NARRATIVE 3:
Matt 11:2-12:50
JEWISH
OPPOSITION AND CONTROVERSY:
Messianic Rejection
Hagner
refers to this section as, The
Negative Response to Jesus.
D. Verseput titles his book on this section of Matthew as, The
Rejection of the Humble Messiah.
Both of these titles sum up well the content of this section and what
was occurring in Jesus' ministry at this time.
In this Narrative section Matthew
we see Jesus continuing the powerful works expected of the Messiah, but
increasing opposition from the Jewish leaders.
To set this in the context of the ministry of Jesus we might see the
events of these chapters somewhat paralleled by the events described in
The Gospel of John at the time when many disciples were leaving Jesus
because he did not meet their expectation of a militant messiah who
would lead them to freedom from Rome. In Jn 6 Jesus had been
speaking of eating his body and drinking his blood. By this he meant
that by truly believing that he was the son of God they would have
eternal life. This puzzled and confused the disciples. Both
the subject of eating his body and drinking his blood, as the promise of
eternal life were difficult sayings to understand. John records in
Jn 6:60-69 that many disciples left Jesus at this time.
|
60
Many of his disciples, when they heard it, said,
"This is a hard saying; who can listen to it?" 61
But Jesus, knowing in himself that his disciples murmured
at it, said to them, "Do you take offense at this? 62 Then
what if you were to see the Son of man ascending where he was
before? 63 It is the spirit that gives life, the
flesh is of no avail; the words that I have spoken to you are
spirit and life. 64 But
there are some of you that do not believe."
For Jesus knew from the first who those were that did not
believe, and who it was that would betray him. 65 And
he said, "This is why I told you that no one can come to me
unless it is granted him by the Father."
66 After
this many of his disciples drew back and no longer went about
with him. 67
Jesus said to the twelve, "Do you also wish to go
away?" 68 Simon Peter answered him, "Lord,
to whom shall we go? You have the words of eternal life; 69
and we have believed, and have come to know, that you are
the Holy One of God." |
This is about where Matthew picks up the story of
the building controversy between Jesus and the Jewish leaders in
Narrative 3.
This section introduces us to an increasing emphasis on the kingdom of
God and its glory. Along with the emphasis on the great value of
the kingdom we will see Jesus sounding judgment on rejection of the
kingdom.
John the Baptists Question Regarding Jesus' Messiahship: Matt 11:2-6
It is difficult to know exactly what was going on in John's mind while
in prison. In his last mention of John the Baptist, Matthew had
informed us that John had been arrested by Herod (Matt 4:12).
Later in matt 14:1-12 Matthew will record John's death. Here we
encounter the somewhat troubling doubt of John regarding Jesus' Messiahship.
John had expected the imminent arrival of the full kingdom, but Jesus
seemed slow in bringing this about.
We should not be to critical of John for his doubt, if that is what we
are reading into this text. However, as we shall see shortly,
there may be another way of looking at John's question regarding Jesus'
Messiahship.
First, we should remember that John is incarcerated in the
fortress of Machaerus in the wilderness east of the Dead Sea. His
future was certainly discouraging. Emotionally he must have been
at a low point in his life. The kingdom he had predicted as
imminent had not materialized. It is natural that questions and
some doubts must have plagued John. He needed reassurance!
Second, we may be witnessing John's attempts to turn his disciples away
from himself to Jesus, and the questions he had may have been asked for
the benefit of his disciples.
Jesus' response to John's question drew attention to his messianic
ministry. He had been doing what had been prophesied the Messiah
would do (Isa61:1-3, 34:4-6, cf. Lk 4:16-19), healing the sick, blind,
lame and deaf, and taking care of the poor. Jesus'
messianic ministry should have been all the witness John and his
disciples needed.
Hagner adds a closing thought regarding present day kingdom
expectations:
| There is an
important lesson to be learned here for those inclined to a
triumphalism of and over-realized eschatology. Without
question the kingdom brought by Jesus involves the experience of
wonderful things even if one does not experience the more
spectacular miracles mentioned in v.5. Nevertheless for
all the joy and fulfillment available to the recipients of the kingdom
in the present, there is at the same time the undeniable reality
of the continued experience of the effects of evil in this
world. When confronted by the latter, it is possible for
Christians to "take offense" at Jesus and the nature
of the salvation he brought... |
It is for this reason that we pray the Lord's
Prayer, "Let thy kingdom (reign) come on earth as it is in
heaven...." Although enjoying the blessings of the kingdom we
nevertheless recognize that there are those who do not honor and follow
the kingdom. We pray for Jesus' reign to be today on earth just as
it is today in heaven.
Jesus' Estimate of John the Baptist (Matt 11:7-19)
Jesus continues the discussion on John the Baptist by asking what
kind of person the Jews had gone out to see when they went to the River
Jordan to witness John's baptisms. His somewhat colloquial
language reflects that they had not gone out to see week person, but a
bold prophet. Jesus cites Mal 3:1 in support of John's ministry of
preparing the way for the Messiah. Following this he pays John a
great compliment,
| Truly, I say to
you, among those born of women there has risen no one greater
than John the Baptist; yet he who is least in the kingdom of
heaven is greater than he. |
The last statement seems somewhat contradictory,
or at least vague! By this Jesus is emphasizing the greatness of
kingdom membership. But who is it
that is least in the kingdom who is greater than John!
The humble servant! Jesus
own disciples will have difficulty understanding this great principle
and on two occasions ask for positions of honor in the kingdom. On
each occasion Jesus explains that it is the servant, the humble
disciple, who is great in the kingdom (cf. Matt 18:1-6; 20:20-28).
In our present passage, Jesus (and Matthew) is laying the foundation for
kingdom business! John is great yet in the kingdom it is the
humble servant that is the greatest. Although the kingdom is
already breaking in in the person and ministry of Jesus, and John shares
in that ministry and inaugurated kingdom, yet it is the humble servant
that is greatest in the kingdom. The kingdom of Jesus is different
from all earthly kingdoms, and Jesus' and John's disciples needed to
know this.
Note here the emphasis brought to this text by Hagner:
| He (John) is the one in
whom the OT expectation has finally been distilled into one
final, definitive arrow pointing to the presence of the
Messiah... That importance lies in the position and role of John
at salvation-history's turning point... This greatness (of
the one who is least in the kingdom) cannot refer to
intrinsic human merit... The intended greatness is the
incomparable greatness of the kingdom. The
contrast is not between individuals but between eras.
Nor can John be thought of as excluded from the kingdom... In
effect so glorious is the new reality dawning through the
ministry of Jesus that the greatness of the era preceding him is
yet inferior to the least in the new order of the kingdom.
The era of present fulfillment ... overshadows the era of
promise by so much... |
Jesus continues the discourse by teaching that the
kingdom does not come in easily, for men will try to force the kingdom,
but this is not how God intended to inaugurate his kingdom. The
kingdom will be realized fully only through the death of the
Messiah! This is a lesson that the zealous Jews (Zealots) could
not accept, and that the disciples would have trouble understanding (cf.
Matt 16:21-23).
Finally, Jesus again returns to John the Baptist and his
testimony. John the Baptist was the expected Elijah who was to
come and testify to God's messianic plans. However, the generation
of Jews of Jesus' day were like children, fickle and easily
swayed. They would accept John the Baptist, but reject the Messiah
he proclaimed! When things got tough they would say of John that
he had a demon, and of Jesus that he was only a friend of tax collectors
and sinners!
Judgment on the Unrepentant (Matt 11:20-24)
Hagner observes that "this passages vividly illustrates the
simple truth that the greater the revelation, the greater the
accountability."
Chorazin and Bethsaida were small towns just to the north of the Sea
of Galilee and the town of Capernaum. Jesus had performed powerful
sings in those towns but they refused to believe in his ministry and
Messiahship. If the miracles performed in these two cities had
been performed in the Gentile towns of Tyre and Sidon, the Gentiles
would have believed! Jesus pronounces judgment on these two
towns! Likewise, Capernaum refused to believed and Jesus
pronounces a worse judgment on Capernaum than on Sodom! A great
revelation had been made to these towns, great accountability would be leveled
against them!
The Revelation of the Father (Mat 11:25-30)
This is a fascinating passage in which Matthew exhibits his Rabbinic
skill! The literary form of this text is in the genre of a Jewish
revelation text, which was comprised of three sections:
1) Thanksgiving for the
revelation from the Father (11:26)
a. Thanksgiving to God for
revealing the "hidden things" (the kingdom message)
b. The "wise and
understanding" - a reference to the Jewish leaders who in their
"wisdom" did not receive the revelation regarding Jesus.
c. The "babes" are
the disciples ("babes" in the LXX [Septuagint Greek OT]
means
the simple people, or childlike disciples, little ones" in Matthew
means
disciples, cf. Matt 18:1-14. Disciples are like children,
vulnerable)
2) The revelation itself
(11:27)
a. The "things
delivered to Jesus by the Father" relate to the kingdom
message
regarding Jesus, the Messiah.
b. The Son reveals the will
and plan of God regarding the kingdom.
3) An invitation arising out
of the revelation (11:28-30)
a. An invitation "Come to me" to become a disciples of
Jesus.
b. Jesus promises rest to the
poor and heavy laden.
c. Jesus is gentle and lowly
of heart indicating the nature of the gentle nature of
the
kingdom of God.
d. The law in Rabbinic
Judaism represented the Law (Sir 51).
e. What should have made
their burden light (the Law) had become oppressive
under
Rabbinic interpretation and application.
f. Jesus promised to make the
disciples' burden of sin and suffering light through
the
glorious kingdom message of redemption.
This passage must be seen in the context of Jewish rejection of Jesus
and his message. The learned rejected Jesus' message, the poor and
needy, the humble, believed and followed him.
Hagner stresses that this text is important
to Matthew's Christology. Jesus is
the Son of God, not merely a son of God. It stresses his unique
relationship with the Father, and is to be seen also in the context of
the Great Commission where Jesus has all authority and that disciples
are to be made in the name of the Father, Son, and Holy Spirit (Matt
28:18-20). This text places Jesus on the level of the Father (the
Son of God), not of humanity (a son of God). It also stresses
Jesus' unique role as the revealer of the will and revelation of God.
Jesus, the Lord of the Sabbath (Matt 12:1-8; Mk 2:23-28; Lk 6:1-5)
In a series of encounters with the Jewish leaders, Matt 12 narrates the
building controversy between Jesus and the Scribes and Pharisees.
This might be an appropriate place to discuss briefly the makeup of the
Jewish religious and political groups. We will concisely examine
the Pharisees, Scribes, Sadducees, Herodians, Essenes, and Zealots.
| Pharisees |
Due to
the vast variety of resources from which to discus the
Pharisees, much confusion exists in regard to a concise
definition of this group. Some refer to them as a sect,
some as a school, some as a political movement, some as a group
of scholars, others as a middle class group of Jews, and on it
goes! In all probability, all of these concepts can be
found in the term Pharisee. The literary resources from
which we derive information on the Pharisees is three fold,
Josephus, the New Testament, and the Rabbinic
corpus. At different points in the history of the Jews the
Pharisees played different roles, sometimes political, sometimes
religious reformers, sometimes separatists, sometimes a social
class. The long history of this group make it difficult to
define them or their role with precision. The existence of
the Pharisees can be traced to the time of the Second Temple,
John Hyrcanus, and the Hasmoneans (ca 134 BC). In
Josephus the Pharisees are often pictured in conflict with the
Sadducees. Although not definitive, it is held by some
that the Pharisees resisted Hellenization (adoption of Greek
culture) as opposed to the Sadducees who were more comfortable
with Hellenization.
At the time we encounter the Pharisees in the Gospels, they
formed a popular religious reformer group which included
scholars of the Law. They manifested a political messianic
inclination, but who possessed little political power.
They held to a strict observance of the Mosaic Law, and
interpreted the Torah in a broader sense than the Sadducees,
including the remainder of the Jewish cannon as well as the vast
Rabbinic tradition in their legal code. They held to an
messianic eschaton, judgment of the Gentiles, and the
resurrection of the dead of judgment. |
| Scribes |
The term
scribe (Heb soper) meant those who were primarily
secretaries. They were responsible for recording both the religious
and legal aspects of Jewish life. They were most likely of
Pharisaic persuasion or in fact of the Pharisee group. As
such they were the scholars on the Law upon whom the Pharisees
depended for their interpretation of the Law. They were
not so much a sect as a social or scholarly group. |
| Sadducees |
Like the
Pharisees, it is difficult to define the Sadducees as a group.
Sometimes the acted as a sect, at other times as a political
movement. Their history is difficult to determine with
precision, but like the Pharisees they can be traced in all
three sources (Josephus, NT, Rabbinic corpus) and also from the
Hasmonean period. The origin of the term Sadducees is
debated. Earlier schools saw the term deriving from the
Hebrew saddiq, meaning "righteous". Other
saw the name deriving from Zadok, a disciple of Antigonus of
Soco (ca 2 BC). The more modern derivation is from Zadok
the High Priest at the time of David.
They seem to be more politically inclined and with more
political influence than the Pharisees, were more comfortable
with Hellenization and social conformity than were the
Pharisees.
Religiously the Sadducees were often in conflict with the
Pharisees. They restricted the Torah to the Five Books of
Moses, rejected the determinism and fatalism of the Pharisees,
adopted a free will mindset in regard to life, and rejected
personal immortality and the resurrection.
Sociologically, they were often comprised of the leading upper
wealthy society, and therefore possessed of greater political
influence than the Pharisees. |
| Herodians |
The
Herodians are mentioned only three times in the Gospels, in Matt
22:16; Mk 3:6; and Mk 12:13. Little is known of them other
than they formed a political royalist group in support of the
Herodian family. When the Romans deposed the Herods, the
Herodians campaigned for a return of the Herodian royal
family. In the Gospels they aligned themselves with the
Pharisees in opposition to Jesus, obviously in opposition to any
kingdom he might inaugurate. Under normal conditions, the
Pharisees would not have been associated with the Herodians, but
they subordinated their differences to form an alliance against
Jesus. |
| Essenes |
The
existence of the religious monastic group we call the Essenes
comes from three sources, 1) Josephus, 2) Philo of Alexandria,
and 3) the Dead Sea Scrolls (assuming that the Qumran
Covenanters were Essenes). The origin of the group is uncertain
but many trace this to the destruction of the Second Temple or
approximately ca 390 BC when a group fled Jerusalem into the
wilderness of Judea. Philo believed that they were a monastic
group, while Josephus added that they also lived in the smaller
towns rather than in the cities. Both are probably true,
but if the dead Sea Scrolls are from an Essenic library, indications
are that they were predominantly monastic. There are some
indications that they were opposed to the Temple Sacrificial
cult, believing that main stream Judaism was corrupt.
Remains of animal bones carefully buried indicate some
possibility that they offered animal sacrifices apart from the
Temple cult. The Qumran scriptorium and the Dead Sea
Scrolls indicate that they were a literary group. They
held to the Mosaic Law and interpreted it literally, and
treasured "ancient literature." They followed a
Teacher of righteousness who apparently organized the group, and
waited the restoration of the kingdom. They interpreted
themselves as the Messianic herald.
They practiced ceremonial cleansing, (baptisms) celibacy, and a
strict monastic model of ethical purity. A strict code and
ceremony of admission into the group was followed, with a strong
code of communal living. It is believed that they adopted
orphans from the main stream of Jewish life. They
apparently were somewhat dualistic, holding that the body was
evil and the spirit held captivity in the body. They held
to a form of the afterlife. |
| Zealots |
The
Zealots can be traced to the period of the late Second Temple,
ca 167-142 and the Maccabean Revolt. The closing period of
the Zealots was the Roman-Judean War of 66-74 AD. The term
Zealot derives from the concept of "zeal for God and the
Law." The Zealots took pride n past heroes who had
stood adamantly for God and the Law against all odds. The
Zealots stood against any form of idolatry and offenses against
the Law. Later under Gentile opposition and occupation
they became revolutionaries against the opposing overlords,
especially against Roman Imperialism. The Zealots were not
the only revolutionary group during the late Roman period.
Josephus lists five such groups among whom were the Sicarii who
under one Menahem seized the fortress at Masada and then marched
into Jerusalem with Menahem claiming to be the king. This
antagonized the Zealots who under Eleazar killed Menahem.
After the fall of Jerusalem during the Roman-Jewish War of 66
-74 AD, Eleazar led a group of Zealots to Masada where they
withstood the Roman legion until under Flavius Silva the Romans
stormed Masada and finally captured it after all the Zealots had
committed suicide rather than be captured by the Romans.
The Zealots were a coalition of a lower group priests, Jerusalem
insurgents, and refugee bandit groups.
During the time of Jesus the Zealots were messianic politically
and zealous for the overthrow of Rome. Jesus did not fit
their ideal of a revolutionary king.
We read little of the Zealots in the Gospels other than that one
of the Apostles, Simon, was a Zealot (Lk 6:15). |
Matthew records that it was on the Sabbath
that Jesus and his disciples were traveling through the grain
fields. The disciples, being hungry, plucked grain to eat.
To the Pharisees this was a serious violation of the Sabbath Law as
recorded in Ex 20:10 and Deut 5:14:
Ex 20:10
8 "Remember the sabbath day, to keep it holy. 9 Six
days you shall labor, and do all your work; 10 but
the seventh day is a sabbath to the Lord your God; in it you
shall not do any work, you, or your son, or your daughter, your
manservant, or your maidservant, or your cattle, or the
sojourner who is within your gates; 11 for in six
days the Lord made heaven and earth, the sea, and all that is in
them, and rested the seventh day; therefore the Lord blessed the
sabbath day and hallowed it.
Deut 5:14
12 "‘Observe the sabbath day, to keep it holy,
as the Lord your God commanded you. 13 Six days you
shall labor, and do all your work; 14 but the seventh
day is a sabbath to the Lord your God; in it you shall not do
any work, you, or your son, or your daughter, or your
manservant, or your maidservant, or your ox, or your ass, or any
of your cattle, or the sojourner who is within your gates, that
your manservant and your maidservant may rest as well as you. 15
You shall remember that you were a servant in the land of
Egypt, and the Lord your God brought you out thence with a
mighty hand and an outstretched arm; therefore the Lord your God
commanded you to keep the sabbath day. |
In Ex 34:21
Moses applies the Sabbath day law in practice: 21 "Six
days you shall work, but on the seventh day you shall rest; in
plowing time and in harvest you shall rest.
Rabbinic tradition listed at least 39 classes of work the Rabbis saw
covered by this law. The overzealous literal application of the
legal principle obviously overlooked a deeper principle to which Jesus
holds the Pharisees, for he corrects their understanding by referring to
two examples in the Jewish writings or Torah which were obviously
exceptions to the legal application of the Law. Furthermore, he
finally explains the role of the Law, or place of the Law, in God's
purpose.
Jesus opening statement, "Have you not read..." is somewhat of
a rebuke or reminder of what they should have known regarding David and
his men who ate the bread of the Presence in the Tabernacle, which bread
was reserved only for the priests (1 Kings 21:1ff.; Lev 24:5-9).
When this occurred, the priest brought no condemnation against David and
his men, and obviously in the mind of Jesus this occasioned no sin.
Jesus next argument was that the priests broke the literal
interpretation of the Sabbath Law every Sabbath as they served in the
Temple, yet the Pharisees took no offence at this! Obviously, this
was another occasion when the Sabbath Law should not be taken
legalistically.
Jesus' next statement raises several questions. What did he mean
by "something greater"? the noun is in the neuter
gender, not masculine, which seems to rule out Jesus as the "something"
(however, the neuter can be used of persons). Neither does it seem
correct to imply that the kingdom is the "something"
since kingdom is feminine. In all probability Jesus had in mind
the new system of grace that had come to take over from the legal system
of Laws. This seems to fit the context better, since Jesus then
refers to a principle often brought up in the Torah, especially in
Hos 6:6 and Mic 6:8, "I desire mercy, and not sacrifice."
Finally, Jesus makes the remarkable statement, "The Son of man
is lord of the Sabbath." Mark (Mk 3:27) records the
saying of Jesus more fully, "The
sabbath was made for man, not man for the sabbath;
so the Son of man is lord even of the sabbath,"
adding the significant statement that the Sabbath was in fact the
servant of man, not man of the Sabbath. Jesus is setting the Torah
in a more mature expression or context than the Pharisees and Jews of
his day did.
The Pharisees were not
content with Jesus' rebuff and returned to similar themes again in other
settings, as in the next pericope.
Jesus Heals the Man with a Withered Hand on the Sabbath (Matt
12:9-14; Mk 3:1-6; Lk 6:6-11)
It seems that Matthew wants us to see the close proximity in time
between the event just described, and the one that follows, "And he
went from there..."
Matthew's use of the expression "their synagogue..."
sets the synagogue of the Jews in contrast to the community of his
believers, namely, the church. When a man with a withered hand
appeared the Pharisees took advantage of this to raise another question
and accuse him regarding "lawful" activity on the
Sabbath. In this instance at least, Jesus knew that Rabbinic
practice permitted the rescuing of an animal on the Sabbath (cf. Lk 14:5
for support of this). Arguing that it was far more important to
heal a man than an animal, Jesus healed the man's withered hand.
The Pharisees obviously dissatisfied with Jesus took council how to
destroy him!
Jesus Heals Many (Matt 12:15-21; Mk 3:7-12; Lk 6:17-19)
"Jesus, aware of this, withdrew from there..." Rather
than incite the Pharisees further, Jesus sought out quieter climes away
from areas where the Pharisees frequented, but continued his
healings. Matthew draws attention to one of the Servant Songs in
Isaiah, Isa 42:1-4, to demonstrate that Jesus, as the Messiah, was
involved in Messianic works.
Jesus and the Pharisees' Charge of Blasphemy (Matt 12:22-37; Mk
3:20-30; Lk 11:14-23)
When a blind demoniac acknowledged Jesus as The Son of David ( a
Messianic term), the Pharisees took exception charging that it was by
the power of Beelzebul, the Prince of demons, that Jesus cast out
demons.
Excursus on Beelzebul:
Be-elzebul, sometimes spelled Be-elzebub, or
Ba-alzebub.
A euphemism in the Synoptics for Satan.
The etymology of this name has been difficult to determine with
any degree of finality.
The word have been traced variously to Ugaritic inscriptions,
Hebrew, Aramaic, and Syriac roots.
Several possibilities have been suggested.
1) That the term has been thought to mean "Lord of
the Flies", "Lord of Dung" "Lord of heaven
(an star god)", "Master of the House", "Fly
Lord (flies being demons)"
2) Whatever the case, the term as used by the Pharisees was a pejorative
one.
3) There are no extra-biblical references to Beelzebub that we
know of4) As used by the Pharisees the word was a derogatory
euphemism for Satan, intended to be an insult to Jesus. |
When the Pharisees charge that
Jesus casts out demons by the power of Satan, Jesus responds with three
basic arguments and a startling announcement.
First, knowing the thoughts of the Pharisees, Jesus states a
maxim, a house divided against itself will fall. If he is casting
out demons by the power of Satan, then Satan's house is divided and must
fall.
Second, he challenges the Pharisees to explain how they and their
disciples cast out demons.
Third, but not third in order, Jesus states that before one can
enter a house and plunder the goods of the house, one must first overpower
the strong man. If Jesus has entered the strong man's (Satan's) house
and plundered his goods (the demons he casts out), this must mean that
Jesus has overpowered Satan! This is a remarkable statement which
implies that Jesus has overpowered Satan! (For example, at his
temptation, but ultimately in the cross and resurrection.)
Fourth, and here is the striking statement! Matt 12:28;
"But if
it is by the Spirit of God that I cast out demons, then
the kingdom of God has come upon you."
The word "if" is in a particular Greek construction of a
conditional sentence. This is a first class conditional sentence,
(the particle
ei
[ei
meaning "if"] used with a verb in the indicative mood
results in a first class conditional statement, as is the case in Matt
12:28.) As a first class conditional statement, the translation
should read "Since
it is by the Spirit of God that I cast out demons...."
this is a much stronger reading than "if", and strengthens
Jesus' argument that what he is doing is by the power of the Holy Spirit
and not by the power of Satan!
The striking part of this statement is the one that follows, "then
the kingdom of God has come upon you".
This is not that the kingdom will
come upon you, but the kingdom has
come upon you! Efqasen
(ephthasen
from qfanw-
phthano
meaning I come)
is an aorist
tense implying that the kingdom
has already for a fact come upon them!
By kingdom we understand the reign of God through Christ.
This is not an imminent eschatology, but an inaugurated
eschatology. This is not that the kingdom will shortly, or
sometime in the future come upon them, but that the kingdom has already
come upon them! With the coming of the Messiah, the king of God's
kingdom, the kingdom has come.
Blasphemy Against the Holy Spirit (Matt 12:33)
Jesus continued his rebuttal of the Pharisees charge of blasphemy
with another remarkable statement that has given scholars and ministers
all kind of problems! The unforgivable sin of the Gospels!
This pericope begins with the expression Dia
touto (Dia touto)
which can be translated "on account of this...", or
"therefore..." We prefer "on account of
this" as a reference to the whole previous discussion in which the
Pharisees had attributed the work of God through his Holy Spirit as a
work of Beelzebul, or Satan.
To attribute the work of God through his Holy Spirit as a work of Satan
is the worst kind of blasphemy possible.
We should note that this is a
difficult pericope to work with in that there are a number of hidden
possibilities, and by observing what some scholars have concluded
regarding this pericope. Hagner observes that this pericope "does
not encourage optimism in the exegete"! W. D. Davies and
D. C. Allison, A Critical and Exegetical Commentary on the gospel
According to Matthew, vol. 2, p.238, observe that "As it
stands, Matt 12:32 has no obvious meaning...We remain
stumped." U. Luz, Das Evangelium nach Matthaus ,Vol 2,
finds no explanation satisfactory!
Regardless of this pessimism, it is possible to understand the meaning
in this pericope as it relates to the previous discussion of the
Pharisees blasphemy against the Holy Spirit.
To set this pericope
in context we list several observations from the previous discussion and
their implications:
1) The
Pharisees had blasphemed the Holy Spirit, charging that Jesus
cast out demons by the power of Satan, whereas he claimed to
cast them out by the power of the Holy Spirit.
2) Therefore to attribute the power working through Jesus to
Satan is nothing short of blasphemy of the worst kind.
3) The work of the Holy Spirit must be seen in its larger
context of God's heilsgeschichte, process of atonement,
plan of redemption, system of forgiveness, or salvation.
4) According to Paul (2 Cor 3:6; 2 Thess 2:13, Tit 3:3-5;
Rom 8:9-11) and John (Jn 3:3-5), the Holy Spirit is the
spirit of life, sanctification, regeneration, renewal, and the
new birth.
5) To deny or blaspheme the work of the Holy Spirit is to
blaspheme the Holy Spirit himself and to deny the very process
of new birth, regeneration, and sanctification.
6) To deny the work of the Holy Spirit is to remove oneself from
the process of forgiveness and to place oneself outside the
process of God's atonement, and to undercut the very possibility
of experiencing the reality of god's salvation.
7) In the context of doubting the Messianic office of the Son of
Man, or not believing in the Son of Man, is at one level not the
same as blaspheming rejecting the Holy Spirit, or the final
rejection of the very process of God's atonement.
8) To oppose the Holy Spirit is the same as opposing the very
mission of Jesus himself, and God's heilsgeschichte.
9) Although rejecting Jesus' divine ministry has catastrophic
consequences, Jesus himself stresses that the denial or
blasphemy of the Holy Spirit has ultimate, unforgivable results.
10) "The gravity of the blasphemy against the Spirit ...
depends upon the Holy Spirit as the fundamental dynamic that
stands behind and makes possible the entire messianic ministry
of Jesus himself." Hagner, Matthew 1-13, p. 348.
11) "The failure to understand Jesus is yet forgivable
but not the outright rejection of the saving power of God
through the Spirit exhibited in the direct overthrow of the
kingdom of Satan." Hagner, op. cit. |
To summarize:
The blaspheme against the Holy Spirit that is unforgivable is a denial
of the working of the Holy Spirit in God's heilsgeschichte or system of
atonement.
Jesus considered this blasphemy even worse that blasphemy against
himself! To reject the saving power and work of the Holy Spirit is
ultimately to reject the God's working his salvation in the individual.
Jesus closes this encounter with the Pharisees with a pronouncement of judgment
on them for the careless words they have just uttered. In their
hast to deny Jesus they have in fact blasphemed the very working of God
through his Holy Spirit. Their words, uttered in the heat of their
hatred, were not thought through, and through their cavalier treatment
of Jesus and the Holy Spirit, they have brought judgment on themselves.
The Scribes and Pharisees Seek a Sign from
Jesus (Matt 12:38-45; Lk 11:20-32)
Joining the Pharisees, the Scribes, the learned lawyers of the
Torah, ask Jesus for a sign. Their stubborn refusal to believe in
Jesus had blinded them, they could not see past their prejudice!
There is nothing wrong in seeking a sign, as long as one is sincere in
the seeking. It is apparent that the Scribes and Pharisees were
not sincere, for they had already witnessed many miracles of Jesus and
still refused to believe. In fact, as in the previous pericope,
they attributed the power of Jesus' miracles to Satan!
In a striking analogy, Jesus makes reference to the sign of Jonah, the
prophet. Unlike the people of Nineveh, the Scribes and Pharisees
would not believe and repent. The sign of Jonah here is the
analogy between Jonah in the belly of the wale and Jesus burial and
resurrection. Jesus knew that the Scribes and Pharisees would not
even believe in his resurrection as a sign! So, Jesus reprimands
and condemns the Scribes and Pharisees for their unbelief. Later
in Matthew (Matt 16:4) the sign of Jonah will refer to the
unbelief of the Jews.
Jesus refers to the Scribes and Pharisees as an "evil and
adulterous generation". This expression is found only
twice in the Gospels, both in Matthew and both in the context of the
sign of Jonah. Adulterous is used figuratively in the sense of
spiritual unfaithfulness to God.
The scribes and Pharisees do not compare well with Nineveh and the Queen
of the South who both believed, and yet "something greater than
Jonah and Solomon is here." Again, as before, the
something greater must refer to the Gospel message of Jesus and the
kingdom.
Jesus concludes this encounter with a parable of an unclean spirit
leaving a man and returning to find his house clean. The spirit returns
with seven more spirits and moves into the house. Jesus compares
the generation of the Scribes and Pharisees with this spirit.
Those who do not respond will find that in the end their situation is
worse off than it was in the beginning. Obviously, Jesus has in
mind the fact that by refusing the message of Jesus and faith in Jesus,
the Scribes and Pharisees face certain judgment. The question
arises as to whether Jesus has in mind the eschatological judgment at
the end of the world, or the impending judgment of the destruction of
Jerusalem. Possible Jesus and Matthew had both in mind.
Jesus, His Mother and Brothers, and his True Family (Matt 12:46-50;
Mk 3:31-35; Lk 8:19-21)
In this fascinating little encounter with his family, Jesus is not
rejecting them, but demonstrating that kingdom relationships take
precedent over physical relationships. The kingdom demands
take priority over human relationships, even over the most intimate
relationships. This is the first reference to Jesus family in
Matthew. The last reference to Mary was in Matt 2. The next
reference to family will be in Matt 13:55-56, where the Jews attempt to
find Jesus significance in his "physical family of origin, "by
stating " Is not this the carpenter’s son? Is not
his mother called Mary? And are not his brothers James and Joseph and
Simon and Judas? And are not all his sisters with
us?"
This somewhat interesting pericope may seem somewhat dislocated, but
in fact it is not! Jesus is making a statement regarding the
kingdom and kingdom relationships. The pericope becomes, then, a transitional
passage as Matthew moves on to Discourse 3 and the teachings on the
kingdom.
Click here to go to Assignment
#10
|