Online Resource Library
Commentary Index | Return to PrayerRequest.com | DownloadInternational Critical Commentary NT - Matthew 12:1 - 12:99
(Show All Books | Show All Chapters)
This Chapter Verse Commentaries:
C. (6) Hostility of the Pharisees, 12:1-45
12. The editor now wishes to illustrate the grounds of the hostility of the Pharisees to the Messiah and His work. For material for this he goes back to the earlier point at which he left Mk.’s narrative, i.e. 2:23. He borrows Mar_2:23-28 = Mat_12:1-8, and also the next section, Mar_3:1-6 = Mat_12:9-14. In vv. 15-21 he summarises Mar_3:7-12, and adds a reference to the Old Testament. As he has already inserted Mar_3:13-19a, this brings him to 3:19b-21. For this he substitutes Mat_12:22-23, thus completing a series of three incidents illustrative of Pharisaic hostility. For arrangement in threes, see Introduction, p. lxv.
(M) 1. At that time, Jesus went on the Sabbath day through the cornfields. And His disciples were hungry, and began to pluck ears of corn, and to eat.] Mk. has: “And it came to pass that He was going on the Sabbath day through the cornfields; and His disciples began as they went to pluck the ears of corn.”—ἐ ἐεν τ κιῷἐοεθ ὁἸσῦ] Mk. has κὶἐέεοατνδαοεεθι The editor avoids κὶἐέεοas a connecting link except in a special formula; see on 3:13. ἐ ἐεν τ κιῷoccurs three times, here, 11:25, and 14:1, in this Gospel; never in Mk. or Lk. We have just had it in 11:5. Formulas have a way of appearing in close connection in this Gospel; cf. εςὅη τνγνἐενν 9:26; ἐ ὅῃτ γ ἐεν, 9:31; the construction ἀαωηάτνδ ατν—ἰο, 2:1, 13, 19. πργν α Ἰάη, 3:1; πργντιὁἸσῦ, 3:13; the construction ἀοσςδ—ἀεώηε, 4:12, 18, 5:1; the construction κὶἐβνιατ—ἠοοθσνατ, 8:23, 28; κὶμτβςἐεθν 15:29; κὶἐεθνἐεθν 15:21; the construction κὶἐβςδεέαε 9:1, 9. Cf. Intro. lxxxvi. The editor avoids Mk.’s pleonastic δαοεεθιδάby substituting the simple verb. Cf. πρπτνπρ, 4:18, for Mk.’s πργνπρ; and cf. Intro. xxv.—τῖ σβαι from σβαα which seems to correspond to the Aramaic שבָָ, but is declined as though it were a neuter plural.—τ σόια = sown land or crops, seems to occur only here.—ο δ μθτί for Mk.’s κὶο μθτί see Introduction, p. xx. ἐενσ κὶis omitted by Mk. For ἐενσν see on 4:2.—ἤξνοτλεν Mk. has ἤξνοὁὸ πιῖ τλοτς Mt. omits the ambiguous ὁὸ πιῖ and substitutes after σαύς κὶἐθεν Mk. specifies two actions, “making a way” and “plucking.”; Mt. has two, “plucking” and “eating”; Lk. has three, “plucking,” “rubbing with the hands,” and “eating.” The “eating” already involved in Mk.’s “plucking” is probably an explanatory addition of the later Evangelists. The “plucking” was, probably, from a Pharisaic standpoint, regarded as work on the Sabbath. “Reaping” is one of the thirty-nine kinds of work forbidden on the Sabbath in the Talmud, B. Shab. 73b; and Lightfoot, Hor. Heb., quotes Maimonides as saying: “To pluck ears is a kind of reaping.”
(M) 2. And the Pharisees saw it, and said to Him, Behold, Thy disciples do that which is not lawful to do on the Sabbath.] Mk has: “And the Pharisees were saying to Him, See ! Why do they on the Sabbath that which is not lawful?”]—ο δ] as often for Mk.’s κὶο.—ἰότςεπν for Mk.’s ἔεο. For the form επ, see Blass, p. 45; Moulton, Class. Rev. 1901, p. 36.—ἰο ο μθτὶσυ Mk. has simply ἰέπιῦι ὃοκἔετνπιῖ ἐ σβάῳ Mk. has: πιῦι τῖ σβαι ὃοκἔετν σβαο is the Greek form of the Hebrew שַּת
(M) 3. And He said to them, Did you not read what David did, when he was hungry, and those who were with him.] Mk. has “And He saith to them, Did ye never read what David did when he had need and was hungry; he and those who were with him?” ὁδ επν as often for Mk.’s κὶλγι—οκ for Mk.’s οδπτ.—ὅεἐενσν Mk. has two clauses: ὅεχεα ἔχνκὶἐεαε. For Mt.’s omission of one of two synonymous clauses, see Introduction, p. xxv.—κὶο μτ ατῦ Mk. prefixes ατς
(M) 4. How he entered into the house of God, and ate the bread of the setting forth, which was not lawful for him to eat, nor those who were with him, but for the priests alone?] Mk. has: “How He entered into the house of God in the time of Abiathar the high priest, and ate the bread of the setting forth, which it is not lawful to eat save for priests, and gave also to those who were with him.” In clause a Mk. has ἐὶἈιθρἀχεές Mt. omits as an erroneous reference (as do D latt. S1 in Mk.), Ahimelech (LXX. Abimelech) being high priest at the time; cf. 1 S 21:1.—τὺ ἄτυ τςποέες is one of the renderings of the LXX. for the Hebrew לםהנם cf. 2Ch_4:19. Other renderings are ἄτιἐώιι Exo_25:29; ο ἄτιο ποεμνι of Exo_39:18; ἄτιτῦποώο, 1 K 21:6 For its meaning, see Deissm. Bib. Stud. p. 157.—ὃοκἐὸ ἦ ατ φγῖ οδ τῖ μτ ατῦε μ τῖ ἱρῦι μνι] Mk. has: οςοκἐετνφγῖ ε μ τὺ ἱρῖ κὶἔωε τῖ σνατ οσν Mt. assimilates τῖ σνατ οσνto ο μτ ατῦof v. 3, and substitutes the easier dative for τὺ ἱρῖ.
Christ meets the complaint that His disciples work on the Sabbath by pleading necessity, and by quoting an analogous instance sanctioned by Scripture. The charge was based on the Rabbinical exposition of the law of the Sabbath. “Plucking the ears” was not in itself an offence, cf. Deu_23:25, but it came under the category of work forbidden on the Sabbath by scribal tradition. Against this tradition Christ appealed to Scripture. David ate the shewbread. That was an illegal act. But he was impelled by necessity. In the same way the action of His disciples was sanctioned by their need.
(L) 5. The second point in Christ’s answer in Mk. is the statement that “the Sabbath was made for man, not man for the Sabbath,” with the inference that “the Son of Man is lord of the Sabbath.” It is clear that this last statement in the form given by Mk. does not very well suit the context. It is the disciples who were blamed, not Christ Himself. Very possibly ὁυὸ τῦἀθώο is a mistranslation for “man.” This would give the required justification of the disciples. The Sabbath was made to subserve man’s need, therefore man is lord of the Sabbath, and may use it as need requires, working upon it if necessary. But Mk.’s κὶἔεε ατῖ may be a hint that he has added here words spoken on the occasion of some other Sabbath dispute, when Christ Himself was attacked, and the ὁυὸ τῦἀθώο would be in place. Mt. omits the words κὶἔεε—δὰτ σβαο, and substitutes a second appeal to the Old Testament. Just as it furnished a precedent for the breaking of religious regulations in case of necessity, so it also sanctioned the overruling of general laws (in this case the prohibition of work on the Sabbath) in particular cases. The editor then adds an appeal to the general tenor of the Old Testament witness, as illustrated in Hos_6:6, and ends with Mar_2:28. The argument in these verses is not easy to follow. The action of the disciples is in no sense parallel to that of the priests in the temple; nor could the fact that the priests obeyed the injunctions of the law, by working on the Sabbath, justify the disciples for disobeying the scribal expositions of the law which prohibited work on the Sabbath. The appeal to Hos_6:6 is more suitable in such a context as 9:13, where the editor has again inserted it, than it is here.
It seems probable, therefore, that the editor here, as elsewhere, adds to a particular incident sayings spoken on other similar occasions. He is also, probably, influenced here by the difficulty of the present text of Mk vv. 27-28. “The Sabbath was made for man—so that the son of Man is Lord of the Sabbath,” seems to have no bearing upon the disciples and their plucking the ears of corn. If ὁυὸ τῦἀθώο is a mistranslation for “man,” the saying becomes pertinent, “Man is lord of the Sabbath.” That justifies the action of the disciples. But “the Son of Man is Lord of the Sabbath” seems to be no true inference from the preceding clause, nor to have any bearing upon the action complained of. The editor, therefore, omits “the Sabbath was made for man, not man for the Sabbath,” and, losing sight of the incident of the disciples and the ears, adds a saying in which Christ on some other occasion justified His own action in working on the Sabbath. The priests in the temple work on the Sabbath. That is to say, the sanctity of the temple overrides Sabbath regulations. But the Messiah is greater than the temple. Much more, therefore, can He dispense Sabbath rules. For the Son of Man ( = the Messiah) is, in virtue of His personality, Lord of the Sabbath.
(L) 5. Or did you not read in the law, that on the Sabbath the priests in the temple profane the Sabbath, and are without guilt?]ἐ τ νμ] Cf. Num_28:9, Num_28:10.—ββλῦι] i.e. by performing the actions necessary to the offering of the sacrifices.
(L) 6. But I say to you, That more than the temple is here.] The “more than the temple” is the Son of Man = the Messiah. If the temple was not subservient to Sabbath rules, how much less the Messiah!
(L) 7. But if you had known what is “Mercy I wish, and not sacrifice,” ye would not have condemned the guiltless.] See on 9:13. The words are of the nature of a parenthesis. The γρof the next verse continues the thought of v. 6.
(M) 8. For the Lord of the Sabbath is the Son of Man.] Mk. has: ὥτ κρό ἐτνὁυὸ τῦἀθώο κὶτῦσβάο. Mt.’s γρis necessary to his argument. The Messiah is greater than the temple, for He is Lord of the Sabbath, i.e. = to God who ordained it.
1-8. Mt. and Lk. agree against Mk. in one or two striking details. Both omit ὁὸ πιῖ from Mk 23, and specify the “eating.” Both have επνfor ἔεο in Mk 24, and επνfor λγιin Mk 25. Both insert μνυ (-ος in Mk 26, and both omit χεα ἔχνfrom Mk 25; ἐὶἈιθρἀχεέςfrom Mk 26, and τ σβαο—τ σβαο from Mk 27. It does not, however, seemnecessary to suppose that they had a second source other than Mk. See on 8:4.
(M) 9. And having departed thence, He went into their synagogue.] Mk. has: “And He entered again into a synagogue.”—κὶμτβςἐεθνfor Mk.’s κὶπλν πλνas a connecting link in descriptive narrative is characteristic of Mk., occurring 26 times. Mt. generally avoids it. For ἐεθν see on 4:21. κὶμτβςἐεθνoccurs again in 15:29. μτβίεν5 times in Mt., never in Mk.—ἦθνες avoids the redundancy of Mk.’s εσλε—ες See on 12:1.—εςτνσνγγνατν Mk. has simply εςσνγγν Lk. also has the article.
(M) 10. And, behold, a man having a withered hand. And they questioned Him, saying, Is it lawful to heal on the Sabbath? that they might accuse Him.] “Mk. has: “And there was there a man having the hand withered. And they were observing Him, if He would heal him on the Sabbath, that they might accuse Him.”—κὶἰο] See on 1:20. Mk. has κὶἦ ἐε.—χῖαἔω ξρν Mk. has ἐηαμννἔω τνχῖα Lk. also has ξρ.—κὶἐηώηα ατνλγνε] Mk. has κὶπρτρυ ατν—ε ἔετνθρπύι] Mk. has ε—θρπύε ατν For ε before a direct question, cf. Blass, p. 260.
Mk. has here: “And He saith to the man having the withered (ξρν hand, Rise into the midst. And He saith to them, Is it lawful on the Sabbath to do good or to do evil, to save life or to kill? And they were silent. And looking round at them with anger, being grieved at the hardness of their hearts.” Mt. omits all this. He elsewhere omits clauses which describe Christ’s human emotions. See Introduction, p. xxxi. Here he substitutes instead an example of the doing good of which Mk. speaks in v. 4.
That he may introduce vv. 11, 12 the editor changes Mk.’s “they were observing Him, if,” into a direct challenge, “they asked Him if.”
(L) 11. And He said to them, What man of you shall there be, who shall have one sheep, and if this fall on the Sabbath into a pit, will he not take hold of it and lift it out?]
(L) 12. How much therefore is a man better than a sheep? So that it is lawful to do well on the Sabbath.] Lk. has similar sayings differently worded in another miracle, 14:1-6. There is no sufficient reason for thinking that the two Evangelists drew from a common source.
11. πόαο ἕ] See on 8:19, and Blass, p. 144. S1 S2 ff1 k omit ἕ.
12. πσ ονδαέε] Cf. 10:31 πλῶ σρυίνδαέεε 6:26 οχὑεςμλο δαέεεατν
(M) 13. Then He saith to the man, Stretch forth thy hand. And he stretched it forth; and it was restored whole, as the other.] Mk. has: “He saith to the man, Stretch forth thy hand. And he stretched it forth, and his hand was restored.” For ττ, see on 2:7.—ἀεαετθ] For the double augment, see Blass, p. 39. Omit ὑις S1 S2 latt.
(M) 14. And the Pharisees went out, and took counsel against Him, how they might destroy Him.] Mk. has: “And the Pharisees straightway, with the Herodians, went out and gave counsel against Him, how they might destroy Him.”—ἐεθνε δ] as often for Mk.’s κὶἐεθνε. After Φρσῖι Mk. has εθςμτ τνἩῳινν For the omission of εθς see on 3:16. The editor omits the Herodians here, but retains them in 22:16 = Mar_12:13.—σμολο ἔαο] Mk. has ἐίονor ἐοον σμολο λμάενoccurs 5 times in Mt., here and in 22:15, 27:1, 7, 28:12. σμολο occurs in Plutarch, Rom_14, Lucull. 26; and in Dittenberger, Syll. 316. 11 (second cent. b.c.), 328. 7. 8, 334. 7., 29, 39, 55, 57 (73 b.c.); and twice in Egyptian Papyri of the second century. See Deissm. Bib. Stud. p. 238.
(M) 15, 16. And Jesus perceived it, and departed thence: and there followed Him many, and He healed them all; and He charged them that they should not make Him known.] The editor summarises Mar_3:7-12, which he might have omitted as not congruous to this chapter of controversy. But Mar_3:7-12 suggested to him a contrast between the Lord’s quiet work of healing and His avoidance of publicity, and the hostile clamour of the Pharisees. He adds the quotation from Isaiah to emphasise the contrast.—ὁδ Ἰσῦ] as often for Mk.’s κὶὁἸσῦ. γοςis not in Mk. ἐεθνadded by Mt.; see on 4:21.—ἠοοθσνατ πλο] Mk. has πλ πῆο—ἠοοθσν—πνα] Mk. has πλος For a similar change, see on 8:16. Lk. also has πνα.—ἐείηε] Mk. has πλὰἐεία Mk.’s adverbial πλά(13 times) is generally omitted by Mt. He retains it twice, 13:3, 16:21; and has it once besides, 27:19. For the substitution of the aorist for the imperfect, see Introduction, p. xx.
The editor here adds a fulfilment of prophecy.
(O) 17-21. That it might be fulfilled which was spoken through Isaiah the prophet, saying, Behold My Son,whom I adopted; My Beloved, in whom My soul was well pleased: I will put My spirit upon Him,and He shall announce judgement to the Gentiles. He shall not strive, nor cry out; nor shall any one hear His voice in the streets. A bruised reed He shall not break, and smoking flax He shall not quench, until He bring forth judgement to victory. And in His name shall Gentiles hope.]
ὅω πηωῇ κτλ For the formula, see on 1:22. The quotation is from Isa_42:1-4. The only trace of the LXX. seems to be in the last clause, where the Hebrew has “His law” for “His name.” The editor may be translating from the Hebrew, but more probably is using an existing Greek version which is already presupposed in Mar_1:11. The passage had probably been adapted in Christian circles in order to bring out the conception that the Messiah, the Son of God, accomplished the career that had been foretold of the idealised nation. We should expect to find υό here or πῖ in Mar_1:11 = Mat_3:17. But υό as more applicable to the Messiah may have been substituted for πῖ either by the author of the Greek second Gospel, or at some stage between his time and the first appearance of the quotation in this Greek form. πῖ in Mt. is either a return to the original form of the quotation in Greek, or a reminiscence of the LXX.—ὂ ᾑέια αρτζι is a late word common in the LXX. It is used as = equivalent to “adopt” in 1Ch_28:6 ὅιᾑέιαἐ ατ ενίμυυό; Mal_3:17 ὃ τόο αρτζιἄθωο τνυό; Kaibel, Epigrammata, 252: αρτσςδ πτρσογῖφσνἐρτρσν The aorist here and in εδκσνmay simply be due to imitation of the Hebrew tenses, but in the mind of the Christian translator probably imply the eternal pre-temporal act of God in the election of the Messiah. ὁἀαηό μυ= the Messiah, see on 3:17.—εςὃ εδκσνἡψχ μυ in 3:17 ἐ ᾧεδκσ. For the good pleasure of God in the Messiah as shown in election and adoption to Messiahship and Sonship, cf. Eph_1:4-6, and see Bacon, Am. Journ. Theol. ix. 458 ff.:—ἀαγλῖ Heb. is יצא LXX. ἐοσι ἀαγλεν a very common LXX. word, seems to be a translation according to the sense.—ἐίε] The Heb. is יע, LXX. κκάεα.—καγσι Heb. יא LXX. ἀήε (cf. נא= ἀίμ, Gen_18:24, Jos_24:19, Isa_1:14, Isa_2:9, Isa_46:4).—καγζι] only here in Mt., is used once in Act_22:23, and 4 times in Jn. of a multitude of people, and once Joh_11:43 of Christ at the tomb of Lazarus. By earlier writers it is used of discordant forms of utterance—of a dog, Plat. Rep. x. 607; of a drunken man, Demosth. Con. 1258; of a raven, Epict. Diss. iii. I. 37; of shouting in a theatre, ib. iii. 4. 4.—κτάε] For the augmented fut., cf. Blass, p. 52; Moulton, Class. Rev. 1901, p. 36.—εςνκς Heb. למ, LXX. εςἀήεα, but cf. Hab_1:4 ל יאלצ מפ. After κίι, Isa_42:4a is omitted, the translator’s eye passing from מפ to the second occurrence of the same word.
22. The editor here omits Mar_3:19-21. He elsewhere omits Mk.’s references to a house, see on 15:15; and also elesewhere omits the descriptions of the thronging of the multitude; cf. the omissions of Mar_1:33 from Mat_8:16, Mar_1:45 of at Mat_8:4, Mar_2:2 from Mat_9:1, Mar_3:9 from Mat_12:15. And he has probably felt objection to Mar_3:21, especially ἔεο γρὅιἐέτ. The copyists of Mk. have felt the same difficulty. D has ἐέττιατύ; a b d ff i q exsentiat eos. But a reminiscence of this verse betrays itself in the ἐίτνοof Mat_12:23. There follows in Mk. the statement that “the scribes …said that he hath Beezeboul,” and this is followed by a short rebutting discourse of Christ. Mt. has here a short introductory miracle followed by a much longer discourse, in which are verses parallel to the discourse of Mk. Thus:
Mat_12:22-23. Introductory miracle.
24-26 = Mar_3:22-26.
27-28.
29 = 3:27.
30.
31, 32b = 3:28-30.
33-37.
Here follows the statement that some of the scribes asked for a sign, v. 38, and a discourse in answer, vv. 39-45. The question of relationship is complicated by the parallels in Lk. Lk. omits Mar_3:22-30 in its order. It should come at Luk_6:19 or 8:4. But later in his Gospel he has a discourse which is very similar to that in Mt. Thus:
Mat_12:22-23 = Luk_11:14.
24-26 = Mar_3:22-26 = 15, 17-18.
Lk. has here combined the request for a sign which in Mt. comes later with the charge of demoniac agency.
Mat_12:38 = Luk_11:16.
27-28 = 19-20.
29 = Mar_3:27 = 21-22.
30 = 23.
43-45 = 24-26.
Lk vv.27-28 have no parallel in Mt.
Mt vv.31-37 have no parallel in this discourse in Lk.
Mat_12:39-42 = Luk_11:29-32.
It will be seen that both Mt. and Lk. prefix an introductory miracle. Both have parallels to Mk 23-26, but in this section Mt. and Lk. have verbal agreements against Mk. E.g.:
εδςδ τςἐθμσι ατνεπνατῖ, Mat_25 = ατςδ εδςατντ δαομτ επνατῖ, Luk_17.
πσ βσλί μρσεσ, Mat_25 = πσ βσλί—δαειθῖα Luk_17. Mk. has κὶἐνβσλί—μρσῇ
ἐηοτι Mat_25, Luk_17. Mk. has δντισαῆα ἡβσλί ἐεν.
πςσαήεα ἡβσλί ατῦ Mat_26, Luk_18. Mk. has ο δντισῆα ἀλ τλςἔε.
Both have parallels to Mk 27, but here Mt. agrees closely with Mk., whilst Lk. considerably diverges. Mt. embodies Mk 28-30. Lk. omits. Further, in Mt. the whole discourse falls into two portions, one an answer to the charge of demoniac agency, the second an answer to a request for a sign. In Lk. the charge and the request are combined, but the discourse is divided by vv. 27-28, which have no parallel in Mt. And, lastly, Mt. has a section, 31-37, which has no parallel in the discourse in Lk. It is not easy to explain adequately this complex relationship. The fact that Lk. omits Mk.’s paragraph at the place where it would naturally occur in his Gospel, and gives instead a longer discourse later in his Gospel, would naturally suggest the explanation that he had before him a second source containing this longer discourse at a later period in Christ’s life, and that he abandoned Mk. to follow this source. Cf. his omission of Mar_1:16-20 at Luk_4:15, because he proposes to insert a little later, 5:1-11, a similar narrative from another source. Cf. his omission at 8:56 of Mar_6:1-6, because he has inserted a similar account in 4:16-30. It seems, therefore, necessary to suppose that Lk. had a second narrative before him containing matter parailel to Mar_3:22-30. That being so, it is natural to suppose that Mt. also had a discourse longer than Mar_3:22-30, and containing many features parallel to Lk.Their divergence in many points makes it unlikely that they were copying from the same document. More probably they had before them different sources containing discourses in many respects parallel to one another. To some extent their agreement may be due to Lk.’s reminiscence of Mt. Mt.’s source is probably the Logia.
(E) 22. Then there was brought to Him a demoniac, blind, and dumb: and He healed him, so that the dumb spake and saw.] Lk. has: “And He was casting out a dumb devil. And it came to pass when the devil was gone forth the dumb spake.” Mt. has already inserted in 9:32-33 a similarly worded miracle: “Behold, they brought to Him a dumb demoniac. And when the devil was cast forth, the dumb spake.” It is striking that Luk_11:14 is not, as we should expect, so nearly agreed with Mat_12:22 as with Mat_9:32-33. It must remain doubtful whether this miracle was in the sources used by Mt. and Lk. It is quite possible that in 9:32-34 Mt., wishing to add another miracle, described as shortly as possible the healing of a deaf demoniac (see on 9:32), the fact of such a healing being current in Christian tradition. At 12:21 he wants a suitable introduction to the following discourse, and rewrites shortly a similar account. But it is curious that he should not have specially mentioned, as in 9:33, the “casting out” of the devil in order to prepare for the ἐβλε of 12:24. Lk., when inserting in 11:14ff. the discourse which follows, has felt the same need of an introductory miracle. His choice of a deaf demoniac may be due to reminiscence of the two passages in Mt., or may be accidental, and due simply to the fact that both Evangelists inserted in this same connection the story of a deaf demoniac, known to them as an incident current in Christian tradition, of which no details had been preserved. Given the fact of the healing of a dumb demoniac, the agreement in language between Mat_9:32-33 and Luk_11:14 is not very remarkable. It would be difficult to describe the bare fact of such a healing without some verbal agreement.
ττ ποηέθ ατ] For ττ, see on 2:7. For ποφρι as characteristic of Mt., see Introduction, p. lxxxvi. ποηέθ is the reading of אC D al latt. B S1 S2 have ποήεκν as in 9:32. For the passive, cf. 18:24, 19:13.
(E) 23. And all the multitudes were astonished, and said, Is this indeed the Son of David?] ἐίτνοonly here in this Gospel. It is a reminiscence of Mar_3:21. For “Son of David” as a title of the Messiah, see Dalm. Words, 319 ff.
(M) 24. But the Pharisees heard it, and said, This man doth not cast out devils, except by Beelzeboul, chief of the devils.] Mk. has: “And the scribes who had come down from. Jerusalem were saying that He hath Beelzeboul, and that by the chief of the devils He casts out devils.” Mt. and Lk. independently, or Lk. by reminiscence of Mt., fuse together the two clauses of Mk 22, and wrongly make Beelzeboul equivalent to the chief of the devils and Satan. In 10:25 βεζβύ is a name of reproach. Here in Mk. it seems to be the name of a demon by whom Christ was regarded as possessed. But it is not equivalent to Satan, the ἄχντνδιοίνfrom whom Mk. distinguishes Beelzeboul. For Beelzeboul,1 see on 10:25.
(M) 25. And knowing their thoughts, He said to them, Every kingdom divided against itself is made desolate; and every city or house divided against itself shall not stand.] Mk. has: “And having called them, He was saying to them in parables, How can Satan cast out Satan? And if a kingdom be divided against (ἐί itself, that kingdom cannot stand. And if a house be divided against itself, that house shall not be able to stand.” Lk. agrees closely with Mt. in omitting the summoning of the disciples, in substituting the knowledge of the thoughts of the Pharisees, and in combining Mk.’s two analogies into one clause. “But He (ατς knowing their thoughts (δαομτ), said to them, Every kingdom divided (δαειθῖα against itself (ἐʼἑυή as in Mk., Mt. has κθ ἑυῆ) is made desolate, and house falls on house,” or “a house (divided) against a house falls.”—οκς Mt. and Mk. have οκα Wellhausen argues that “house” in Aramaic, and so here, means “a political territory,” as in “house of Lysanias.” This would give an appropriate meaning in Mt. No kingdom torn by internal dissension can escape devastation. And no city or State so divided can long maintain its independent existence. Lk.’s source seems to have differed here from Mt.’s.
(M) 26. And if Satan cast out Satan, he is divided against himself; how therefore shall his kingdom stand?] Mk. has: “And if Satan rise up against himself and be divided, he cannot stand, but hath an end.” Lk. agrees closely with Mt.: “And if Satan be divided (δεείθ) against himself, how shall his kingdom stand?” Lk. adds here: “because you say that by Beelzeboul I cast out devils”; cf. Mk v. 30.
(L) 27-28. And if I by Beelzeboul cast out devils, your sons by whom do they cast (them) out? therefore they shall be your judges. But if I by the Spirit of God cast out devils, then the kingdom of God came upon you.] These verses are not in Mk. Lk. has them in verbal agreement with Mt., except that he has δκύῳfor πεμτ. Christ, after urging the absurdity of the charge brought against Him (25-26), now throws back the accusation upon the Jews. They, too, practised exorcism. Were they also the agents of Beelzeboul?—ο υο ὑῶ] means “people of your own race and religion,” i.e. Jews. It is here an Oriental circumlocution for “you.” For an example of Jewish exorcism, cf. Jos. Ant. viii. 46, 47 (quoted on 8:29), and Act_19:13.—δὰτῦο occurs 11 times in Mt., 3 in Mk., 4 in Lk.—κια ὑῶ] “shall convict you of hypocrisy in accusing Me of employing diabolical arts whilst you yourselves practice exorcism.”—πεμτ θο] Lk. has the striking δκύῳθο; cf. Exo_8:19 (15) where it is applied to a miraculous event, and Deu_9:10.—ἔθσν φάενoccurs here in the Synoptic Gospels. with prepositions it means to “arrive at,” “reach to,” “come upon”; cf. Jdg_20:34 οκἔνσνὅιφάε ἐʼατὺ ἡκκα The aorist is difficult, and we should expect the perfect. The same unexpected aor. occurs in 1Th_2:16 ἔθσ δ ἐʼατὺ ἡὀγ. “If I by the Spirit of God cast out devils, then when I began my work, or when I came, the kingdom of God came to and amongst you, though you were not aware of it.” βς τῦθο occurs 4 times in Mt, here and in 19:24, 21:31, 43. The kingdom is here regarded as something present. But only by anticipation. Where the Messiah was, there must be the kingdom in some sense. But in a fuller sense it was still future, to be inaugurated when He came on the clouds of heaven. ἡβσλί τῦθο here is certainly due to the source used by the editor, in this case probably the Logia, which therefore contained sayings about “the kingdom of God” and “the kingdom of the heavens.” The reason why the editor did not here substitute the latter for the former no doubt is that he always uses ἡβσλί τνορννin an eschatological sense, which would here be out of place; cf. Introduction, p. lxvii f.
(M) 29. Or how can any one enter into the house of “the strong man,” and spoil his goods? unless first he bind “the strong man,” and then he will spoil his house.] Mk. has: “But no one can, having entered into,” etc. Lk. has a different version of the saying.—ἢπς In Mk. the saying is loosely appended to the preceding with ἀλ. The saying about the strong man and his goods had probably become proverbial; cf. Ps.-Son_5:4 ο γρλψτισῦαἄθωο πρ ἀδὸ δντῦ Isa_49:24 μ λμεα τςπρ γγνο σῦα
So far from acting as a subordinate of Beelzeboul, Christ had invaded his territory, and by ejecting devils from the possessed, was spoiling his goods. This implied a previous victory over him.
(L) 30. He that is not with Me is against Me: and he that gathereth not with me scattereth.] So Lk v. 23.
In this war against Satan’s strongholds there are only two sides: for Christ or against Him, gathering with Him or scattering with Satan.
(M) 31. Therefore I say to you, Every sin and blasphemy shall be forgiven to men: but blasphemy against the Spirit shall not be forgiven.] Mk. has: “Verily I say to you that all things shall be forgiven to the sons of men,1 the sins and the blasphemies where with soever they shall blaspheme. But whosoever shall blaspheme against the Holy Spirit hath not forgiveness for ever, but is guilty of an eternal sin. Because they were saying that He hath an unclean spirit.” Lk. has no parallel in this discourse, but in 12:10 has “He who blasphemed against the Holy Spirit shall not be forgiven.”
In Mt. the meaning seems to be: “You have taken sides against Me in the war against Satan. In so doing you have committed an unpardonable sin, because in charging Me with being an agent of Satan you have hardened yourselves against a revelation of God’s Spirit working in Me.”
(M) 32. And whosoever shall speak a word against the Son of Man, it shall be forgiven him; but whosoever shall speak against the Holy Spirit, it shall not be forgiven him, neither in this age nor in the coming.] This verse seems to repeat the thought of the last, the difference being that as a contrast to speaking against or blasphemy against the Spirit, we have here speaking against the Son of Man in particular, instead of all sin and blasphemy in general. The two verses seem to be different recensions of the same saying. Mt. has probably conflated Mk. and his other source, or Mk. = the other source and another form of the saying known to him. Lk. in 12:10 has: κὶπςὃ ἐε λγνεςτνυὸ τῦἀθώο ἀεήεα ατ τ δ εςτ ̔ Αινπεμ βαφμσνιοκἀεήεα. Lk. appears to borrow the first clause from Mt 32, the second from Mt 31 = Mk 29. He may have done so from memory, or may have had the saying before him in this form. If Mt 32 and Mt 31 = Mk 28-29 be different recensions of one saying, it is probable that Ms.’s striking τῖ υοςτνἀθώω and Mt.’s κτ τῦυο τῦἀθώο go back to the same orginal Aramaic phrase. Of the two, Mk.’s phrase is probably the more accurate translation. “Anything shall be forgiven to men save blasphemy against the Holy Spirit,” gives a clear and intelligible meaning. On the other hand, “Opposition to the Son of Man is pardonable, opposition to the Holy Spirit is unpardonable,” is difficult to explain. How could the Pharisees be supposed to be able to distinguish between the Son of Man ( = Christ?) acting as such, and the Son of Man driving out devils by the power of the Spirit. We have here a fairly clear instance where an original Aramaic phrase meaning “sons of men” = “men” has been mistakenly represented by ὁυὸ τῦἀθώο. Mar_2:28 is probably another instance. The general drift of vv. 31, 32 seems to be: “You accuse Me of Satanic methods in casting out devils. In reality I cast them out by the power of God’s Spirit. In substituting Satan for the Holy Spirit you are guilty of blasphemy. And this is an unpardonable sin. It is the lie in the soul.”—οτ ἐ τύῳτ αῶιοτ ἐ τ μλοτ] Mar_10:30 has: ἐ τ αῶιτ ἐχμν. So Lk.; but Mt. omits. Lk. also has: τῦαῶο τύο, 16:8, 20:34, and τῦαῶο ἐενυ 20:35. These phrases are connected with the distinction which is common in apocalyptic literature of the first cent. a.d. between the present and the future age. See Dalm. Words, pp. 147-156; Volz, Jü Eschat. p. 57; and cf. 2 Es 7:50 “the Most High hath not made one world, but two”; 7:47 “the world to come”; Apoc. Bar 15:7., 8, 44:15 “the world to come.” The distinction is also found in Rabbinical literature; cf. Aboth 2:8. Hillel said: “He who acquires for himself the words of the law, acquires for himself the life of the age which is coming.” Dalman says of this, “if genuine.” Ber. R. 44 (Wü p. 209): According to Jochanan ben Zaccai, c. 80 a.d., God revealed to Abraham “this age, but not that age.” According to Akiba, “He revealed to him both ages.” “The currency of these expressions ‘this age,’ the future age,” says Dalman, “is at all events established by the end of the first Christian century.” Mt. has also 5 times the expression σνέεατῦαῶο. See on V. 39.—οκἀεήεα] B has ο μ ἀεῇ For this construction, see on 5:18.
33-35. The editor here inserts a paragraph which is similar to one which he has already recorded in the Sermon on the Mount, 7:17-20. Lk. in his Sermon, 6:43-45, also has a similar sections, which, however, is more closely in agreement with Mat_12 than with Mat_7; that is to say, Luk_6:43 and 44b = Mat_7:18, Mat_7:16, whilst Luk_6:44a, Luk_6:45 = Mat_12:33c, 34b, 35. Lk. is here perhaps conflating the words of his source for the Sermon with reminiscences of Mat_12.
(L) 33. Either make the tree good, and its fruit good; or make the tree rotten, and its fruit rotten: for by the fruit the tree is known.] Cf. 7:17, 18, Luk_6:43. The meaning here is “Be consistent. Either allow My acts of casting out devils to be good in result, and attribute the power to do such good acts to the Holy Spirit; or condemn them as evil in result, and attribute them to Satanic agency.”
(L) 34. Ye offspring of vipers, how can you speak good things, being evil?] This has no parallel in Lk. The meaning is: “The reason why you utter judgements which directly gainsay plain facts is to be found in your evil nature.”
(L) 34. For out of the abundance of the heart the mouth speaketh.]
(L) 35. The good man from the good treasure brings forth good things: and the evil man from the evil treasure brings forth evil things.] Cf. Luk_6:45 “The good man from the good treasure of (his) heart brings forth (ποέε) the good. And the evil man from the evil brings forth the evil. For out of the abundance of the heart his mouth speaketh.”
The meaning is: “Your malicious judgements come from the treasure-house of your malicious nature.”
36-37. These verses have no parallel in Lk.
(L) But I say to you, that every idle utterance that men shall speak, they shall give account concerning it in the day of judgement. For from thy words shalt thou be acquitted, and from thy words shalt thou be condemned.]
36. πνῥμ ἀγν The Pharisees might urge that their saying of v. 24 was after all only a pleasantry, and did not express their real beliefs. Christ warns them that such idle utterances, because they come from the heart (v. 34), give expression to the inward nature, and will be called into judgement no less than the reasoned statement or the outward action. The last verse, with its change to the singular and its substitution of λγςfor ῥμ, sounds like a quotation or a proverbial saying. Clause (a) is perhaps a reminiscence of Psa_50:6 ὅω ἂ δκιθςἐ τῖ λγι συ For ὃἐν see on 11:27.
(L) 38. Then answered Him certain of the scribes and Pharisees, saying, Teacher, we wish to see a sign from Thee.] In Luk_11:16 this request is combined with the accusation at the head of the discourse. “But others tempting (Him), were seeking a sign from heaven from Him.”
ττ] see on 2:7.
(L) 39. And He answered and said to them, An evil and adulterous generation seeks for a sign; and a sign shall not be given to it, save the sign of Jonah the prophet.] Lk. has: “And when the multitudes were crowding together, He began to say, This generation is an evil generation: it seeks a sign, and a sign shall not be given to it, save the sign of Jonah.”—μιαί] means apostate, disobedient, and unfaithful to God.
(E?L) 40. For as Jonah was in the belly of the monster three days and three nights; so shall the Son of Man be in the heart of the earth three days and three nights.] Lk. has: “For as Jonah was a sign to the Ninevites, so shall be also the Son of Man to this generation.”
It is probable that Mt. (or the writer of his source) has paraphrased the saying as recorded by Lk., in order to explain the parallelism between Jonah as a sign and the Son of Man as a sign. “As Jonah was a sign.” But how was he a sign? Certainly not simply because he preached. His message of warning could in no true sense be called a sign. He was a sign because of his remarkable experience recorded in Jon 1-2. “So shall the Son of Man be a sign,” in virtue of His remarkable life’s history from beginning to end. The writer of the saying as recorded in Mt. has wished to make this parallelism clear. He has done so by illustrating it from one particular event in the life history of Jonah and of the Son of Man, in connection with which there was, as it seemed to him, a striking coincidence. The Son of Man ( = Christ) foretold, as tradition recorded, that He would rise again after three days; cf. Mar_8:31, Mar_9:31, Mar_10:34, Mat_27:63. (This was traditionally interpreted as equivalent to “on the third day,” cf. Mat_16:21, Mat_17:23, Mat_20:19, Luk_9:22, Luk_9:18:33, Luk_9:24:7, Luk_9:46, Act_10:40). It might, therefore, be said that He lay in the grave for three days. Mt. turned to the Book of Jonah, and found in 2:1 the words: κὶἦ Ἰνςἐ τ κιί τῦκτυ τεςἡέα κὶτεςνκα. Here was material for a comparison. Jonah’s wonderful story of guidance and preservation culminated in his sojourn in the belly of the sea monster followed by his miraculous deliverance. This, as illustrating his whole unique experience, made him a sign to the Ninevites. He preached to them as one miraculously accredited. The life history of the Son of Man culminated in His sojourn in the grave, followed by His miraculous resurrection. This, as illustrating His whole life of wonder and marvel, constituted Him a sign to the men of that generation. Mt. has, of course, rather forced his analogy.1 Putting aside the fact that according to Christian tradition Christ lay in the grave only one whole day and parts of two others, he has tried to increase the parallelism by adding τεςνκα, when at the most there were only two.
The words ἦ Ἰνςνκα are borrowed from Jon_2:1.—τ κρί τςγς cf. Deu_4:11 Heb. “the heart of heaven,” and cor maris, 4 Es ( = 2 Es R. V.) 13:25, 51.
(L) 41. The men of Nineveh shall rise up at the judgement with this generation, and shall condemn it: because they repented at the message of Jonah; and, behold, more than Jonah is here.] Lk. transposes this and the next verse, probably simply in order to secure a chronological sequence. He has this verse in verbal agreement with Mt.
ἀατσνα ἐ τ κίε] shall stand or rise up at the judgement. E