eternity.
III. Their Divine recognition.—The great Judge knows every word we have spoken. “Out of thine own mouth will I judge thee.”—Homilist.
Mat_12:37. Condemning words.—Consider some of the ways by which words are used that minister to our condemnation.
I. At the head of this list we must put profane swearing.
II. Another way in which we expose ourselves to God’s displeasure is by what St. Paul calls “foolish talking.”
III. Another example of the improper use of the gift of speech is an indulgence in the petulant and complaining language which so often destroys the harmony of private life.
IV. A fourth illustration of our text is found in the case of misrepresentation and slander.
V. Angry words are another description of words by which we may endanger our everlasting salvation.—J. N. Norton.
The Preacher's Complete Homiletical Commentary (gen. ed. Joseph S. Exell; Funk & Wagnalls, c. 1892) — public domain (pre-1929). A full-Bible homiletical/sermon-outline anthology covering 65 of 66 books (2 John is absent from the source module). Text from a community e-Sword module.
William B. Godbey 1900 · Public Domain On v22 Mar 3:20-30; Mat 12:22-37; & Luk 11:14-23. Mark: “And…
THE UNPARDONABLE SIN (BLASPHEMY AGAINST THE HOLY GHOST)
Mar 3:20-30; Mat 12:22-37; & Luk 11:14-23. Mark: “And they come into the house; and again a multitude comes together, so that they are not able even to eat bread. And those who were along with Him came out to arrest Him; for they continued to say, That He is beside Himself.” Their common charge against Jesus was, that He is beside Himself; i.e., gone crazy, that He has run mad, and that He has a demon. Look out! If you walk in His footprints, do not be jostled if they speak of you in a similar manner. Matthew: “Then a demonized man, blind and dumb, was brought to Him, and He healed him, so that the blind and dumb spake and saw. And all the multitudes were astonished? and continued to say, Is not this the Son of David?” Mark: “The scribes, having come down from Jerusalem, were saying, He has Beelzebul, and that through the prince of the demons, He casteth out demons; and calling them to Him, He spake to them in parables, How is Satan able to cast out Satan? If a kingdom is divided against itself, how is that kingdom able to stand? And if it is divided against itself, that house is not able to stand; and if Satan has risen up against himself, and is divided, he is not able to stand, but has an end.” Beelzebub, E.V., is the name of a heathen god, but Beelzebul is simply another name for the devil, as it here occurs in the original. The scribes at Jerusalem had laid all their wits under contribution, and settled down on a theory which they thought would explain all the demoniacal ejectment which Jesus was doing in Galilee; i.e., that He had entered into a collusion with the devil, who is commander-in-chief of these evil spirits, to cast them out. They thought their theory would bear criticism, as, of course, Beelzebul, the prince of devils, had power over all these demons which Jesus was casting out. Do you not see the utter imperturbability of Jesus amid these vile, false accusations? He simply proceeds to answer their argument and expose their sophistry from a logical standpoint, showing up the utter untenability of their exegesis, as in that case, Satan would be divided against himself, and would destroy and utterly break down his own kingdom. Are there not endless division, discord, and disharmony in the kingdom of Satan? Of course there is, hell itself being the very pandemonium of conflict, rage, and all conceivable dissension, animosity, perturbation, variance, and torment. But the point in all this is, that Satan’s kingdom, both in earth and hell, is a single unit of evil, there being no admixture of good, but evil, with all its endless diversifications. And, pursuant to the Savior’s argument, if the kingdom of Satan had a mixture of good and evil, those elements, mutually antagonizing each other, would ultimate in the annihilation of his kingdom. There is no such a mixture in this world, as here we have the two kingdoms at war with each other, and destined, in the case of every individual, the one or the other, to triumph. Hence you will find the argument of our Savior in this case perfectly tenable from the standpoint of fact and logic. Matthew: “If I cast out demons through Beelzebul, through whom do your sons cast them out? Therefore they shall be your judges.” We see from this Scripture that the Jews were accustomed to cast out demons. How was that? Do you not know that the Jews, from the days of Abraham, were the chosen people of God? How do we cast out demons? We do it by invoking the mercy and power of God on them to cast out the demons and save their souls; e.g., when we gather around an altar of penitence. In a similar manner did the godly Hebrews cast out the demons by invoking the God of Israel. “And if, by the Spirit of God, I cast out demons, then has the kingdom of God come nigh unto you.” Well said; because none but God can cast out demons. The kingdom of God is the Divine government, in which His power and authority are exercised. Therefore, all of this demoniacal ejectment demonstrates the presence and power of God’s kingdom, involving the logical sequence that the King is present — the very fact which they were so slow to apprehend. Luke: “When the strong man armed may keep his palace, his goods are in peace; but when the one stronger than he having come, may conquer him, he taketh away his panoply in which he trusted, and spoileth his goods. He who is not with Me, is against Me; and he that gathereth not with Me, scattereth abroad.” This world is Satan’s palace, and he is the strong man. So long as he occupies his palace, his goods, which are human souls, are secure in his possession. Jesus is the Stronger Man, who is going to conquer the devil, when He comes in His glory, and take this world out of his hands; i.e., “spoil” it, which does not mean to destroy it; but this is a military phrase, and means to take it as spoils are captured and appropriated by a conquering army. So our Savior, the Stronger Man, in the great wars of Armageddon, is going to conquer Satan, the strong man, and take this world out of his hands; i.e., “spoil” all of his goods, leaving him bankrupt, and locked up in hell. (Rev 20:3.) The Bible is unlike any other book in the wonderful copiousness of its meaning. While the above paragraph is thus expounded, it has another exegesis, equally true and pertinent. While Satan is the “strong man,” his palace is the human heart, and his panoply, in which he trusts, the evil habits into which he leads his miserable votaries. Jesus, the Stronger Man, conquers the devil in regeneration, taking away the evil habits of the converted soul, in which Satan trusted to hold him fast. Then Jesus goes on, sanctifies that soul, “spoiling” the devil of all his goods, as in sanctification He takes the soul completely out of the hands of the devil. We see here, in this last verse, that no one can stand neutral in this terrible conflict between the strong man and the Stronger Man, but every one is forced to take sides, either with Jesus or the devil, as neutrality in this case is downright conservatism to Satan and rebellion against God. Matthew: “Therefore, I say unto you, All sin and blasphemy shall be forgiven unto the people, but the blasphemy of the Spirit shall not be forgiven unto the people. Whosoever shall speak a word against the Son of man, it shall be forgiven unto him; but whosoever may speak against the Holy Ghost, it shall not be forgiven him, either in this age or in that which is to come.” While there is but one God, He is manifested in Three Persons, Father, Son, and Spirit, the latter being the Executive of the Trinity. While the personal Father sits upon the throne of the universe, administering the government of the boundless Celestial Empire, the Son incumbers the Mediatorial Throne at His Right Hand, administering the boundless resources of redeeming grace to all the people in this world, and even the earth itself. Both the Father and the Son send forth the Holy Ghost, the Third Person of the Trinity, into this world, to shed light on every human being, convict every sinner, convert every mourner, sanctify every believer, and glorify every disembodied saint, and thus prepare this whole world for heaven. He is the Successor of our ascended and glorified Savior in the execution of the redemptive scheme on the earth. (Joh 16:7.) Hence you see that the Holy Ghost is the Divine Person of the Trinity who deals with human souls, administering the love of the Father and the grace of the Son, saving and sanctifying all who will let Him. There is a great eleemosynary institution for the relief of all beggars, administered by three officers, A., B., and C. A. has his office in London, England; B., in New York, America; and C., is present on the spot with every dying beggar, and ready to dispense the needed alms. Now you see these poor victims of decrepitude and misery must receive the benefits of this philanthropic institution at C.’s hands, as they can never reach A. at London or B. at New York. Here is the dying sinner. The Holy Ghost is with him in his dismal hovel or his gilded palace, ready to dispense to him the infinite benefactions of the loving Father and the dying Son. Suppose he unfortunately reject or grieve Him away, he is at the end of his resources, and must eternally perish. If he will receive the Holy Ghost in conviction, regeneration, and sanctification, He will administer to him all the blessings of the Father and the Son. Blasphemy means contempt. Therefore the ultimate neglect and contemptuous rejection of the Holy Ghost, consummates the sin against Him, which is unpardonable, either in the present age or in that which is to come; i.e., millennial age. Though some very stoutly deny the succession of the gospel age by another, we must remember that the Word of the Lord is the end of all controversy.
Read full note →
Not only this passage, but Heb 6:5, and others, speak positively of the coming age. You now see clearly in what the sin against the Holy Ghost, which is unpardonable, consists. It is clearly revealed and expounded by the Savior in this chapter. It is the imputation of the miracles wrought by the Savior, through the Holy Ghost, to Beelzebul; i.e., the devil. In this way the scribes and Pharisees, and others who followed their influence, committed the sin against the Holy Ghost. A simple analysis of this problem will thoroughly elucidate it. If you impute the work of the Holy Ghost to the devil, your doom is sealed, as it is impossible to convince you. Suppose God literally inundates you with evidence, He must give it all by His Spirit, and you will turn it over to the devil as fast as it comes, and see nothing but the devil in it all. Consequently, you are unconvincible. In this way the antediluvian world was ruined, having sunk so deep in the black darkness of sin, they imputed all the efforts of the Holy Ghost to convict and save them to Satanic influence, thus crossing the dead-line and rejecting God. In a similar manner the Jews, as we see here, imputed the miracles of Jesus to the devil, thus committing the unpardonable sin, rejecting the Son, and sealing their hopeless doom, to the awful destruction which soon overtook them in the Roman wars, as the antediluvians had been destroyed by the flood. In a similar manner the present age is fast rejecting the Holy Ghost, and ripening for the great tribulation, which, to illuminated minds, is already heaving in view, while the wonderful fulfillment of the latter-day prophecies draweth nigh. While the fallen Churches of the present age are fast rejecting the Holy Ghost, pronouncing His work fanaticism, and thus imputing it to the devil, whose trend is the unpardonable sin, the world, with wonderful expedition, is plunging into the same yawning abyss, down Satan’s greased plank of infidelity, which is wonderfully and fearfully on the increase, both in Christendom and heathendom. God, in His mercy, waited on the antediluvians to repent till the last hope had fled. He did the same for the Jews. A similar destruction is on the track of the God- rejecting Gentile world (Rom 11:21), though, I trow, God, in His unutterable mercy, as in former dispensations, will wait till they cross the deadline, the Churches rejecting the Holy Ghost and the world espousing infidelity, and thus all putting themselves beyond the reach of redeeming mercy, and sealing their doom in hell. “Make the tree good, and the fruit will be good; make the tree corrupt, and the fruit will be corrupt; for a tree is known by its fruits.” There is no good in this fallen world; it all comes from heaven; therefore when the Holy Ghost is rejected, nothing but corruption is left.
“O ye generation of vipers, how are you, being evil, able to speak good things? Out of the abundance of the heart the mouth speaketh.” How awfully plain this preaching, calling His intellectual auditors “generation of vipers!” Do not forget that He is especially addressing the preachers and official members; i.e., the scribes and Pharisees. Does not history repeat itself? Shall we be so blind as to leave this with a congregation 1,870 years ago? God forbid! Let us take it home, wake up, and profit by this awful truth. “A good man, out of the good treasure of his heart, bringeth forth good things; and an evil man, out of the evil treasure of his heart, bringeth forth evil things.” How awful the state of the Jewish Church! The leading preachers and laymen in the hands of the devil! “I say unto you, That every idle word which the people may speak, they shall give an account for the same in the day of judgment. For by thy words thou mayest be justified, and by thy words thou mayest be condemned.” Language is the exponent of the heart. God has put us here on probation, trying and testing us for vast eternity. “Idle” is argon, from ergon, “work,” and is the strongest negative in the Greek language when preceding a word. Hence it means the very absence of all work. God has put us here to work in His vineyard. Hence we have no time to lose. Idle words mean idle minds and bodies, which are condemnatory in the sight of God. O the momentous issues which hang on our words, the exponents of both soul and body! When we are idle, the devil always finds an open door. We see here, in the contingent tense, it is our prerogative to so speak as to determine our justification or condemnation before the judgment-seat of Christ.
William B. Godbey, Commentary on the New Testament (1896–1900) — public domain. Text from a community e-Sword module.
Alexander MacLaren 1905 · Public Domain On v33
Matthew
‘MAKE THE TREE GOOD’
Read full note →
Mat 12:33.
In this Gospel we find that our Lord twice uses this image of a tree and its fruit. In the Sermon on the Mount He applies it as a test to false teachers, who hide, beneath the wool of the sheep’s clothing, the fangs and paws of ravening wolves. He says, ‘By their deeds ye shall know them; for as is the tree so is its fruit.’ That is a rough and ready test, which applies rather to the teacher than to his doctrine, but it applies, to some extent, to the doctrine too, on the hypothesis that the teacher’s life fairly represents it. Of course, it is not the only thing that we have to take into account; but it may prick many a bladder, and unmask many an error, and it is the way by which the masses generally judge of systems and of their apostles. A saintly life has more power than dusty volumes of controversy.
But in our text Christ applies the same thoughts in rather a deeper fashion. Here the lesson that He would have us draw is of the connection between character and conduct; how what we do is determined by what we are, and how, not of course with the same absolute regularity and constancy, but still somewhat in the same fashion as the fruit is true to the tree, so, after all allowance made for ups and downs, for the irregular play of will and conscience, for the strife that is waged within a man, for the temptations of external circumstances, and the like-still, in general, as is the inner man, so is the outward manifestation. The facts of a life are important mainly as registering and making visible the inner condition of the doer. Now, that seems very elementary. Everybody believes that ‘out of the heart are the issues of life,’ as a wise man said long ago, but it is one of the truths that, if grasped and worked into our consciousness, and out in our lives, would do much to revolutionise them. And so, though it is a very old story, and though we all admit it, I wish now to come face to face with the consequences of this thought, that behind action lies character, and that Doing is the second step, and Being is the first.
I. I would ask you to notice how here we are confronted with the great problem for every man.
‘Make the tree good.’ It takes a good man to do good things. So how shallow is all that talk, ‘do, do, do,’ this, that, and the other thing. All right, but be; that is the first thing; or, as Christ said, ‘Make the tree good, and the fruit’ will take care of itself. So do you not see how, if that is true about us, we are each brought full front up to this, ‘Am I trying to make my tree good? And what kind of success am I having in the attempt?’ The water that rises from some spring will bring up with it, in solution, a trace of a bed of salt through which it has come, and of all the minerals in the soil through which it has passed. And as its sparkling waters come out into the light, if one could analyse them completely, one might register a geological section of the strata through which it has risen. So, our acts bear in them a revelation of all the hidden beds through which they have risen; and sometimes they are bitter and salt, but they are always true to the self whose apocalypse they are to the world, or at all events to God.
Therefore, brethren, I have to urge this, that we shall not be doing our true work as men and women, if we are simply trying to better our actions, important as these are. By this saying the centre of gravity is shifted, and in one aspect, the deeds are made less important. The condition of the hidden man of the heart is the all-important thing. Christ’s word comes to each of us as the briefest statement of all that it is our highest duty and truest wisdom to aim at in life-’Make the tree good.’
If you have ever tried it honestly, and have not been contented with the superficial cleaning up of outsides, which consists in shifting the dirt into another place only, not in getting rid of it, I know what met you almost as soon as you began, like some great black rock that rises in a mountain-pass, and forbids all farther advance-the consciousness that you were not good met you. I am not going to talk theological technicalities. Never mind about phrases-they have been the ruin of a great deal of earnest preaching-call it what you like, here is a fact, that whenever a man sets himself, with anything like resolute determination and rigid self-examination, to the task of getting himself right, he finds that he is wrong. That being the case, each of us has to deal with a tremendous problem; and the more earnestly and honestly we try to deal with it, the more we shall feel how grave it is. You can cure a great deal, I know. God forbid that I should say one word that seems to deny a man’s power to do much in the direction of self-improvement, but after all that is done, again you are brought short up on this fact, the testimony of conscience. And so I see men labouring at a task as vain as that of those who would twist the sands into ropes, according to the old fable. I see men seeking after higher perfection of purity than they will ever attain. That is the condition of us all, of course, for our ideal must always outrun our realisation, else we may as well lie down and die. But there is a difference between the imperfect approximation, which we feel to be imperfect, and yet feel to be approximation, and the despairing consciousness, that I am sure a great many of my audience have had, more or less, that I have a task set for me that is far beyond my strength. ‘Talk about making the tree good! I cannot do it.’ So men fold their hands, and the foiled endeavour begets despair. Or, as is the case with some of you, it begets indifference, and you do not care to try any more, because you have tried so often, and have made nothing of it.
There is the problem, how ‘make the tree good,’ the tree being bad, or, at all events, if you do not like that broad statement, the tree having an element of badness, if I may so say, in and amongst any goodness that it has. I do not care which of the two forms of statement you take, the fact remains the same.
II. Note the universal failure to solve the problem.
‘Make the tree good.’
Yes. And there are a whole set of would-be arboriculturists who tell you they will do it if you will trust to them. Let us look at them. First comes one venerable personage. He says, ‘I am Law, and I prescribe this, and I forbid that, and I show reward and punishment, and I tell you-be a good man.’ Well! what then? It is not for want of telling that men are bad. The worst man in the world knows his duty a great deal more than the best man in the world does it. And whether it is the law of the land, or whether it is the law of society, or the law written in Scripture, or the law written in a man’s own heart, they all come under the same fatal disability. They tell us what to do, and they do not put out a finger to help us to do it. A lame man does not get to the city because he sees a guide-post at the turning which tells him which road to take. The people who do not believe in certain modern agitations about the restrictions of the liquor traffic say, ‘You cannot make people sober by Act of Parliament,’ which is absolutely true, although it does not bear, I think, the inference that they would draw from it, and it just puts into a rough form the fatal weakness of this would-be gardener and improver of the nature of the trees. He tells us our duty, and there an end.
Do you remember how the Apostle put the weakness of law in words, the antique theological terminology of which should not prevent us from seeing the large truth in them? ‘If there had been a law given which could have given life, then righteousness should have been by the law,’ which being translated into modern English is just this, If Law could impart a power to obey its behests, then it is all that we want to make us right. But until it can do that it fails in two points. It deals with conduct, and we need to have character dealt with; and it does not lift the burden that it lays on me with one of its fingers. So we may rule Law out of court.
And then comes another, and he says, ‘I am Culture, and intellectual acquirement; or my name is Education, and I am going to make the tree good in the most scientific fashion, because what makes men bad is that they do not know, and if they only knew they would do the right.’ Now, I thoroughly believe that education diminishes crime. I believe it weans from certain forms of evil. I believe that, other things being equal, an educated man, with his larger interests and his cultivated tastes, has a certain fastidiousness developed which keeps him from being so much tempted by the grosser forms of transgression. I believe that very largely you will empty your gaols in proportion as you fill your schools. And let no man say that I am an obscurantist, or that I am indifferent to the value of education and the benefits of intellectual culture, when I declare that all these may be attained, and the nature of the tree remain exactly what it was. You may prune, you may train along the wall, you may get bigger fruit, you will not get better fruit. Did you ever hear the exaggerated line that describes one of the pundits of science as ‘the greatest, wisest, meanest of mankind’? The plain fact is that the cultivation of the understanding has little to do with the purifying of the depths of the heart.
And then comes another, and says, ‘I am the genius of Beauty and Art. And my recipe is pictures and statues, and all that will refine the mind, and lift the taste.’ That is the popular gospel of this day, in a great many quarters. Yes, and have we never heard of a period in European history which was, as they call it, ‘the Renaissance’ of art and the death of morality? Do we not know that side by side there have been cultivated in all ages, and are being cultivated to-day, the most exclusive devotion to the beauty that can be expressed by art, and the most intense indifference to the beauty of holiness? Ah! brethren, it wants something far deeper-going than pictures to purge the souls of men. And whilst, as before, I thankfully acknowledge the refining influence of this new cult, I would protest against the absurdity of putting it upon a pedestal as the guide and elevator of corrupted humanity.
And then come others, and they say, ‘Environment is the thing that is to blame for it all. How can you get decent lives in the slums?’ No, I know you cannot; and God bless every effort made to get the people out of the slums, I say. Only do not let us exaggerate. You cannot change a man, as deeply as we need to be changed, by any change of his circumstances. ‘Take the bitter tree,’ as I remember an old Jewish saying has it, ‘take the bitter tree and plant it in Eden, and water it with the rivers there; and let the angel Gabriel be the gardener, and the tree will still bear bitter fruit.’ Are all the people who live in good houses good? Will a ‘living wage’-eight shillings a day and eight hours’ play-will these change a man’s character? Will these go deep enough down to touch the springs of evil? You cannot alter the nature of a set of objects by arranging them in different shapes, parallelograms, or squares, or circles, or any others. As long as you have the elements that are in human nature to deal with, you may do as you like about the distribution of wealth, and the relation of Capital to Labour, and the various cognate questions which are all included in the vague word Socialism; and human nature will be too strong for you, and you will have the old mischiefs cropping out again. Brethren, you cannot put out Vesuvius by bringing to bear on it the squirts of all the fire engines in creation. The water will go up in steam, and do little or nothing to extinguish the fire. And whilst I would thankfully help in all these other movements, and look for certain limited results of good from them, I, for my part, believe, and therefore I am bound to declare, that neither singly, nor all of them in combination, will they ever effect the change on human nature which Jesus Christ regarded as the only possible means for securing that human nature should bear good fruit.
For, if there were no other reason, there are two plain ones which I only touch. God is the source of all good, of all creatural purity as well as all creatural blessedness. And if a life has a blank wall turned to Him, and has cut itself off from Him, I do not care how you educate it, fill it full of science, plunge it into an atmosphere of art, make the most perfect arrangements for social and economical and political circumstances, that soul is cut off from the possibility of good, because it is cut off from the fontal source of all good. And there is another reason which is closely connected with this, and that is that the true bitter tang in us all is self-centring regard. That is the mother-tincture that, variously coloured and compounded, makes in all the poisonous element that we call sin, and until you get something that will cast that evil out of a man’s heart, you may teach and refine and raise him and arrange things for him as you like, and you will not master the source of all wrong and corrupt fruit.
III. Lastly, let me say a word about the triumphant solution.
Law says, ‘Make the tree good,’ and does not try to do it. Christ said, ‘Make the tree good,’ and proceeds to do it. And how does He do it?
He does it by coming to us; to every soul of man on the earth, and offering, first, forgiveness for all the past. I do not know that amongst all the bonds by which evil holds a poor soul that struggles to get away from it, there is one more adamantine and unyielding than the consciousness that the past is irrevocable, and that ‘what I have written I have written,’ and never can blot out. But Jesus Christ deals with that consciousness. It is true that ‘whatsoever a man soweth that shall he also reap,’ and the Christian doctrine of forgiveness does not contradict that solemn truth, but it assures us that God’s heart is not turned away from us, notwithstanding the past, and that we can write the future better, and break altogether the fatal bond that decrees, apart from Him, that ‘to-morrow shall be as this day, and much more abundant,’ and that past sin shall beget a progeny of future sins. That fruitfulness of sin is at an end, if we take Christ for our Saviour.
He makes the tree good in another fashion still; for the very centre, as it seems to me, of the Gospel of Jesus Christ is that into our spirits He will breathe a new life kindred with His own, a new nature which is free from the law and bonds of past sin, and of present and future death. The tree is made good because He makes those who believe in Him ‘new creatures in Christ Jesus.’ Now, do not turn away and say that that is mysticism. Be it mysticism or not, it is God’s truth. It is the truth of the Christian Revelation, that faith in Jesus Christ puts a new nature into any man, however sinful he may have been, and however deep the marks of the fetters may have been upon his limbs.
Christ makes the tree good in yet another fashion, because He brings to the reinforcement of the new life which He imparts the mightiest motives, and sways by love, which leads to the imitation of the Beloved, which leads to obedience to the Beloved, which leads to shunning as the worst of evils anything that would break the communion with the Beloved, and which is in itself the decentralising of the sinful soul from its old centre, and the making of Christ the Beloved the centre round which it moves, and from which it draws radiance and light and motion. By all these methods, and many more that I cannot dwell upon now, the problem is triumphantly solved by Christianity. The tree is made good, and ‘instead of the briar shall come up the myrtle tree.’
You may say, ‘That is all very well in theory. What about the practice? I do not see such a mighty difference between you Christians and us.’ Well, for myself and my brethren, I accept the rebuke. There is not such a difference as there ought to be. But do you know why? Not because our great Gardener cannot change the nature of the plant, but because we do not submit ourselves to His power as we ought to do. Debit us with as many imperfections and inconsistencies as you like, do not lay them to the charge of Christ.
And yet we are willing to accept the test of Christianity which lies in its power to change men. I point to the persecutor on the road to Damascus. I point to the Bedfordshire tinker, to him that wrote Pilgrim’s Progress. I point to the history of the Christian Church all down through the ages. I point to our mission fields to-day. I point to every mission hall, where earnest, honest men are working, and where, if you go and ask them, they will let you see people lifted from the very depths of degradation and sin, and made honest, sober, respectable, hard-working, though not very intelligent or refined, Christian people. I suppose that there is no man in an official position like mine who cannot look back over his ministry and remember, some of them dozens, some of them scores, some of them hundreds, of cases in which the change was made on the most hopeless people, by the simple acceptance of the simple gospel, ‘Christ died for me, and Christ lives in me.’ I know that I can recall such, and I am sure that my brethren can.
People who are not Christians talk glibly about the failure of Christianity to transform men. They have never seen the transformations because they have never put themselves in the way of seeing them. They are being worked to-day; they might be worked here and now.
Try the power of the Gospel for yourselves. You cannot make the tree good, but you can let Jesus Christ do it. The Ethiopian cannot change his skin, nor the leopard his spots, but Jesus can do both. ‘The lion shall eat straw like the ox.’ It is weary work to be tinkering at your acts. Take the comprehensive way, and let Him change your character. I believe that in some processes of dyeing, a piece of cloth, prepared with a certain liquid, is plunged into a vat full of dye-stuffs of one colour, and is taken out tinged of another. The soul, wet with the waters of repentance, and plunged into the ‘Fountain opened for sin and for uncleanness,’ the crimson fountain of the blood of Christ, emerges ‘whiter than snow.’ Let Him ‘make the tree good and fruit will be good,’ for if not we shall be ‘hewn down and cast into the fire,’ because we cannot bear any fruit unto holiness, nor can the end be everlasting life.
Alexander MacLaren, Expositions of Holy Scripture (1904–1910) — public domain. Text from a community e-Sword module.
J. W. McGarvey 1914 · Public Domain On v22 J. W. McGarvey's The Fourfold Gospel [XLVIII. Blasphemous Accusations].
J. W. McGarvey's The Fourfold Gospel [XLVIII. Blasphemous Accusations].
XLVIII. BLASPHEMOUS ACCUSATIONS OF THE JEWS. (Galilee.) aMATT. XII. 22-37; bMARK III. 19-30; cLUKE XI. 14-23.
Read full note →
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]
J. W. McGarvey (with Philip Y. Pendleton), Commentaries on the New Testament (The Fourfold Gospel, 1914; Acts; and the epistles) — public domain. Text from a community e-Sword/MySword module.
C. I. Scofield 1917 · Public Domain On vv22, 24, 31, 34 (Greek - δαιμονίζομαι," demonized). (See Scofield "Mat 7:22")
possessed
(Greek - δαιμονίζομαι," demonized). (See Scofield "Mat 7:22")
The Scofield Reference Bible (1917 edition), notes by C. I. Scofield — public domain. Text from a community e-Sword module.
Paul E. Kretzmann 1924 · Public Domain On vv22, 25, 29, 31, 33 A demoniac healed:
A demoniac healed:
v. 22. 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.
Read full note →
This narrative fittingly illustrates the gradual growth of opposition, hatred, enmity, malice, and calumny on the part of the Pharisees. A man was brought to Christ whom the Evil Spirit had deprived of both sight and speech, thus torturing him by the loss of these senses.
v. 23. And all the people were amazed and said, Is not this the Son of David?
Their minds had not yet been saturated with the poison of enmity toward Christ; they were frankly overwhelmed by this new evidence of divine power, and openly declared their conviction that this man must be the Son of David in the absolute sense, the promised Messiah, in whom the prophets had bid them trust. They still express themselves somewhat doubtfully, however: Can this possibly be He? There can surely no longer be any doubt. The Pharisees, ever present, immediately harbored bitter thoughts:
v. 24. But when the Pharisees heard it, they said, This fellow doth not cast out devils but by Beelzebub, the prince of the devils.
This thought was provoked by the frank expression of amazement on the part of the people. Apparently, they did not voice their sentiments outside of their own circle, because they feared the multitude; but, after the manner of their kind, they murmured and grumbled among themselves, accusing Christ of being in league with the devil, as once before, chapter 9:34. Beelzebub, which means god of flies, and Beelzebub, god of dung, had originally been names of idols, and were by the Jews applied to the devil. It was an insult without parallel which they thus heaped upon the Lord.
Paul E. Kretzmann, Popular Commentary of the Bible (1921–1924) — public domain. Text from a community e-Sword module.
unfoldingWord translationNotes 2017 · CC BY-SA 4.0 On vv22, 24, 26, 28, 31, 33, 36 General Information:
General Information:
Here the scene shifts to a later time when the Pharisees accuse Jesus of healing a man by the power of Satan.
Read full note →
Then someone blind and mute, possessed by a demon, was brought to Jesus
This can be stated in active form. AT: "Then someone brought to Jesus a man who was blind and mute because a demon was controlling him" (See: Active or Passive)
someone blind and mute
"someone who could not see and could not talk"
All the crowds were amazed
"All the people who had seen Jesus heal the man were greatly surprised"
the Son of David
This is a title for the Christ or Messiah.
Son of
Here this means "descendant of."
translationWords
demon-possessed
demon
Jesus
cure
amazed
son
David
unfoldingWord translationNotes — © Distant Shores Media and the Door43 World Missions Community, licensed CC BY-SA 4.0. Source: git.door43.org/Door43/en_tn.
Tyndale Open Study Notes 2022 · CC BY-SA 4.0 On vv22, 23, 24, 26, 27, 28, 29, 31, 32, 33, 36 12:22-45 The Messiah was rejected by the Pharisees, the…
12:22-45 The Messiah was rejected by the Pharisees, the teachers of religious law, and his own generation.
Tyndale Open Study Notes — © Tyndale Open Resources, licensed CC BY-SA 4.0. Text via the HelloAO Bible API.