Chapter Twelve

1–8. The disciples pluck ears of grain on the Sabbath.—9–14. The healing of a man with a withered hand on the Sabbath and the denunciation of the Pharisees.—15–21. Fulfillment of the prophecy concerning Christ from Isaiah.—22–37. Denunciation of the Pharisees on account of the accusation regarding dealings with Beelzebul.—38–45. Answer to the request for a sign.—46–50. The mother and brothers of Christ.

Matthew 12:1. At that time Jesus went through the grain fields on the Sabbath; his disciples were hungry and began to pluck ears of grain and to eat. (See Mark 2:23; Luke 6:1). Essentially the account in the three evangelists is the same, but in the expressions there is a noticeable difference. The expression “at that time” here should be considered as indefinite as other similar expressions already examined (“then,” “in those days,” etc.). They serve here more for the connection of speech than for the designation of time, and there is no need to suppose that Matt 12:1-8 occurred “at that time” or immediately after the speeches of Christ expounded at the end of chapter 11. According to many interpreters, the events which Matthew here narrates occurred either shortly before the second Passover of Christ’s ministry (year 2 of Christ’s ministry, by our count the year 28), or soon after it. If it was the barley harvest, it would be shortly before Passover; if wheat, soon after Passover. Thus, at this Passover the Savior was not in Jerusalem. A whole year remained until the death of the Savior. On the basis of Luke’s account (ἐν σαββάτῳ δευτεροπρώτῳ) some think that this occurred on the first Sabbath after Passover of the year 28. Jesus Christ traveled with His disciples through grain fields on the Sabbath. It is hardly likely that this journey through the fields was undertaken with the intention of showing that the Savior violates (λύων) the paternal laws, and that the disciples would violate the law concerning the Sabbath by eating (Theophylact). Just as there is no need to suppose that with Jesus Christ besides the disciples, there also went a great multitude of people. The plucking of the ears of grain by the disciples occurred “on the Sabbaths” (τοῖς σάββασιν)—in Greek the plural. But, as Zahn shows, the term “sabbath” and “sabbaths” was used indifferently, which is evident from Matt 12:1; Mark 1:21; Luke 13:10; Acts 17:2.

Matthew 12:2. But the Pharisees, seeing this, said to him: behold, your disciples are doing what is not permissible to do on the Sabbath. (See Mark 2:24; Luke 6:2). The plucking of ears of grain was not only not forbidden in the law as theft or appropriation of another’s property, but was directly permitted (Deut 23:25). The Pharisees, therefore, accused the disciples not of plucking ears of grain and eating, but of doing so on the Sabbath. In the Talmud this is clearly prohibited. Plucking and rubbing the ears of grain to separate the grain from the husk was equated to threshing grain, which was one of the 39 ordinary types of work forbidden on the Sabbath (listed in Perferkovitch. Talmud. Vol. II. Tractate Shabbat, VII, 2, p. 44). The Pharisees, obviously, were watching the Savior, though from the tone of the Gospel account one might judge that this particular encounter had somewhat of a chance character. The assumption that plucking ears of grain was forbidden until the first sheaf of the harvest was presented in the temple, is not based on anything. The disciples of Christ, as is evident from His further words, were hungry and therefore began to pluck ears of grain. The word “doing” refers not to “eating” (verse 1) but to the plucking of ears of grain.

Matthew 12:3. But he said to them: have you not read what David did when he was hungry, he and those with him? Matthew 12:4. How he entered the house of God and ate the bread of the Presence, which it was not lawful for him or those with him to eat, but only for the priests? (See Mark 2:25-26; Luke 6:3-4). In Mark and Luke this is reported similarly, with only minor differences in wording that do not alter the meaning of the speech. The Saviour in His answer to the Pharisees (and He answered—Luke) refers to the well-known history set forth in 1 Sam 21:2-6 about how David, fleeing from Saul, came to Nob, where the tabernacle was at that time (Schenkel), and asked the priest Ahimelech (thus in the Hebrew text; in the Septuagint—Abimelech, not Abiathar, as in Mark 2:26) to give bread to him and those with him, because they were all hungry. Notably, the priest Ahimelech, in answering David’s request, doubted its lawfulness, but not because it was on the Sabbath (1 Sam 21:4). However, some think that David’s meeting with Ahimelech occurred on the Sabbath and that the newly baked showbread had just been laid on the table in the tabernacle. In proof they cite 1 Sam 21:6 (cf. Lev 24:8). Be that as it may, the violation of the law consisted not in that the bread was given to David on the Sabbath, but in that it was sacred; it was not permitted to be eaten by laymen, only by the priests. The Saviour points out the unlawfulness of David’s deed more clearly than Ahimelech, namely: by the law David could not eat the showbread because only the priests could eat it, to whom neither David himself nor his men belonged. David’s action was a violation not of the Sabbath law, but of the law of the temple and tabernacle. But the Saviour reasons here from equal to equal, or by the principle of equivalents. The temple and the Sabbath were equal or alike in holiness. Based on the generally accepted interpretation of Luke 6:1 the expression “second first Sabbath,” some think that on the day when the disciples passed through the sown fields, the 21st chapter of the First Book of Kings was the daily lesson. But, says Alford, one cannot prove that the Hebrew calendar existed then in the form in which we now have it.

Matthew 12:5. Or have you not read in the law that on the Sabbaths the priests in the temple violate the Sabbath, yet are blameless? This saying of Christ has no parallels in the other evangelists. It is claimed that the actions of the disciples were in no sense parallel to the actions of the priests in the temple, and the fact that the priests, in obedience to the law, worked in the temple, could not justify the disciples in that they violated the scribal interpretations of the law that forbade work on the Sabbath. But such reasoning is generally superficial. Against it the expression “have you not read in the law” carries weight. The Saviour, clarifying the erroneous opinion of the Pharisees, points out to them the contradiction in the law itself, which on the one hand forbade work on the Sabbaths, and on the other, prescribed it. The citation here is of Num 28:9-10. This contradiction was not essentially one, because two kinds of activity—for God and for men—required different treatment. But the legal contradiction was incomprehensible and unresolvable for the Pharisees and scribes of that time, and therefore the argumentation of Jesus Christ carried full weight for them and was irrefutable, though it stirred in them a secret feeling of hostility, as do all irrefutable proofs when they do not accord with someone’s interests. The contradiction is resolved by the fact that the Sabbath was devoted to God and required not idleness, but activity. In showing the logical error of the Pharisees, the Saviour adheres to the Pharisees’ own terminology (Acts 24:6), using the word “profane”—they profane, violate the Sabbath by slaughtering sacrificial animals, removing entrails, flaying skin, cutting into pieces and washing them, laying wood, kindling fire. Among the Jews there was a saying: “there is no Sabbath in the temple.” The Saviour’s answer here is detailed: He points out the place (temple), the persons (priests), the time (Sabbath), and the deed itself (violation of the Sabbath). So John Chrysostom also holds. The purpose of this speech was to make clear that the Pharisees ought to be more careful in their accusations of violation and profaning of the Sabbath. To a possible objection from the Pharisees that those were priests and these were disciples, the reply is given in the following verse.

Matthew 12:6. But I say to you, that here is One greater than the temple; According to Meyer, if earlier the Saviour argued in His reasoning from the greater to the lesser (from the deed of David to the deed of the hungry disciples), then from verse 5 onward He argues from the lesser to the greater—from the temple, whose priestly ordinances violated the Sabbath, to His own, surpassing the holiness of the temple, authority. But this seems unlikely; it seems unlikely that the Saviour aimed at such an artificial proof. The meaning of His words apparently is simply that in the temple a service is performed, and here, outside the temple, also a service to God, but a much greater and higher one. This greater and higher service consists not in the offering of sacrifices and various other ritual acts, for which the Sabbath is suspended, but in acts of mercy and love, which should be (and were) considered higher than ritual acts. The apostles, together with Christ Himself, took part in this service of love, and therefore for them the petty observance of the Sabbath is not binding.

Matthew 12:7. If you had known what this means: I desire mercy, not sacrifice, you would not have condemned the guiltless, A further and independent proof of the correctness of Christ’s conduct, which did not forbid the disciples to pluck ears of grain, and of the error of the Pharisees’ opinion, having close connection with the preceding speech and explaining it by reference to an Old Testament prophecy. Even in the Old Testament law, given in accordance with the hardness of heart of the Hebrews, mercy was placed above sacrifices. All the more should it be placed above them now, when “the greater” in comparison with the Old Testament law has come. The condemnation of the guiltless by the Pharisees occurred not from their ignorance of Scripture (Matt 12:3—you have not read), but from the lack of heartfelt love.

Matthew 12:8. For the Son of Man is lord of the Sabbath. (Cf. Mark 2:28; Luke 6:5). This verse in Mark (Mark 2:27) is preceded by an addition that (in literal translation) the Sabbath came into being for man, not man for the Sabbath. The words “Son of Man” are explained above (see the commentary on Matt 8:20). The Saviour in the Gospels always called only Himself by this name, and therefore the opinion that this verse has no connection with the preceding ones is incorrect—this connection is clear. If there can be a question here, it is only about why the Saviour called Himself the Son of Man before His enemies, that is, used an expression which they might not understand. To this one can answer first of all that He spoke thus more than once (see Matt 26:64; Mark 14:62; Luke 22:69). This expression for the enemies of Christ always had a veiled meaning, because they did not wish to understand the words of Jesus Christ as those of the Messiah. In reality Christ here indicated His Messianic dignity, and therefore the meaning of verse 8 is clear to us and, of course, was clear to the apostles, evangelists, and the believers in Christ of that time. But the Pharisees to whom Christ was speaking could simply connect the expression “Son of Man” with “the man” and “man” (Mark 2:28), of which Mark speaks clearly. However, even the enemies of Christ could have drawn from His words the conclusion that the authority of the Messiah was above the legal ordinances concerning the Sabbath. An explanation and expansion of this teaching of the Saviour are found in Rom 14:5-6 and Col 2:16-17. Thus the meaning of the verse under discussion is as follows. The Son of Man can dispose of the Sabbath, that is, of Sabbath activity; He can command it or stop it, just as a master allows his workers to rest or compels them to work. As simple as all this is, before Christ an ordinary man could not have reasoned his way naturally to the truths expressed here by Christ. Even in our time these truths are not always understood and not always applied in practice.

Matthew 12:9. And departing from there, He entered their synagogue. (Cf. Mark 3:1; Luke 6:6). The first impression from the account is that immediately after the discussion about the disciples plucking ears of grain on the Sabbath, the Saviour departed from that place and entered the Jewish synagogue. This was on the Sabbath (verse 10). From this one might conclude that the journey through the sown fields was “a Sabbath journey,” and to the synagogue. Under such an assumption only one thing would remain incomprehensible: why, as noted above, the disciples at such an early hour (the service was presumably held in the morning) were already hungry. But, comparing this verse with the account of Luke 6:6, we find that the Saviour entered the synagogue on another Sabbath. In Mark as well there is an allusion to this circumstance in the word “again” (again), though not sufficiently clear. If “again,” then it means the Saviour had entered the synagogue before, but when, Mark does not indicate. Thus Augustine and other commentators explain the matter. On that Sabbath day a new miracle was performed. If earlier the action of the disciples had no obvious aim to offend the Jews, here Jesus Christ, on the contrary, acts with a clear intention to refute the opinions of the Pharisees. The word “their” should be referred, as in other places (Matt 9:35), generally to the inhabitants of the region where Jesus Christ was (Galileans). The opinion that because further on (verse 10) mention is made of the Pharisees who questioned Christ, “their” refers to the Pharisees, is incorrect. The Galilean place where the healing occurred is not named. On the ground that strong accusers against Christ appear here, which is especially evident from Mark 2:6; Luke 6:7-8, some think that the event took place in some considerable city where the party of the Pharisees and scribes existed and held sway, and they name either Tiberias or Capernaum. But the evangelists give no indication of this, and the question of the location of the event must remain unsettled.

Matthew 12:10. And behold, there was a man having a withered hand. And they asked Jesus, to accuse Him: is it lawful to heal on the Sabbaths? (Cf. Mark 3:1-2; Luke 6:6-7). As to the character of this man’s illness, there is no need to discuss. It is enough to say that it was a man who did not have use of his right hand (Luke 6:6), whatever the reason—whether from paralysis, or what is called atrophy, or some other cause. This account occurs in Mark and Luke, but only with considerable variation in details in contrast to our text. Mark and Luke agree more with each other than with Matthew. From the accounts of Matthew (verse 14) and Mark (Mark 2:6) it is evident that the Pharisees came forward against Christ, who then united with the Herodians (Mark), but according to Luke (Luke 6:7), they were Pharisees and scribes. The Pharisees asked (Matthew) Jesus Christ whether it was lawful to heal on the Sabbaths; according to Mark and Luke—they watched Him to see if He would heal the withered hand on the Sabbath. He (knowing their thoughts—Luke 6:8) commanded the man to stand in the middle and posed to them the question given in the Gospel. The further question about the animal is not found in Mark, but in Luke (Luke 14:5) the same question is repeated, only in another similar case. There is, of course, no contradiction in the accounts of the evangelists, because in the crowd surrounding Christ both things were possible, with one evangelist reporting one thing and others another. This often happens in the accounts of eyewitnesses and other writers, who do not contradict but supplement each other. More important is the question of the legal side of the matter. The question was posed by the Pharisees in order to trap Christ. If He healed the withered hand on the Sabbath, He would be guilty of violating the Sabbath. If He did not heal, then—of helplessness and inability to work miracles, and perhaps even of inhumanity. The use of “if” in the question is foreign to classical Greek, but is found in the Septuagint Gen 17:17 and others; cf. Matt 19:3; Luke 13:23; Acts 1:6 and often; this form of question indicates uncertainty and wavering, and at the same time its tempting character.

Matthew 12:11. And He said to them: Who among you, having one sheep, if it falls into a pit on the Sabbath, will not take hold of it and lift it out? Matthew 12:12. How much more valuable is a man than a sheep! Therefore it is lawful to do good on the Sabbaths. Matthew 12:13. Then He says to the man: Stretch out your hand. And he stretched it out, and it became whole like the other. (Cf. verse 11 and Luke 14:5). In Luke a similar speech of Christ is placed in the account of the healing of a man with dropsy, and in the account of the healing of the withered hand it is omitted. Generally, in Luke 6:8-9 the details of the account are entirely different from those in Matthew. In Luke it is said: “But He, knowing their thoughts, said to the man having the withered hand: Rise and stand in the middle. And he rose and stood. Then Jesus said to them: I ask you: what is it lawful to do on the Sabbath? to do good, or to do harm? to save a soul, or to destroy it? They remained silent.” Judging by the construction of Matthew’s speech, in it one can suppose two questions, literally: “1) Who among you is a man who will have one sheep? 2) and if it falls on the Sabbath into a pit, will he not take it and lift it out?” But some hold that there is only one question here, and the last three sentences are made dependent on “who” (which). The meaning: Who among you is a man who will have one sheep and who, if it falls on the Sabbath into a pit, will not take it and lift it out? The last translation (literal) is closer to the original. The Saviour reasons not on the basis of any special opinions accepted then by the Pharisees and scribes, but on the basis of universal custom. No man having a sheep would say that he should act otherwise.

Matthew 12:14. Then the Pharisees went out and held counsel against Him, how they might destroy Him. But Jesus, knowing this, withdrew from there. (Cf. Mark 2:6; Luke 6:11). In foreign editions of the New Testament text and in foreign translations, the second half of the verse (But Jesus, knowing....) is referred to the following 15th verse. In the Slavonic as well as in the Russian, it is the same. According to Mark, the Pharisees held counsel with the Herodians, and immediately at that (immediately) after the event, and according to Luke, the scribes and Pharisees became furious and discussed with each other what they might do to Christ. Here is the first mention of an agreement between the Pharisees and the Herodians (omitted by Matthew and Luke)—to deliver the Saviour to death. The punishment prescribed in the law for violation of the Sabbath (Exod 31:14; Num 15:32-36) is death by stoning. Matthew does not say where Jesus Christ withdrew to. But Mark says that “He withdrew to the sea,” and perhaps to this also refers the account of Luke (Luke 6:17; cf. Matt 4:25) that He stood on a level place and pronounced the Sermon on the Mount. Since in Matthew the Sermon on the Mount was set forth earlier, he now omits these details.

Matthew 12:15. And great multitudes followed Him, and He healed them all (Cf. Mark 3:7-8; Luke 6:17). Christ was now looked upon as a Great Teacher, and it was natural if great crowds of people everywhere followed Him.

Matthew 12:16. And He charged them that they should not make Him known, (Cf. Mark 3:12; Luke 4:41). Here there is a difference in the manuscripts. According to some codices—as in the Russian; according to others—“and He charged all whom He had healed, that they...” In the last reading there is an irregularity in grammatical construction, this reading is less supported and is therefore considered “less probable.” According to Mark (Mark 3:11-12) and Luke (Luke 4:41), if only this last passage is indeed parallel to the passages in Matthew and Mark (some consider it parallel to Matt 8:16-17 and Mark 1:34), the matter appears clearer. Christ forbade making Him known and saying that He was the Christ, not to all the people, but only to the unclean spirits, whom He was casting out of men. If so, then the reasons for the prohibition are more understandable. Christ did not wish that the demons should declare Him to be the Son of God; in other words, He did not wish confirmation of His Sonship in relation to God from such a source.

Matthew 12:17. So that it might be fulfilled which was spoken through the prophet Isaiah, who says: A definite indication that the Messianic prophecy set forth below belongs to that prophet.

Matthew 12:18. Behold, My Servant, Whom I have chosen; My Beloved, in Whom My soul is well pleased. I will put My Spirit upon Him, and He will proclaim justice to the Gentiles; This passage is taken from Isa 42:1-4. From the Hebrew literally thus: “Behold, My Servant, Whom I uphold; My Chosen One, in Whom My soul delights. I have put My Spirit upon Him; He will bring forth justice to the nations; He will not cry out or raise His voice or make His voice heard in the streets; a bruised reed He will not break, and a dimly burning wick He will not quench; by faithfulness He will bring forth justice; He will not fail or be discouraged, until He has established justice on the earth; and the islands will wait for His law.” Without going into detail on the Hebrew text, we can say that the Russian translation approximately corresponds to it. As for the Septuagint translation, there are some deviations from the Hebrew text in it. According to the literal translation: “Jacob, My Servant, I will help him; Israel, My Chosen One, My soul has received him. I have given My Spirit upon him; justice to the nations he will bring forth. He will not cry out or leave off, and his voice will not be heard outside. A bruised reed He will not break, and a dimly burning wick He will not quench, but in truth he will bring forth justice. He will shine and not be crushed, until He establishes justice on the earth, and the nations will hope in His name.” The expression “will not leave off” some translate as “will not exalt” (his voice). Such a translation would correspond to the Hebrew original, but is hardly possible, because ἀνίημι never has such a meaning. If now we compare the Septuagint translation and the Hebrew text with the Greek of Matthew, it appears that Matthew deviates significantly both from the Hebrew text and from the Septuagint. It is thought, however, that Matthew had the Septuagint translation before him, and this is indicated by the expression: “and in His name will the Gentiles hope” (verse 21; in the Septuagint: and in His name will the nations hope, in the Hebrew text—“the islands”). The use of the Septuagint translation is also indicated by Matthew’s change of the Hebrew “wetorato” (and His law) to the Greek “His name,” a change in which there was no need, and it had no basis. In the Septuagint the words of the prophet clearly refer to Israel. But the fact that Matthew applies them to the Messiah serves as a corrective here, as do also the actual words of Isaiah. Isaiah depicts the future Messiah, though not according to His divinity, but according to His humanity. From what has been said, one can conclude that this passage is cited by the evangelist partly according to his own translation and partly according to the Septuagint translation. The evangelist’s application of the prophecy to Christ presents no particular difficulties. But it is certain that by means of the prophecy a new trait is added here to the characterization of Christ as He appeared on earth, as a historical person—a trait which we would have had only to guess at if the evangelist had not cited this passage, which perfectly accords with what we know of Christ from the Gospels. He was meek and humble in heart and did many things precisely so that the Old Testament prophecy would be completely fulfilled in Him. This was difficult, but He fulfilled the prophecy. Such is the evangelist’s view. The words: “He will proclaim justice” (κρίσιν), are difficult. Many have interpreted the word “justice” as the Gospel, law, laws, what is correct, correct teaching, correct worship, correct conduct. But all these interpretations are wrong, because the word κρίσις does not express all these concepts, any more than the Hebrew “mišpat” in Isaiah. The proper meaning of κρίσις is, of course, “judgment.” But in some passages of the New Testament it has another meaning, as in Matt 23:23; Luke 11:42; Acts 8:33 (from Isa 53:8),—here κρίσις is connected with mercy (ἔλεος), faith (πίστις), and love (ἀγάπη). Therefore, to understand the word, one must remember that the main purpose of judgment is to bring about justice for the oppressed, which is why κρίνειν in some cases is synonymous with δικαιοῦν (justify) and parallel to σώζειν (save), λυτροῦν (redeem, vindicate), etc. (Ps 139:13; Isa 1:17; Jer 5:28). Taking all this into consideration, one can interpret the prophecy in question thus: “He will proclaim righteousness” or “justice.”

Matthew 12:19. He will not quarrel or cry out, nor will anyone hear His voice in the streets; The expression “will not quarrel” is in neither the Hebrew nor the Septuagint. This verse is again interpreted in different ways. One interpretation, belonging to Jerome, is purely external and mechanical. Christ spoke of the narrow gate and the narrow path (Matt 7:14) leading to the Kingdom of Heaven; He Himself walked this path, and therefore it is natural if His voice was not heard in the great streets. Since “wide is the gate and broad is the path leading to destruction, and many go on it” (Matt 7:13), it is natural if these many do not hear the voice of the Saviour, because they are not on the narrow path but on the broad one. According to another interpretation, the prophet’s words, applied to the Messiah, simply depict the meekness of the Saviour, Who, walking the broad streets, does not shout and make noise. All these expressions in the mouth of the evangelist are evidently figurative.

Matthew 12:20. A bruised reed He will not break, and a dimly burning wick He will not quench, until He brings justice to victory; This verse contains an indication of the ideal meekness and kindness of the Saviour toward all people, not only toward the Jews. The prophet depicts the future Deliverer in precisely this way. A bruised reed—this is every broken, torn heart; a dimly burning wick—the marks in it of a striving toward good, toward God, the repentant feeling of the sinner, which is received as if however little it might be. It is fully understandable that under the bruised reed and the dimly burning wick people are understood. No one can say that here the highest relations toward them on the part of the Saviour are not depicted, relations unlike the ordinary human relations in the realm of “hardness of heart.”

Matthew 12:21. And in His name will the Gentiles hope. Instead of “Gentiles” in the Hebrew text is “islands,” that is, the nations farthest away, dwelling on islands—all of them will place their hopes in Christ the Saviour.

Matthew 12:22. Then there was brought to Him a demon-possessed man who was blind and mute; and He healed him, so that the mute man spoke and saw. In Luke 11:14 in the literal translation: “And there was one casting out a demon, and he was mute. And it came to pass, when the demon went out, the mute man spoke.” Thus there is a difference in the accounts: according to Matthew, the demon-possessed man was blind and mute, and according to Luke—only mute. This gave rise for some commentators to think that Matthew and Luke are recounting two different healings. But such an opinion is refuted by Augustine, who says that if Luke omits something, one cannot think that he is speaking of something else; the order of events in him is the same as in Matthew. The fact that the sick man was mute and blind is evident in Matthew from the further words that after healing he began to speak and see. To show that the healed man was deaf and dumb, in some codices there is added “to hear” (ἀκούειν). The opinion that this event is identical with the one recounted in Matt 9:32 and that Matthew, wishing to recount it further, adds blindness here, is untenable. Mark (Mark 3:20-22) does not speak of the healing of the demon-possessed man, but adjoins the further speeches in a special way. According to Theophylact, the demon closed off the paths to faith in the possessed man—the eyes, ears, and tongue.

Matthew 12:23. And all the multitudes were amazed, and said, “Is this perhaps the Christ, the Son of David? (Cf. Luke 11:14). The form of the question posed to the people indicates its dullness and slowness in recognizing Jesus Christ as a great Wonder-worker; this slowness tended toward a negative answer to the question. The thought that the Wonder-worker was the Messiah, the Son of David, forced itself upon the people’s mind, but the people were not yet able to fully accept it. However wonderful the Wonder-worker was, He—not a king. He was not born in royal palaces. All this is expressed through the negative particle μήτι, placed at the beginning of the question, which presupposes a negative answer: “Is this perhaps the Christ, the Son of David?” The expected answer: no, not this. It is quite curious that the old translators tried to smooth out this negative answer and phrased the question so that the answer should be affirmative. Thus in our Russian. Closer to the original one could translate: “Is not this the Christ, the Son of David?” In the Slavonic translation the meaning of the question is expressed somewhat better. But generally in other languages it is difficult to properly express the Greek speech. When an affirmative answer is expected, μή is not used (cf. Matt 7:16; Mark 4:21; Luke 6:39 and others). On the above grounds one can suppose that both the event itself and the question among the people are introduced here in order to express more strongly the contrast with the former expressions of the evangelist. He wants to say, as it were, the following. All the activity of Christ, His teaching and miracles tended toward making everyone recognize in Him the Servant chosen by the Almighty and beloved (), of whom Isaiah prophesied. But in spite of such obvious proofs of the Saviour’s higher dignity, even the most zealous, those who followed Him, the multitudes (ὄχλοι) wavered. And the Pharisees went even further and began to attribute the miracles of Jesus Christ to the power of demons. Such is the evangelist’s transition to the further speech. Seeing Christ’s miracles, the people were only inclined to think that Christ was the Son of David, but wavered in finally accepting it. But the Pharisees were strange to even such wavering.

Matthew 12:24. But when the Pharisees heard this, they said, “He casts out demons by Beelzebul, the prince of the demons. (Cf. Mark 3:22; Luke 11:15-16). According to Mark, this was said not by the Pharisees but by the scribes, who came from Jerusalem. Since many scribes belonged to the party of the Pharisees, there is no disagreement between the evangelists. According to Luke, not all Pharisees accused Christ, but only “some of them.” The further speech in translation: He does not cast out demons except in Beelzebul, the prince of demons (cf. Matt 9:34). Thus the expression “not by” and “not by the power of” (as in the Russian translation underlined) Beelzebul, but “in Beelzebul,” that is, together with Beelzebul. The fact that not simply Beelzebul is mentioned, but with the addition “prince of demons,” makes it sufficiently clear that here is meant, if perhaps not the chief himself, then at least one of the chief demons, who, in the understanding of the Pharisees, had other demons in his command. Beelzebul in any case was considered the most evil and at the same time the most unclean of the demonic rulers. Therefore, the accusation of Christ in connection with him was unclean and, it seems, in the eyes of the Pharisees and scribes especially cutting. It had the aim of drawing the people away from Christ and arousing in them enmity toward His activity, teaching, and miracles.

Matthew 12:25. But Jesus, knowing their thoughts, said to them, “Every kingdom divided against itself will be laid waste; and every city or house divided against itself will not stand. (Cf. Mark 3:23-25; Luke 11:17). A detailed speech on the same subject is in Mark, but in Luke it is even shorter than in Matthew, with an insignificant difference in expressions. John Chrysostom explains this speech of Christ thus: “If I, having a demon in Me, cast out other demons by means of it, then there is disagreement and strife among the demons and they rise up against one another; if they rise up against one another, then their power is destroyed and ruined.”

Matthew 12:26. And if Satan casts out Satan, he is divided against himself; how then will his kingdom stand? (Cf. Mark 3:26; Luke 11:18). In Luke is omitted: “Satan casts out Satan,” and is replaced with: “If Satan also is divided against himself” (was divided?). In Mark the expressions are entirely different from those in the other evangelists. The name Satan in the second instance is used either instead of the reflexive pronoun, that is, instead of the words “Satan casts out himself,” it is said: “Satan Satan”; or else this expression should be understood thus: one Satan casts out another Satan. It is asserted that by Jewish understanding Satan was one and was considered the chief ruler of demons. If so, then the expression should be understood in the first sense. Against this it is objected that in general Jewish demonology was not “an orderly system.” On the other hand, Christ Himself does not call Satan a single individual person (cf. Matt 4:10), and from the character of the accusation and Christ’s defense one can infer that Satan was called Him Himself, and precisely for the reason that He was casting out another Satan. But the word “Satan” in Holy Scripture is always used only in the singular. Thus, if we accept also the first interpretation, that Satan casts out himself, there will be no great difference in meaning, and the argumentation has equal force in either case. The first interpretation, however, is more in accord with the accounts of Mark and Luke, where “Satan” (in the second instance in Matthew) is replaced by expressions “rose up against himself,” that is, “Satan rose up against himself” (Mark 3:26) and “is divided against himself” (Luke 11:18). In this sense we must interpret also the expressions of Matthew (cf. Exod 16:8; Lev 14:15)—Septuagint and Hebrew, where in the first instance the personal pronoun is repeated in a similar way, and in the last two ἱερεύς or “kohen.”

Matthew 12:27. And if I cast out demons by Beelzebul, by whom do your sons cast them out? Therefore they will be your judges. (Cf. Luke 11:19—almost verbatim). The meaning of this verse has long been a subject of great disputes. Hilary, Chrysostom, Theophylact, and Euthymius Zigabenus held that by “your sons” are meant the apostles, who were, of course, sons of the Jews. Chrysostom discusses this in detail. “Behold how gently He speaks to them here too. He did not say: My disciples or My apostles; but: your sons—so that, if the Pharisees wish to think as nobly as His disciples, to give them occasion for that, and if they remain in their former ingratitude and do not abandon their shamelessness, to deprive them of all excuse. The meaning of His words is as follows: by whose power do the apostles cast out demons? The apostles had already cast out demons, having received power to do so from the Saviour, but the Pharisees did not accuse them. They armed themselves not against deeds, but against the Person. Therefore Christ, wishing to show that jealousy alone is the cause of their accusation, points also to the apostles.” But Jerome wavers in his interpretation of the passage in question. According to his words, the expression “sons of the Jews” means either exorcists, or apostles, who were Jews. If the Saviour speaks of exorcists, who by invoking the name of the Lord cast out demons, then He convicts the Pharisees with wise questions, seeking recognition from them that this is the work of the Holy Spirit. If He speaks of the apostles, which is more probable, then they will be judges of the Pharisees, because they will sit on twelve thrones judging the twelve tribes of Israel. In the interpretations of later exegetes, the thought expressed by Chrysostom and others is completely abandoned. This is because, first, nothing is said in the Gospels about the apostles, and second, the Pharisees would have had no difficulty in attributing the miracles of casting out demons performed by the apostles to the devil just as they attributed the miracles of Christ to him. Thus there remains only one thing—to recognize that here the speech is about exorcists. There is no doubt that there were very many of them at that time. Here is what Schürer says about this (III, 408 et seq.): “Magic held great significance among the Jews in the age of Christ and later. The casting out of demons by the sons of the Pharisees, of which Matt 12:27 speaks, judging from all that we know from other sources, was not accomplished without magical formulas. Known are Simon the Magician (Acts 8:9) and Barjesus (Acts 13:6). In Ephesus Paul had dealings with Jewish exorcists, who used the name of Jesus for their purposes (Acts 19:13 seq.)... Justin assumes exorcisms as something usual among the Jews (Dialogus cum Tryphone, 85). Among the various means employed against gout, Lucian mentions an exorcism by a Jew, and in another case speaks of a famous ‘Syrian from Palestine’ who cast out demons by exorcisms. Irenaeus also speaks of the casting out of demons by invoking the divine name as a deed usual among the Jews (Adversus haereses, II, 6, 2).” We cannot here enter into a detailed exposition of this subject, which is very extensive, and we believe that the excerpt from Schürer cited above is sufficient. Thus, by “your sons” one can understand Jewish exorcists, who are called sons of the Pharisees (by context) not because by fleshly birth they descended from them, but in the same sense as “sons of the prophets” (1 Sam 20:35). The meaning of the Savior’s words, therefore, is this: if your disciples cast out demons, you do not attribute this to Beelzebul, so they can be your judges and judge you for saying this about Me out of hostility. It remains for us to say a few words on the question whether these exorcists to whom Christ points were real or imaginary. His argumentation, of course, did not lose its force in either case, because the Pharisees in neither case would attribute the activity of their exorcists to diabolic power. But the question of the reality of exorcisms is interesting in itself. Alford believes that investigating the reality of these exorcisms is highly important, because otherwise the reader of the Gospels is left with an unfavorable impression if we indeed admit that the Lord, solemnly comparing Jewish exorcisms with His own miracles, argued on the basis of Jewish deceptions which the Pharisees knew to be deceptions. Alford thinks that the sons of the Pharisees truly did cast out demons. This view is confirmed by the words of the crowd (Matt 9:33). When the mute man from whom the demon had been cast out began to speak, the crowd cried out: “Nothing like this has ever been seen in Israel”, thereby indicating that here a more complete healing was accomplished than had ever been witnessed before. The difficulty, says Alford, arose only from the forgetfulness of the fact that miracles as such do not serve in themselves as confirmation of truth; they were performed in false religions and by false teachers, and they prophesied concerning them (see Exod 7:22; Matt 24:24; Deut 13:1-5).

Matthew 12:28. And if I cast out demons by the Spirit of God, then surely the kingdom of God has come upon you. (Compare Luke 11:20). The meaning of the verse is this: if you are compelled to acknowledge that I cast out demons not by the power of Beelzebul but by the power of God, then you must make the further inference that among you there has appeared an extraordinary Person who acts by the power of God, and that, consequently, My works serve as a sign of God’s visitation of you and the coming of God’s kingdom among you. In Luke: “but if I cast out demons by the finger of God, then the kingdom of God has come upon you.” By the “kingdom of God” John Chrysostom understands here “My (Christ’s) presence” (ἡ παρουσία ἡ ἐμή).

Matthew 12:29. Or how can anyone enter the strong man’s house and plunder his possessions, unless he first binds the strong man? And then he will plunder his house. (Compare Mark 3:27; Luke 11:21-22). In verse 28 the first conclusion from the proofs presented by Christ was drawn. Both the proofs and the conclusion were in themselves sufficient. But examining the subject from another side, the Savior presents yet further proofs. In (Luke 11:21-22) the speech, being almost identical in meaning, differs in expressions. Matthew is here closer to Mark than to Luke. The word “or” is translated variously: “otherwise,” “and,” “for,” “whether”; in the Arabic translation—“and.” One cannot agree with the opinion that the article before ἰσχυροῦ here denotes a special power. It simply refers to the preceding, to Satan or Beelzebul, because it is clear that he must be understood as the “strong man,” although the speech has a somewhat broader sense as well. This figurative speech reminds one of (Isa 49:24) ff. The images are taken from actual life. The meaning of the speech is clear. In application to Christ’s activity it has great persuasiveness. If someone is powerful, it is not easy to attack him and plunder his property. So Christ could not oppose the devil if he were powerful enough to prevent the expulsion of the demons subject to him.

Matthew 12:30. Whoever is not with Me is against Me; and whoever does not gather with Me scatters. (Compare Luke 11:23—literally). This verse was also the subject of numerous disputes. John Chrysostom, Theophylact, Euthymius Zigabenus, Jerome, and others applied it to the devil; others—to the Jewish exorcists mentioned above. Still others understood the words of Christ in the sense of a general proverb and meant “anyone at all.” Finally, some thought that here was depicted the complete and perfect division of two kingdoms—the kingdom of Satan and the kingdom of God. This last opinion is the best. Between two kingdoms nothing intermediate can exist (cf. Rom 8:7). In the application of the principle given by Christ there are no exceptions. A neutral attitude toward Him is impossible. Whoever is not with Him is against Him... The basis is this: in the moral realm a person must be either right or wrong. There is no middle ground... Christ is always absolutely right... This speech of the Savior is expressed negatively in (Mark 9:40): “for whoever is not against you is for you.” In συνάγων there is an allusion to the idea of gathering a harvest (see Matt 3:12; John 4:36, etc.). Σκορπίζει means scatters, disperses (cf. John 10:12; 2 Cor 9:9). Thus, gathering without Christ does not bring any benefit to the gatherer; it amounts even to dispersion, scattering, and can bring only loss and trouble to the gatherer.

Matthew 12:31. Therefore I say to you, every sin and blasphemy will be forgiven people, but the blasphemy of the Spirit will not be forgiven people; (Compare Mark 3:28-29). The last word “people” (ἀνθρώποις) does not appear in the best manuscripts; in some it is added in place of “people”—“them.” Already in antiquity they supposed that the meaning of the expression was this: “if other deeds and actions are forgiven mercifully (liberali venia), then mercy does not happen when God is denied in Christ” (Hilary). John Chrysostom considered this verse very unclear, “but if,” he said, “we understand it, we easily comprehend it. What do these words mean? That sin against the Holy Spirit is especially unforgivable. Why? Because they did not know Christ, who He was, but concerning the Spirit they had already received sufficient knowledge... Therefore, I forgive you that which you reviled Me for before the cross, even that you wish to crucify Me on the cross, and even your very unbelief shall not be held against you... But what you said about the Spirit shall not be forgiven you... Why? Because the Holy Spirit is known to you, and you are not ashamed to reject an obvious truth.” The Holy Spirit is God and God is Spirit. The Pharisees who heard Christ’s speech scarcely conceived of the Holy Spirit as the third Person of the Holy Trinity, and for them the expression “the Holy Spirit” was equivalent to the word “God” or at least “the Spirit of God.” Thus, the expression “blasphemy of the Holy Spirit” was for the hearing of the Pharisees equivalent to the words “blasphemy against God.” If this is so, it becomes clear why every other sin and blasphemy will be forgiven to people, but blasphemy of the Holy Spirit will not be forgiven. Because the latter is an uprising against God Himself, and at the same time it brings the human spirit into proximity with πνεμα ἀκάθαρτον—with an evil spirit, whose guilt, in the understanding of the Jews of that time and in ours, shall never be forgiven. This is, so to speak, a principled blasphemy, the very greatest reviling, proper only to the rejected spirits of evil, who were never invited to repent and can never repent. In this greatest blasphemy God Himself is denied as an All-Good, All-Just, Almighty Being, with all His attributes, and at the same time in its very root all religion, all morality is denied. Here is presupposed the deepest fall of man, from which divine grace itself cannot extract him, because in such reviling and denial it is itself denied. The human spirit uttering such blasphemy becomes on one level with an unclean spirit. “Your father is the devil; and you desire to do the desires of your father” (John 8:44). You speak lies, as does he, because “he is a liar, and the father of lies.” The drawing close of the Pharisees to unclean spirits of evil apparently gives the Savior occasion to speak not of God but of the Holy Spirit.

Matthew 12:32. And if anyone speaks a word against the Son of Man, it shall be forgiven him; but if anyone speaks against the Holy Spirit, it shall not be forgiven him, neither in this age nor in the age to come. (Compare Mark 3:29-30; Luke 12:10). If the interpretation of the previous verse can be accepted, then it is clear why a “word” spoken “against the Son of Man” can be forgiven, but a word “against the Holy Spirit shall not be forgiven” either in this age or in the age to come. In the eyes of the Pharisees the Son of Man was neither God (cf. Mark 2:7; Luke 5:21) nor the Son of God. And not only the Pharisees, but even the disciples of Christ could only with difficulty and gradually come to understand this thought. This was due to ignorance, and therefore could be forgiven. But a “word” against the Holy Spirit or God is not merely an error arising from ignorance, and therefore is not forgiven. Some of the reasoning of various exegetes concerning this saying is quite interesting, though sometimes it bears little on the matter itself. Thus Augustine thinks on the basis of this verse that forgiveness of sins is possible not only in this age but also in the age to come, because one could not speak of any people that their sins shall not be forgiven either in this age or in the age to come if there were no forgiveness at all in the age to come. Origen speaks of a universal forgiveness that will come when the “great age” of which Plato spoke is ended, and even asserts that Judas and Lucifer himself with the demons condemned with him will eventually be saved. Catholic theologians derive from the verse under consideration their teachings about purgatory. According to some of them, it would be pointless and idle to say, “it shall not be forgiven him either in this age or in the age to come,” if no sin were forgiven in the age to come. “This is like saying: I shall not marry either in this age or in the age to come, when in the age to come marriage is altogether impossible.” Leaving aside all these interpretations, we shall say only that the expression “neither in this age nor in the age to come” is the most difficult to explain in all this speech of Christ. Morison considers this expression simply an amplification of the word “never.” One can agree with this last interpretation. The Savior, evidently, is not saying here whether or not there will be forgiveness of sins in the next world. He points only to the sin of blasphemy of the Holy Spirit and declares that this sin shall never be forgiven. The expression αἰὼν μέλλων appears here in Matthew only once (cf. Eph 1:21; 1 Tim 4:8; Heb 2:5, etc.).

Matthew 12:33. Either make the tree good and its fruit good; or make the tree bad and its fruit bad; for the tree is known by its fruit. (Compare Luke 6:43). According to Jerome, there is a syllogism in Christ’s speech here, called by the Greeks ἄφυκτον (unavoidable, cunning, from which there is no escape). If, says the Savior, the devil is evil, he cannot do good. If, however, what is done by Me you consider good, it follows from this that the devil does not accomplish it. And it cannot be that good comes from evil or evil from good. Just as a good man cannot do evil and a bad man—good, so Christ cannot do evil works, nor can the devil do good works. Augustine expresses a similar thought, according to which a man must first change in order for his works to change, because if a man remains evil, he cannot have good works, but if he is good, he cannot have evil works. It may be noted that the thoughts expressed by the Savior here and in the following verses have great similarity to what was said by Him in the Sermon on the Mount (Matt 7:16-20).

Matthew 12:34. You offspring of vipers! How can you speak good things, when you are evil? For from the abundance of the heart the mouth speaks. (Compare Luke 6:45). The connection of speech in this verse is not clearly expressed in the Russian translation. This can easily be seen if we expand the speech somewhat. “How can you speak good, being evil?” You cannot speak anything good, because “from the abundance of the heart the mouth speaks.” But if we insert here the proposition: you cannot speak anything good, because your heart is filled with malice, and “from the abundance of the heart,” that is, from that which fills it, “the mouth speaks,” then the speech of the Savior becomes clearer. However, the Russian translation is accurate; the Greek has the same omission of intermediate thoughts and propositions as the Russian. In a few manuscripts, however, there is a striving to express this thought somewhat differently through corrections, namely by adding after “speaks the mouth” the words either “good” (ἀγαθά) or “evil” (mala). Thus: “for from the abundance of the heart the mouth speaks good” (evil). The Savior calls the Pharisees “offspring of vipers,” as does John the Baptist (Matt 3:7) and “for the reasons indicated there.” Euthymius Zigabenus paraphrases this speech thus: it is not surprising if you utter blasphemy against this (against My actions), because you, being evil, cannot speak good. Then Christ shows “physiologically” why they cannot do so.

Matthew 12:35. A good man brings good things out of his good treasure, and an evil man brings evil things out of his evil treasure. (Compare Luke 6:45). That is, when there is much good in the heart, then good is brought forth, but when there is much evil, then evil is brought forth.

Matthew 12:36. And I say to you, that for every careless word that people speak, they will give account for it on the day of judgment: The connection of the speech is clear. The Pharisees were speaking careless words, uttering blasphemy of the Holy Spirit. Not only for such careless words, but also in general for every careless word people will have to give account on the day of judgment. An exalted and highly moral teaching. The verse literally should be translated thus: “And I say to you, that every careless word which people speak, they will give account for it on the day of judgment.”

Matthew 12:37. For by your words you will be justified, and by your words you will be condemned. The immediate meaning of this expression is that a man is justified or condemned by his words in ordinary human courts. But this thought is raised to a principle, and it is said in general that a man’s words justify or condemn him. Under judgment and justification here are understood chiefly accusation or justification at the Last Judgment.

Matthew 12:38. Then some of the scribes and Pharisees said to him, “Teacher, we would like to see a sign from you. The word “then” cannot be taken here as a precise indication of time. It is quite possible that what is said in this and the following verses occurred at another time and for another, though unknown, reason. In any case, we must suppose that now other people were speaking with Christ, not those who accused Him of being in league with the devil (verse 24). This is also evident from (Luke 11:16), which speaks of “other” people who “tested” Him and asked for a sign. Regarding this request of the scribes and Pharisees, Chrysostom remarks: “When they made harsh (τραχέως) proposals to Him and reviled Him, He answered them gently; but when they began to flatter Him, He turns to them with all severity and speaks words of reproach to them, thereby showing that He is above both such passion and is not angered by them nor can He be softened by their flattery.”

Matthew 12:39. But he said to them, “An evil and adulterous generation seeks a sign; and no sign shall be given to it except the sign of the prophet Jonah; (Compare Luke 11:29). “An evil generation” would be better translated as “an evil, full of evil generation.” This generation is called adulterous by the Savior because in general in the Old Testament the turning away from true religion and true worship was considered adultery (Jer 3:8-9; Ezek 16). But, on the other hand, this expression seems to be connectable with other expressions of the Savior about Sodom and Gomorrah (Matt 11:22-24) and can be understood to mean that the generation contemporary with Christ was debauched. Both phenomena, idolatry and sexual debauchery, are often linked with one another and understood from our knowledge of pagan life. This generation will not be given a sign now. Morison thinks that this is an extremely compressed expression in which an element of indefiniteness and mysteriousness is intentionally introduced. More fully the content of this speech of the Savior can be set forth thus: “No sign, for the sake of satisfying curiosity, shall be given to this generation at all. A sign would bring no benefit either to it or to anyone else. The hatred of the evil generation toward Me shall not cease. It shall reject Me. However, it shall not make My mission vain. When it delivers Me to death, I shall give it a sign far more wonderful than those curious things it expects from Me. I shall give it the sign of the prophet Jonah.” The Savior wants to give the Jews a sign not from heaven, but from the earth, and moreover a sign in the heart of the earth. This, however, does not mean that Christ will not perform any miracles and any signs until accomplishing this sign. They did not seem like signs to the unbelieving Jews. The sign indicated shall be given specifically to them and in general to all unbelievers.

Matthew 12:40. For as Jonah was in the belly of the whale for three days and three nights, so the Son of Man will be in the heart of the earth for three days and three nights. (Compare Luke 11:30). The speech here is evidently figurative. The question can arise only as to why the Savior spoke in figures here rather than expressing Himself simply: the Son of Man shall be buried and remain in the earth for three days and three nights. But similar figures are used in other places as well (see John 2:19, etc.).

Matthew 12:41. The men of Nineveh shall rise up in the judgment with this generation and shall condemn it, for they repented at the preaching of Jonah; and behold, something greater than Jonah is here. (Compare Luke 11:32). In Luke (Luke 11:31-32) the verses are presented in the reverse order compared with Matthew, that is, the queen of the south is spoken of first, and then the Ninevites. The latter are described in the same book of the prophet Jonah. The speech of Christ can be called a very brief and compressed exposition of this entire book. The meaning is clear. The Ninevites, after the preaching of Jonah, repented; the scribes and Pharisees—did not, even though both Christ Himself and His preaching were superior to Jonah and his preaching. This last point seems to be somewhat indirectly expressed in the words: “and behold, something greater than Jonah is here.” Πλεῖον fully corresponds to the Latin plus quam, and like the latter is used in the neuter. The repentant Ninevites will “rise up” (here one can translate “be resurrected,” though in the New Testament ἀνιστάναι does not always indicate resurrection), whether physically or spiritually, and as it were as a reward for their repentance will become judges of the generation contemporary with Christ, which had not brought repentance.

Matthew 12:42. The queen of the south will rise up in the judgment with this generation and will condemn it, for she came from the ends of the earth to listen to the wisdom of Solomon; and behold, something greater than Solomon is here. (Compare Luke 11:31). Instead of “in the judgment with this generation” — in Luke “with the men of this generation” (in the Russian Bible — “with the people”); and further, instead of “it” the corresponding “them.” Otherwise, Matthew’s speech is literally the same as Luke’s. In the words of the Savior there is an obvious reference to the history told in (1 Sam 10:1-13; 2 Chr 9:1-12). The “wisdom” of Solomon is mentioned in both accounts. The brevity of the accounts by the evangelists does not allow us to judge whether the Savior refers to the book of Kings or the book of Chronicles, or both of these books. In recounting the same as what is reported in the books of Kings and Chronicles, Josephus Flavius (“Jewish Antiquities,” VIII, 6, 5) calls this southern queen the queen τῆς Αἰγύπτου καὶ τῆς Αἰθιοπίας τότε βασιλεύουσαν γυναῖκα, that is, Meroe (the queens of whom were commonly called Candace) (Plinius, Historia naturalis, VI, 29). The Abyssinian tradition, in accordance with this account, calls her Makeda and supposes that she accepted the Jewish faith in Jerusalem. The Arabs on their part also make claims upon her, calling her Walqis (The Qur’an, sura 27 [in this sura, among other things, there is discussion of Solomon and the queen of Sheba, though the latter is not named. — Ed.]). This last view is probably closer to the truth. Sheba was a tract in fortunate Arabia, not far from the Red Sea and from present-day Aden (see Plinius, Historia naturalis, VI, 23), abounding in aromatic materials, gold, and precious stones. Wellhausen remarks that this is the first instance of the application of the name Yemen (= south = νότος) to southwestern Arabia.

Matthew 12:43. When an unclean spirit comes out of a person, it goes through waterless places seeking rest, and does not find it; Matthew 12:44. Then it says, ‘I will return to my house from which I came.’ And when it comes, it finds the house empty, swept, and decorated; Matthew 12:45. Then it goes and brings along seven other spirits more evil than itself, and they enter and live there; and the last state of that person is worse than the first. So will it also be with this evil generation. (Compare Luke 11:24-26). In Luke this section is almost literally the same as Matthew’s speech, except for a few words. It should be thought that in speaking thus, Christ adapted His speech figuratively to the conceptions of the time, by which unclean spirits were personifications of various evils, both spiritual and material.

Matthew 12:46. While he was still speaking to the crowds, his mother and brothers were standing outside, wanting to speak to him. (Compare Mark 3:31; Luke 8:19). Since the relatives of Christ according to the flesh had no opportunity to approach Him in person, this was reported to Him through a messenger (who is unknown), to call Him. So according to the words of Mark and Luke. In Matthew and Mark the account follows after the denunciatory speech concerning blasphemy of the Holy Spirit. The connection of this verse in the various evangelists is different, but Mark’s note ἔτι αὐτοῦ λαλοῦντος can be considered here as a precise indication of time, corresponding to the accounts of both Mark.

Matthew 12:47. And someone said to him, “Look, your mother and your brothers are standing outside, wanting to speak to you. Matthew 12:48. But to the one who had said this, he replied, “Who is my mother, and who are my brothers? (Compare Mark 3:33). The Savior here expressed the thought that spiritual kinship with people listening to and receiving His teaching was in His eyes higher than physical kinship (cf. Luke 2:49).

Matthew 12:49. And pointing to his disciples, he said, “Here are my mother and my brothers! (Compare Mark 3:34; Luke 8:21). In Mark it is said that Jesus Christ looked around at those sitting nearby and at that time spoke these words, and so on. The words of the Savior here serve as some clarification and confirmation of the words of the previous verse, and their meaning is the same.

Matthew 12:50. For whoever does the will of my Father in heaven is my brother and sister and mother. (Compare Mark 3:35—almost identical). The Savior, although He introduces here into His answer the additional term ἀδελφ, does not mention a father (earthly), of whom He nowhere in His speeches speaks. This is in accordance with the accounts of the evangelists Matthew and Luke concerning His virgin birth. It can scarcely be inferred from this that the mention of mother and alongside her of brother and sister serves as a confirmation of the opinion that the brothers of the Savior were His full brothers. All three terms—“brother,” “sister,” and “mother”—are used here, evidently, in a spiritual sense.