[And He Walks With Me] Matthew 12
1-8 Exodus 31:15 commanded that the seventh day of the week (i.e., Saturday) should be a Sabbath of complete rest, holy to the Lord, and anyone who does work on the Sabbath day must be put to death. This mandate was repeated in various passages throughout the Old Testament. In Exodus, the manna and quail did not come on the Sabbath (Exodus 16:25-26), and in Numbers 15:32-36, they actually stoned a man to death for gathering wood on the Sabbath day. Nehemiah instituted some clarification, prohibiting buying and selling on the Sabbath even if the transaction was with Gentiles who did not observe the Sabbath (Neh 10:31; 13:15), and exceptions were made for priests (Numbers 28:9-10) and other temple workers (e.g., 2 Kings 11:5). However, there was no biblical list of activities approved or prohibited on the Sabbath. Therefore, rabbis attempted to provide more comprehensive guidance, including a hard limit on distances people could walk and a laundry list of other activities they could not do on the Sabbath. This list included harvesting grain. No doubt, the original intent of that rule was to prevent a farmer from gathering his servants and taking out an entire field (i.e., major, non-emergent undertakings), but they had no problem freeing a child or ox who fell into a well (i.e., major, emergent undertakings) on the Sabbath. A couple of guys picking a handful of heads of grain, crushing them in their hands, and popping the grain in their mouths because they were hungry would seem to be an entirely different class of activity. The Pharisees therefore elevated their extrabiblical clarifications to the level of law and demanded strict adherence. Yet, the lack of such a list throughout the Old Testament would suggest that it was never supposed to be about rigidly defining exactly what is done or not done on the seventh day of the week. Rather, as Matthew Sleeth points out, the Sabbath “is a day when I trust that the world can get along just fine without” us[182] and “[remembering] that God is in control and that our identity is not dependent on the work we do.”[183] This is the primary point of Jesus’ response.
3-4 Jesus was referring to the incident recorded in 1 Samuel 21:1-9.
9-14 A shriveled hand did not prohibit a person from participating in the synagogue as leprosy or some other deformity might. Therefore, it is unlikely the Pharisees orchestrated this man’s presence in order to trap Jesus. However, they were quick to seize upon the opportunity to set a trap for him. Their question alluded to a debate legal experts had been having for years: Is it lawful to heal on the Sabbath? Essentially, the question concerned when it was appropriate to override the Sabbath rest to attend to someone or something in need. To this, Jesus responded with his own question: Who among you, if he had a sheep that fell into a pit on the Sabbath, wouldn’t take hold of it and lift it out? The most rigorous schools of thought, such as the Qumran community, insisted that it was unlawful to help an animal give birth or escape a pit on the Sabbath. These also contended that, if a person fell into water on the Sabbath, no tool or instrument (e.g., ladder or rope) could be used to rescue them.[184] Conversely, most Pharisees agreed that, if an animal was stuck in a pit or a person so sick that there was concern he/she would die without treatment, then the imminent need overrode the Sabbath requirements. Thus, most of the Pharisees would have agreed with the principle of Jesus’ rhetorical question. In this case, however, the shriveled hand was likely caused by some sort of paralysis that had existed for some time, and the man was in no danger of dying from it before the end of the Sabbath. The Pharisees generally held that such a case did not warrant overriding the Sabbath. Therefore, Jesus pressed the matter by pointing out the larger issue: it is lawful to do what is good on the Sabbath. That is, the Sabbath does not excuse us from doing what is right and beneficial. Then, as he did when he healed the paralyzed man in 9:1-8, Jesus punctuated this declaration by healing the man’s hand. This clear demonstration of God’s power should have confirmed the legitimacy of Jesus’ teaching. God would not allow his power to be wielded by someone whose teachings were not approved. Yet, the Pharisees refused to accept it and instead went out and plotted against him, that they might kill him. Do not be surprised when supposedly godly people plot against those who threaten their status.
15 Jesus was aware of this plot to kill him (see vs 14), but whether this knowledge came from natural (e.g., an informant) or supernatural insight is unclear. In the former case, it shows that at least some of the Pharisees’ inner circle sympathized with Jesus. In the latter case, it suggests omniscience and therefore hints at his deity.
Jesus withdrew as a way to de-escalate the conflict with the Pharisees. Not counting his flight to Egypt (Matt 2:14) and then to Nazareth (Matt 2:22) as an infant, he already utilized this strategy in 4:12, and he will do so again in 14:13. Yet, he was not avoiding the conflict as much as he was managing it “until the time for his predicted betrayal, arrest, and death.”[185] This is an important strategy for Christian leaders. Leaders cannot push forward unrelentingly; they must periodically step back to manage tension, consolidate their advances, and/or regroup. Further, they must be strategic about how and when they engage conflict so that it advances their mission rather than distracts from it. At the same time, leaders must not avoid conflict altogether, or their mission will never be fulfilled.
18-21 This quote is an adaptation from Isaiah 42:1-4. The main thrust of the message is that Jesus “is the gentle, Spirit-endowed, Suffering Servant, who advances a mission of justice to the nations.”[186] In Luke’s gospel, this mission was attested in 4:18-19 when Jesus quoted from Isaiah 61:1-2 while speaking to the synagogue in Nazareth, and in Acts 10:37-38, St. Peter affirmed that this was the overarching theme of Jesus’ ministry and therefore at the center of the church’s ongoing mission.
23 Son of David was a messianic title referring to the descendant of David who was prophesied to come and save the people of Israel. Rooted in numerous Old Testament prophecies that were finally taken seriously after the exile to Babylon, this expectation had in the previous four hundred years become a staple of Jewish teachings. Unfortunately, the fact that messianic prophecies were littered throughout the Old Testament, sometimes oblique, and sometimes cryptic meant that it was difficult for many to assemble them into a cohesive concept. Popular culture, which suffered under rampant poverty and oppressive occupiers naturally gravitated toward the notion of a messiah that would be a powerful warrior who liberated the Jews from their foreign oppressors,[187] and this notion was embodied in the title son of David because David was perceived as a warrior king. Of course, the identity of those oppressors shifted from generation to generation, with the effect that people were perennially watching for the anticipated messiah, and that search had led them to embrace numerous men who ultimately proved to be false. Examples include Simon of Perea, a former slave whose followers declared him king but was ultimately defeated by Roman forces ca 4 BCE; Athronges, a shepherd who launched a rebellion against Rome and claimed to be king before being defeated by Roman forces about the same time; and Judas of Galilee, who led a revolt against Roman taxation when the senate dissolved the Judean tetrarchy and made Judea a Roman province in 6 CE. Although it was assumed the Messiah would be a normal human, and Jesus at no time hinted at a desire for insurrection, it is unsurprising that people would see Jesus’ supernatural abilities and conclude that he could be the one God would use to overthrow Rome and restore the kingdom of God to Israel. Even so, their question here should be taken as sincere because the ideas of military leader and exorcist were generally not connected.
24 Given the popularity of messianic teachings and the numerous examples of would-be messiahs who found support in Israel during this time, it is a bit surprising that the Pharisees aimed to discredit Jesus. Typically, ancient exorcists used a variety of means “in an attempt to manipulate the spirit world,”[188] which led the Pharisees and other religious leaders to disdain them. Certainly, there was cause for such disdain. At best, their efforts to exorcise spirits were ineffective or fraudulent. At worst, they were viewed along the lines of cultic magicians dabbling in evil spiritual powers, which was prohibited by Mosaic law (e.g., Lev 19:26, 31; 20:6; Deut 18:10-12) and punishable by death (Ex 22:18). This explains the Pharisees’ hostility toward Jesus after such an obvious display of supernatural ability. However, it is important to notice how Jesus’ methods for exorcism were starkly different from contemporary charlatans. Instead of using incantations, spells, potions, or talismans, “he commands the demons from his own authority, and they immediately submit.” His command over demons, then, is a clear demonstration of the kingdom of God breaking into the world and liberating people from spiritual oppression.[189]
25-28 Jesus’ defense rests on the fact that the demon actually left the man, making him able to both speak and see (22). The Pharisees assumed he was able to do this because Satan could command his underlings, but Jesus points out the ridiculousness of this proposal. In vss 25-26, he points out that ordering demons out of people would be contrary to Satan’s intention to continue ruling the earth. In vs 27, he points out that they did not condemn all exorcisms among Jews. And in vs 28, he pronounces that, if exorcisms like this are antithetical to Satan’s continued reign of earth, then they must at least suggest the validity of his message that the kingdom of God is near.[190]
29 Jesus drove home the absurdity of doing exorcisms by the power of Satan by comparing it to a thief. If a thief intended to break into a house and steal a man’s things, he started by incapacitating the man. To do otherwise would be to act against the thief’s own interests.
30 There is no middle ground when it comes to faith. Those who are not completely with Jesus are, in fact, against him, and those who are not working with him on his agenda are actually working against him.
31-32 The absurdity of attributing to Satan Jesus’ power to exorcise demons is now applied. If something is clearly the work of the Holy Spirit, then asserting that it is the work of Satan is a form of blasphemy. Attributing to Satan something that was blatantly the work of the Spirit is tantamount to blasphemy against the Spirit that will not be forgiven. In saying this, Jesus was pointing out the condition of the Pharisees’ hearts. Others had sincerely asked how Jesus was able to do the things he was doing, and based on the evidence, they were leaning toward believing Jesus to be the Messiah despite the fact he did not fit into their expectations. Yet, the Pharisees had resolved before even considering the evidence that he was not of God, and now, they were leaning on absurdities to explain their unreasonable, but absolutely resolute, rejection.
33-37 Still responding to the accusation that he [drove] out demons only by Beelzebul, the ruler of the demons (24), Jesus turned his attention to the Pharisees who made the allegation in the first place. He addressed them as you brood of vipers, just as John the Baptist (e.g., 3:7). The phrase evoked the image of the writhing ball of small, live snakes birthed by a mother snake and suggested these Pharisees were the offspring of the serpent of Genesis 3. Just as the serpent there used cunning and deceit to lure Eve and Adam into sin, vipers were known for their stealthy attack.[191] So also, the Pharisees posed as leaders and teachers of God’s people. Yet, their accusation toward Jesus was a clear attempt to steer people away from God’s messiah. This was no mere mistake. Rather, their accusation flowed from the overflow of the heart. Namely, they stored up evil in their hearts, and consequently, they spoke evil of Jesus.
36 Every careless word they speak (CSB) or every idle word that man shall speak (KJV) refers to words which have no positive value. That positive value may take myriad forms including encouragement, instruction, correction, or even humor. It is important to note, though, that making someone laugh is not necessarily what Jesus hopes to see. Indeed, a careless word is one that does not actively build up a person in some way (see Ephesians 4:29). Choose and use your words wisely!
38 Then connects vss 38-42 with the preceding scene both in time and subject matter. Essentially, this is a continuation of the conversation and the scribes’ and Pharisees’ response to what Jesus just said. This relationship was reinforced when Jesus returned to the subject of exorcism to provide follow-up instructions for the man healed in vs 22. Given this connection, the scribes’ and Pharisees’ demand is peculiar. They want to see a sign from Jesus, but he has just driven out a demon and, in the process, healed a man who was blind and mute (see vs 22). Moreover, he just healed the man with the shriveled hand in the synagogue on Sabbath (see vs 13). The fact that they remained unconvinced after these miracles suggests that they would consider no sign conclusive. No, they were resolute in their disbelief. A similarly chronic agnosticism was demonstrated by the people of Athens in Acts 17, and it may be at the heart of what Jesus meant when he advised the disciples to shake the dust off your feet when people do not welcome you or listen to your words (see 10:14).
39 Jesus obviously did not mean that he would do no more miracles. Rather, he merely recognized that no sign would be considered conclusive for the scribes and Pharisees (see note on vs 38). Therefore, his declaration that no sign will be given is essentially a proclamation that he would not cater to the chronically agnostic. We also should learn to recognize people who refuse to be finally convinced to believe in Christ. Yet, we should not allow that recognition to evolve into cynicism.
40-42 To illustrate the gravity of the scribes’ and Pharisees’ refusal to believe, Jesus used the example of Nineveh and the queen of the south. In the book of Jonah, God called the titular prophet to the thoroughly pagan city of Nineveh to warn them of their impending judgment. Instead, Jonah sailed for Tarshish, was swallowed by a great fish, and then was vomited onto the beach and sent to Nineveh anyway. When he arrived in the city, he had only to walk through it announcing God’s message, and within a matter of days, the entire city repented without a single recorded miracle being done within its view. Similarly, in 1 Kings 10:1-13, the Queen of Sheba heard about Solomon’s fame connected with the name of the Lord and came to test him with difficult questions. She believed despite having never witnessed Solomon’s wisdom or God’s power for herself. Jesus’ point is that these pagan Gentiles were more easily convinced of God’s working than God’s own people. It is an unfortunate thing that the so-called people of God are often the last to recognize him and his work. So not be like the scribes and Pharisees!
43-45 Returning his attention to the man liberated from the demon in vs 22, Jesus explains why it is so important to replace the evil influences of our former lives with ongoing godly influences. It is not enough to remove the sin or demon once. It will creep back in if not replaced with godly disciplines and the presence of the Holy Spirit.
Notice that the demon in vs 44 refers to the person as my house. The spiritual powers and principalities against which we struggle will settle for nothing less than complete ownership of a person. Therefore, they will go back to the person time and again, and they will bring with them seven other spirits more evil than themselves. The number seven was used throughout Scriptures to signify completion, and here it suggests that the reinforcements will be stronger than the original and result in the even more complete spiritual oppression. Thus, that person’s last condition is worse than the first.
This passage should be a warning for everyone seeking spiritual deliverance. It is not enough to seek forgiveness and initial deliverance. We must not tolerate a spiritual vacuum in our lives. Therefore, we must pursue Bible study, prayer, and other spiritual disciplines to ensure that we are inviting the Holy Spirit to take possession of us.
46-50 While he was still speaking with the crowds again connects the following passage with the preceding conversation. For most of the chapter, Jesus’ attention was focused on the crowds, but now, it was drawn back to his disciples as someone told him his mother and brothers were outside wanting to speak to him. The suggestion was that they wanted him to leave the conversation and abandon the mission. Indeed, Mark’s version of this account begins with Jesus family coming to restrain him, because they said, “He’s out of his mind.” Jesus’ response should not be interpreted to mean Christ-followers will reject their families. In fact, he challenged the Pharisees’ traditions that allowed them to neglect their families (see 15:3-9). Rather, it should be seen as a demonstration of his overriding commitment to the kingdom of heaven and the missio Dei. In the same way, those who would follow him must be more committed to Jesus and his calling than anyone or anything else.
50 Jesus here pronounces the true distinction of Christians and the primary characteristic of spiritual family: For whoever does the will of my Father in heaven is my brother and sister and mother.
[182] Sleeth 2012, 78
[183] Sleeth 2012, 75
[184] Wilkins 2004, Matthew 12:9-13
[185] Wilkins 2004, Matthew 12:15-21
[186] Wilkins 2004, Matthew 12:15-21
[187] Wilkins 2004, Matthew 12:22-24
[188] Wilkins 2004, Matthew 12:22-24
[189] Wilkins 2004, Matthew 12:22-24
[190] (Wilkins 2004, Matthew 12:25-29
[191] Wilkins 2004, Matthew 12:30-37