Matthew · Chapter 12
At that time Jesus went on the sabbath day through the corn; and his disciples were an hungred, and began to pluck the ears of corn and to eat.
But when the Pharisees saw it, they said unto him, Behold, thy disciples do that which is not lawful to do upon the sabbath day.
Adam Clarke
Verse 2. Thy disciples do that which is not lawful to do] The Jews were so superstitious, concerning the observance of the Sabbath, that in their wars with Antiochus Epiphanes, and the Romans, they thought it a crime even to attempt to defend themselves on the Sabbath: when their enemies observed this, they deterred their operations to that day. It was through this, that Pompey was enabled to take Jerusalem. Dion. Cass. lib. xxxvi. Those who know not the spirit and design of the divine law are often superstitious to inhumanity, and indulgent to impiety. An intolerant and censorious spirit in religion is one of the greatest curses a man can well fall under.
Joseph Benson
Verses 2-4. The Pharisees said, Thy disciples do what is not lawful — The law of Moses so expressly allowed the plucking ears of corn as one passed through a field, that, malignant as they were, they pretended not to find fault with the action itself, (see Deuteronomy 23:25,) but they were perverse enough to think this to be a kind of reaping and dressing the grain, which was indeed forbidden on the sabbath. But he said — Have ye not read what, in a case of like necessity, David did, and his followers? and his necessity was a sufficient plea for his transgressing the law in a higher instance. How he entered into the house of God — Into the tabernacle: the temple not being yet built. The meaning cannot be, that David himself went into the very tabernacle, for none but priests could go in thither: but it was into the house or chamber of the high-priest that he entered, situated beside the tabernacle, and called the house of God on that account. See note on 1 Samuel 21:3-6. Thus the apartment in which the High-priest Eli and his servant Samuel slept, is called the house of the Lord, 1 Samuel 3:15. And did eat the show-bread — Gr. touv artouv thv proqesewv, the bread of exhibition, or, the bread set forth. The Hebrew expression, µynp µjl, is literally, the bread of the face, or, of the presence, so called, because it stood continually before the face, (so to speak,) of Jehovah; that is, before the ark, where God was peculiarly present. It consisted of twelve loaves, representing the twelve tribes of Israel, and was set every sabbath day, by the priest who served that week, on the golden table that was in the holy place of the tabernacle or temple. When the new loaves were brought, the stale ones were taken away, but were to be eaten by the priests only. See notes on Exodus 25:30; Leviticus 24:6-9.
Joseph Sutcliffe
Verse 2. Thy disciples do that which is not lawful to do upon the sabbath- day. The pharisees did not find fault with eating a few ears of barley in their hunger, while others enjoyed their feasts, because it was allowed by the law of Moses, provided they put nought of the fruit in their vessel, or their pouch; but they objected on the ground of the sabbath. Now, the appeal which Jesus made to David’s eating the holy bread, which belonged exclusively to the priests, shows that the preservation of life is more than the law. Hence in all such cases, we should look at the intention of the lawgiver: no labour should be done on the sabbath but in cases of absolute necessity. Driving waggons, and journies of pleasure are an abomination to the Lord.
Daniel Whedon
2. Not lawful… upon the sabbath day — The crime was not the walking, for they may not have walked more than a Sabbath day’s journey; but the plucking and the rubbing. Now this was done to satisfy actual hunger, and doubtless was their only obtainable food. It was truly, therefore, hardly more than to put one’s hands to the food upon a table. It may therefore be considered a striking instance in which the Jews had come to pervert the divine law in an over particularity about the letter.
But he said unto them, Have ye not read what David did, when he was an hungred, and they that were with him;
John Wesley
V. 3. Have ye not read what David did-And necessity was a sufficient plea for his transgressing the law in a higher instance.
Adam Clarke
Verse 3. - 4. Have ye not read what David did] The original history is in 1 Samuel 21:1-6.
When he was an hungered] Here hearken to Kimchi, producing the opinion of the ancients concerning this story in these words: “Our rabbins of blessed memory say, that he gave him the shew-bread, &c. The interpretation also of the clause, Yea, though it were sanctified this day in the vessel, is this: It is a small thing to say, that it is lawful for us to eat THESE LOAVES, taken from before the Lord, when we are hungry; for it would be lawful to eat this very loaf which is now set on, which is also sanctified in the vessel, (for the table sanctifieth,) it would be lawful to eat even this, when another loaf is not present with you to give us, and we are so hunger-bitten. And a little after, There is nothing which may hinder taking care of life, beside idolatry, adultery, and murder. That is, a man, according to them, should do any thing but these in order to preserve life.” See Lightfoot.
He entered into the house of God] Viz. the house of Ahimelech the priest, who dwelt at Nob, with whom the tabernacle then was, in which the Divine presence was manifested.
And did eat the shew-bread] touv artouv tnv proqesewv-in Hebrew, פנים לחם lechem panim-bread of the presence, or faces, because this bread was to be set continually, hwhy ynpl lipney Yehovah, before the face of Jehovah. See the notes on Exodus 25:23, 30. “Since part of the frankincense put in the bread was to be burnt on the altar for a memorial, Leviticus 24:7, and since Aaron and his sons were to eat it in the holy place, it is evident that this bread typified Christ, first presented as a sacrifice to, or in the presence of, Jehovah, and then becoming spiritual food to such as, in and through him, are spiritual priests to God. See Revelation 1:6; 5:10; 20:6; also 1 Peter 2:5.” Parkhurst.
Joseph Benson
Verses 2-4. The Pharisees said, Thy disciples do what is not lawful — The law of Moses so expressly allowed the plucking ears of corn as one passed through a field, that, malignant as they were, they pretended not to find fault with the action itself, (see Deuteronomy 23:25,) but they were perverse enough to think this to be a kind of reaping and dressing the grain, which was indeed forbidden on the sabbath. But he said — Have ye not read what, in a case of like necessity, David did, and his followers? and his necessity was a sufficient plea for his transgressing the law in a higher instance. How he entered into the house of God — Into the tabernacle: the temple not being yet built. The meaning cannot be, that David himself went into the very tabernacle, for none but priests could go in thither: but it was into the house or chamber of the high-priest that he entered, situated beside the tabernacle, and called the house of God on that account. See note on 1 Samuel 21:3-6. Thus the apartment in which the High-priest Eli and his servant Samuel slept, is called the house of the Lord, 1 Samuel 3:15. And did eat the show-bread — Gr. touv artouv thv proqesewv, the bread of exhibition, or, the bread set forth. The Hebrew expression, µynp µjl, is literally, the bread of the face, or, of the presence, so called, because it stood continually before the face, (so to speak,) of Jehovah; that is, before the ark, where God was peculiarly present. It consisted of twelve loaves, representing the twelve tribes of Israel, and was set every sabbath day, by the priest who served that week, on the golden table that was in the holy place of the tabernacle or temple. When the new loaves were brought, the stale ones were taken away, but were to be eaten by the priests only. See notes on Exodus 25:30; Leviticus 24:6-9.
Daniel Whedon
3. Read what David did — Our Lord here is not arguing for a proper breaking of the law, but for its true construction. The mere formality of a ritual or strict letter of a positive precept is to yield to the demands of the true good, or the alternative consequence of essential evil. He shows this by an example of David, (1 Samuel 21:1-7,) who infringed the letter of the ceremonial law by obtaining from the priest and eating the showbread belonging to the tabernacle. To the necessity of preventing starvation the sanctity both of the showbread and of the Sabbath might yield. These institutions were both given in mercy, and it would be perverting their purpose to make them instruments of cruelty.
The showbread (in Hebrew, the bread of the presence, that is, of the divine presence) was placed first in the tabernacle and afterward in the temple of Solomon, on a table, in the Holy Place. As the temple was the house of God, so, symbolically, this was the bread of God. So the candlestick and other furnishings of the sacred place were emblems of the residence of Jehovah among his people.
Richard Watson
Verses 3, 4. What David did when he was a hungered. — The example to which our Lord here refers in order to silence the Pharisees shows that the case of the disciples was one of real hunger, not to be sustained without faintness and being unfitted for duty, as was that of David and his companions; and the argument is, that the law, rightly understood, never did exclude the consideration of such instances of necessity, and was therefore to be interpreted according to the intention of the Legislator. “The shew-bread” taken by David and his followers, consisted of twelve cakes, which were placed upon the altar of shewbread every Sabbath, the old cakes being at the same time removed and eaten by the priests “in the holy place.”
How he entered into the house of God, and did eat the shewbread, which was not lawful for him to eat, neither for them which were with him, but only for the priests?
John Wesley
V. 4. He entered into the house of God-Into the tabernacle. The temple was not yet built.
The show bread-So they called the bread which the priest, who served that week, put every Sabbath day on the golden table that was in the holy place, before the Lord. The loaves were twelve in number, and represented the twelve tribes of Israel: when the new were brought, the stale were taken away, but were to be eaten by the priests only. 1 Samuel 21:6.
Adam Clarke
Verse 3. - 4. Have ye not read what David did] The original history is in 1 Samuel 21:1-6.
When he was an hungered] Here hearken to Kimchi, producing the opinion of the ancients concerning this story in these words: “Our rabbins of blessed memory say, that he gave him the shew-bread, &c. The interpretation also of the clause, Yea, though it were sanctified this day in the vessel, is this: It is a small thing to say, that it is lawful for us to eat THESE LOAVES, taken from before the Lord, when we are hungry; for it would be lawful to eat this very loaf which is now set on, which is also sanctified in the vessel, (for the table sanctifieth,) it would be lawful to eat even this, when another loaf is not present with you to give us, and we are so hunger-bitten. And a little after, There is nothing which may hinder taking care of life, beside idolatry, adultery, and murder. That is, a man, according to them, should do any thing but these in order to preserve life.” See Lightfoot.
He entered into the house of God] Viz. the house of Ahimelech the priest, who dwelt at Nob, with whom the tabernacle then was, in which the Divine presence was manifested.
And did eat the shew-bread] touv artouv tnv proqesewv-in Hebrew, פנים לחם lechem panim-bread of the presence, or faces, because this bread was to be set continually, hwhy ynpl lipney Yehovah, before the face of Jehovah. See the notes on Exodus 25:23, 30. “Since part of the frankincense put in the bread was to be burnt on the altar for a memorial, Leviticus 24:7, and since Aaron and his sons were to eat it in the holy place, it is evident that this bread typified Christ, first presented as a sacrifice to, or in the presence of, Jehovah, and then becoming spiritual food to such as, in and through him, are spiritual priests to God. See Revelation 1:6; 5:10; 20:6; also 1 Peter 2:5.” Parkhurst.
Joseph Benson
Verses 2-4. The Pharisees said, Thy disciples do what is not lawful — The law of Moses so expressly allowed the plucking ears of corn as one passed through a field, that, malignant as they were, they pretended not to find fault with the action itself, (see Deuteronomy 23:25,) but they were perverse enough to think this to be a kind of reaping and dressing the grain, which was indeed forbidden on the sabbath. But he said — Have ye not read what, in a case of like necessity, David did, and his followers? and his necessity was a sufficient plea for his transgressing the law in a higher instance. How he entered into the house of God — Into the tabernacle: the temple not being yet built. The meaning cannot be, that David himself went into the very tabernacle, for none but priests could go in thither: but it was into the house or chamber of the high-priest that he entered, situated beside the tabernacle, and called the house of God on that account. See note on 1 Samuel 21:3-6. Thus the apartment in which the High-priest Eli and his servant Samuel slept, is called the house of the Lord, 1 Samuel 3:15. And did eat the show-bread — Gr. touv artouv thv proqesewv, the bread of exhibition, or, the bread set forth. The Hebrew expression, µynp µjl, is literally, the bread of the face, or, of the presence, so called, because it stood continually before the face, (so to speak,) of Jehovah; that is, before the ark, where God was peculiarly present. It consisted of twelve loaves, representing the twelve tribes of Israel, and was set every sabbath day, by the priest who served that week, on the golden table that was in the holy place of the tabernacle or temple. When the new loaves were brought, the stale ones were taken away, but were to be eaten by the priests only. See notes on Exodus 25:30; Leviticus 24:6-9.
Daniel Whedon
§ 33. — PLUCKING THE CORN UPON THE SABBATH, 1-8.
Of this chapter the part 1-45 has a considerable completeness in itself. It is not inserted precisely in its chronological place; but the facts, though distant in time, stand in their chronological order, and are grouped together in order to show the deepening hostility which Jesus encountered from the Jewish religious leaders. The first two (§ 33 and § 34) occurred soon after the first assault upon Jesus at the passover, and were the proper prelude to the later instance of blasphemy in § 42, with its fearful denunciation, and the cavil of § 43, with its terrible parable. There is a marked increase in the intensity of the Pharisaic hostility.
Matthew places together these two miracles, not because occurring at the same time, but because they touched upon the same point, namely, our Lord’s teaching as to the Sabbath.
Mr. Trench remarks:
“The cures on the Sabbath actually recorded are seven in number, and are the following: That of the demoniac in the synagogue of Capernaum, (Mark 1:21;) that of Simon’s wife’s mother, (Mark 1:29;) of the impotent man of Bethesda, (John 5:9;) of the man with the withered hand; of the man born blind, (John 9:14;) of the woman with a spirit of infirmity, (Luke 13:14;) of the man who had the dropsy, (Luke 14:2.) We have a general intimation of many more, as at Mark 1:34, and have already observed that the ‘one work’ to which our Lord alludes at John 7:21-23, is perhaps not any of the miracles which he has recorded at length, but one to which we have no other allusion than that contained in these verses.”
Our Lord’s defence of himself for these miracles of mercy on the Sabbath brings from him the enunciation of the great principle, that positive and ceremonial institutions were really established for the highest good of man, and must give way whenever they come in collision with it.
1. At that time — Just after the second passover of Jesus’s ministry. Commentators consider the time of this miracle as being fixed by the parallel passage in Luke 6:1. Luke says it was on the second Sabbath after the first. This peculiar phrase literally interpreted would be “the second-first Sabbath,” which is thus explained: From passover to Pentecost was seven weeks. The customary reckoning of these seven weeks was from the second day after the passover, and the first Sabbath after this second day was called the second-first Sabbath. The passover was in April; a time not too early for the ripening of the barley fields in the better parts of Palestine. The corn — The word corn suggests to an American reader incorrectly the idea of what is called Indian corn, or maize. The word in the text is used in the purely English sense of grain — including wheat, rye, or barley.
Dr. Thomson remarks:
“I have often seen my muleteers, as we passed along the wheat fields, pluck off ears, rub them in their hands, and eat the grains, unroasted, just as the apostles are said to have done. This is allowable. The Pharisees did not object to the thing itself, only to the time when it was done.”
It was lawful to pluck the ears, but not to apply the sickle in the standing corn of one’s neighbour. Deuteronomy 23:25.
Richard Watson
Verses 3, 4. What David did when he was a hungered. — The example to which our Lord here refers in order to silence the Pharisees shows that the case of the disciples was one of real hunger, not to be sustained without faintness and being unfitted for duty, as was that of David and his companions; and the argument is, that the law, rightly understood, never did exclude the consideration of such instances of necessity, and was therefore to be interpreted according to the intention of the Legislator. “The shew-bread” taken by David and his followers, consisted of twelve cakes, which were placed upon the altar of shewbread every Sabbath, the old cakes being at the same time removed and eaten by the priests “in the holy place.”
Or have ye not read in the law, how that on the sabbath days the priests in the temple profane the sabbath, and are blameless?
John Wesley
V. 5. The priests in the temple profane the Sabbath-That is, do their ordinary work on this, as on a common day, cleansing all things, and preparing the sacrifices.
A greater than the temple-If therefore the Sabbath must give way to the temple, much more must it give way to me.
Adam Clarke
Verse 5. The priests-profane the Sabbath] Profane, i.e. put it to what might be called a common use, by slaying and offering up sacrifices, and by doing the services of the temple, as on common days, Exodus 29:38; Numbers 28:9.
Joseph Benson
Verses 5, 6. Have ye not read in the law, &c. — He does not mean that the words following were to be found in the law, but only that they might read in the law, how the priests were obliged, on the sabbath days, to perform such servile work in the temple as, considered separately from the end of it, would have been a profanation of the sabbath, but really was not so, because it was necessary to the public worship of God, on account of which the sabbath was instituted. If it be asked what servile work the priests performed on the sabbath, the answer is obvious. On that day, as well as on other days, they made up the fires, killed, flayed, and dressed the sacrifices, and performed other pieces of manual labour necessary to the religious service which God had established among them. Nay, besides the continual burnt offering, the priests were obliged, on the sabbaths, to sacrifice two lambs extraordinary, by which their servile work was that day double of what it was on the other days of the week. See Numbers 28:9. But in this place is one greater than the temple — As if he had said, “If you reply that the priests were not culpable in those actions, because they were undertaken for the temple service, I acknowledge it; but at the same time I must observe, that if the temple, with its service, is of such importance as to merit a particular dispensation from the law of the sabbath, I and my disciples, whose business of promoting the salvation of men is a matter of more importance, may, on that account, with more reason take the same liberty in a case of the like necessity. According to this interpretation, the reading meizon, a greater work, instead of meizwn, a greater person, which is authorized by many manuscripts, will have a peculiar elegance. Then the sense will be, ‘There is here a much more noble work carrying on than the temple service.’” — Macknight.
Joseph Sutcliffe
Ver. 5. The priests in the temple profane the sabbath, and are blameless. Opening the doors of churches, and lighting candles are not to be regarded as opening the doors of warehouses. The one is purely for God, the other for gain.
Daniel Whedon
5. The priests in the temple profane the sabbath — They perform what, on the reasoning of the Pharisees, would be profanation. The priests on that day killed, flayed, and dressed and burned the sacrifice, and baked the showbread. So that the law of itself made provision for its own profanation, as the Jews of the Saviour’s time construed law. It appears from the passage in 1 Samuel xxi, that it was fresh bread which David ate. But by the law (Leviticus 24:8) the fresh bread was set on the table on the Sabbath. Hence, Alford infers that our Lord might have drawn a double argument from David’s case in regard to the Sabbath. There is something striking in the remark that Jesus, who was king and priest of the new dispensation, draws his justifying example from a king and the priests of the old dispensation.
Richard Watson
Verse 5. The priests in the temple profane the Sabbath, and are blameless. — This was another argument from necessity as connected both with piety and charity. Had the law of the Sabbath been interpreted as rigidly as the Pharisees would have it understood; if “doing no manner of work,” which evidently means work for secular advantage, was to be taken to signify an almost absolute cessation from bodily exertion; then the temple service must have been interrupted; the shewbread could not have been “set in order;” and the regular sacrifices, which were doubled on the Sabbath, could not have been offered. This was an argument which the Pharisees could not resist; for, first, our Lord appeals to the law, “Have ye not read in the law” that sacrifices are commanded to be offered on the Sabbath by the priests? Who must therefore profane the Sabbath; that is, do that which but for this authority, and in respect of the end for which it was done, would have been a profanation; and yet, for those reasons, are blameless. And, second, as they no doubt held the opinion of their more recent doctors, that “the servile works which are done about holy things are not servile;” and that, as Maimonides expresses it, “there is no sabbatism at all in the temple;” so upon their own principles it followed that every work done on the Sabbath was not unlawful. The natural objection which the Pharisees would raise to this argument as intended to justify the disciples, would be, that the priests were exempted from the rest of the Sabbath in the temple, under the authority of Him who was greater than the temple, even God; for they esteemed nothing more holy and venerable than the temple, save God himself. This objection our Lord evidently anticipates in the next verse.
But I say unto you, That in this place is one greater than the temple.
Adam Clarke
Verse 6. In this place is one greater than the temple.] Does not our Lord refer here to Malachi 3:1? Compare this with Hebrews 3:3. The Jews esteemed nothing greater than the temple, except that God who was worshipped in it. Christ, by asserting he was greater than the temple, asserts that he was God; and this he does, in still more direct terms, Matthew 12:8, The Son of man is Lord of the Sabbath-is Institutor and Governor of it. Compare this with Genesis 2:3, and see the notes there.
Joseph Benson
Verses 5, 6. Have ye not read in the law, &c. — He does not mean that the words following were to be found in the law, but only that they might read in the law, how the priests were obliged, on the sabbath days, to perform such servile work in the temple as, considered separately from the end of it, would have been a profanation of the sabbath, but really was not so, because it was necessary to the public worship of God, on account of which the sabbath was instituted. If it be asked what servile work the priests performed on the sabbath, the answer is obvious. On that day, as well as on other days, they made up the fires, killed, flayed, and dressed the sacrifices, and performed other pieces of manual labour necessary to the religious service which God had established among them. Nay, besides the continual burnt offering, the priests were obliged, on the sabbaths, to sacrifice two lambs extraordinary, by which their servile work was that day double of what it was on the other days of the week. See Numbers 28:9. But in this place is one greater than the temple — As if he had said, “If you reply that the priests were not culpable in those actions, because they were undertaken for the temple service, I acknowledge it; but at the same time I must observe, that if the temple, with its service, is of such importance as to merit a particular dispensation from the law of the sabbath, I and my disciples, whose business of promoting the salvation of men is a matter of more importance, may, on that account, with more reason take the same liberty in a case of the like necessity. According to this interpretation, the reading meizon, a greater work, instead of meizwn, a greater person, which is authorized by many manuscripts, will have a peculiar elegance. Then the sense will be, ‘There is here a much more noble work carrying on than the temple service.’” — Macknight.
Daniel Whedon
6. One greater than the temple — And, therefore, able to dispense with temple and ritual sanctities when they come in collision with the object of my mission, or the maintenance of my ministers in the performance of that mission. It in fact adds a force to our Lord’s words, that the word greater is, in the Greek, in the neuter gender. Christ is a greater existence or thing than the temple.
Richard Watson
Verse 6. In this place is one greater than the temple. — Some MSS. read meizon instead of meizwn, which makes the answer of our Lord to be, “a greater work” than the work of the temple is that in which my disciples are employed; and they are therefore entitled to be exempted, as well as the priests, from a strict sabbatical observance. This makes a plausible sense; but the MSS. in which the reading occurs are not of the first authority, and it does not accord with the context. The common reading is therefore to be preferred, and is established indeed by what follows, — “for the Son of man is Lord even of the Sabbath day.” Taking these passages together, they amount to a declaration, that Christ, being greater than the temple, was the Lord of the temple; and therefore God; and, as such, was the “Lord of the Sabbath day,” having authority to institute it, to prescribe the rules of its observance; and to limit and relax them according to his sovereign pleasure. This conclusive argument, therefore, fully exhibited, is, that as you, the Pharisees, acknowledge that only he who is greater than the temple could relax the sabbatical law as to the service of the temple, and on this ground justify the servile works of the priests; I am “greater than the temple,” and, as the “Lord of the Sabbath,” have the right to permit my disciples to pluck the ears of corn and eat them on the Sabbath day; and they, as acting under my authority, like the priests of the temple, are “blameless.” So explicitly does our Lord assert his Divinity! It is, however, to be observed, that our Lord argues here on the concession that the disciples had violated the strict rule of the Sabbath, as charged upon them by the Pharisees. Granting even that, he pronounces them “guiltless,” as acting under his authority as “the Lord of the Sabbath,” the Lawgiver himself; and he seems to have chosen thus to put the argument to give him an opportunity of asserting, in the midst of his lowliness and humility, the glory of his Divine Majesty: but the fact was, that, rightly interpreted, they had not violated the law at all, as he shows by justifying them on the principle, first, of necessity from the example of David, and then of mercy, by his quotation from Hosea 6:6, “I will have mercy, and not sacrifice;” so that on either ground he defended them from the inculpation.
But if ye had known what this meaneth, I will have mercy, and not sacrifice, ye would not have condemned the guiltless.
John Wesley
V. 7. I will have mercy and not sacrifice-That is, when they interfere with each other, I always prefer acts of mercy, before matters of positive institution: yea, before all ceremonial institutions whatever; because these being only means of religion, are suspended of course, if circumstances occur, wherein they clash with love, which is the end of it. Matthew 9:13.
Adam Clarke
Verse 7. I will have mercy, &c.] See this explained, Matthew 9:13. There are four ways in which positive laws may cease to oblige. First, by the natural law of necessity.
Secondly, by a particular law, which is superior. Thirdly, by the law of charity and mercy.
Fourthly, by the dispensation and authority of the Lawgiver. These cases are all exemplified from Matthew 12:4-8.
Joseph Benson
Verses 7, 8. But if ye had known what that meaneth — If ye had known the intent of that scripture, Hosea 6:6, I will have mercy, &c. — That is, I always prefer acts of mercy before matters of positive institution, when in any instance they interfere with each other; and even before all ceremonial institutions whatever; because these being only means of religion, are suspended, of course, if circumstances occur wherein they clash with love, which is the end of it: ye would not have condemned the guiltless — As you have now done, merely for rubbing out a handful of corn to refresh themselves in my service. For the Son of man is Lord even of the sabbath day — The law enjoining the observation of every seventh day as a day of holy rest, as all other laws, is in my power, and may be altered, enforced, or dispensed with, as I see good. My disciples, therefore, are guiltless, were it only on this account, that they act by my authority, and attend on me in my ministry, as the priests attended on God in the temple. This expression, is Lord even of the sabbath, evidently implies, that the sabbath was an institution of great and distinguished importance. It may, perhaps, also refer to that signal act of authority which Christ afterward exerted over it, in changing it from the seventh to the first day of the week. If we suppose here a transposition of the seventh and eighth verses, then the eighth verse is a proof of the sixth.
Daniel Whedon
7. I will have — I require of men the performance of mercy. And not sacrifice — Not sacrifice, or ceremonial performances, as a substitute for the performance of moral duties. It is useless to profess to be a pious man, without being an honest, just, and good man.
Richard Watson
Verse 7. I will have mercy, and not sacrifice. — That is, when the claims of the one come into competition with those of the other. The last argument was peculiarly reproving to the Pharisees, who shamefully relaxed the laws of morality by their subtle interpretations, and set themselves at liberty to commit acts of rapacity and cruelty under the colour of sanctity and zeal, while they gave a proportionably rigid interpretation to every rule which respected external and ceremonial observances. This is a hypocrisy in which they have been often followed; for many in all Churches and in all ages have been found zealous for forms just in proportion as they have been regardless of practical holiness. Such are “the refuges of lies” into which the wilfully deluded consciences of men often fly for shelter; but from all which they must sooner or later be dragged by the “light which makes all things manifest.” See notes on Mark 2:23-28.
For the Son of man is Lord even of the sabbath day.
John Wesley
V. 8. For the Son of man-Therefore they are guiltless, were it only on this account, that they act by my authority, and attend on me in my ministry, as the priests attended on God in the temple:
is Lord even of the Sabbath-This certainly implies, that the Sabbath was an institution of great and distinguished importance; it may perhaps also refer to that signal act of authority which Christ afterward exerted over it, in changing it from the seventh to the first day of the week. If we suppose here is a transposition of the 7th and 8th verses, then the 8th verse is a proof of the 6th. Matthew 12:7, 8, 6.
Adam Clarke
Verse 8. The Son of man is Lord even of the Sabbath-day.] The change of the Jewish into the Christian Sabbath, called the Lord’s day, Revelation 1:10, shows that Christ is not only the Lord, but also the truth and completion of it. For it seems to have been by an especial providence that this change has been made and acknowledged all over the Christian world.
Joseph Benson
Verses 7, 8. But if ye had known what that meaneth — If ye had known the intent of that scripture, Hosea 6:6, I will have mercy, &c. — That is, I always prefer acts of mercy before matters of positive institution, when in any instance they interfere with each other; and even before all ceremonial institutions whatever; because these being only means of religion, are suspended, of course, if circumstances occur wherein they clash with love, which is the end of it: ye would not have condemned the guiltless — As you have now done, merely for rubbing out a handful of corn to refresh themselves in my service. For the Son of man is Lord even of the sabbath day — The law enjoining the observation of every seventh day as a day of holy rest, as all other laws, is in my power, and may be altered, enforced, or dispensed with, as I see good. My disciples, therefore, are guiltless, were it only on this account, that they act by my authority, and attend on me in my ministry, as the priests attended on God in the temple. This expression, is Lord even of the sabbath, evidently implies, that the sabbath was an institution of great and distinguished importance. It may, perhaps, also refer to that signal act of authority which Christ afterward exerted over it, in changing it from the seventh to the first day of the week. If we suppose here a transposition of the seventh and eighth verses, then the eighth verse is a proof of the sixth.
Daniel Whedon
8. Lord even of the sabbath day — As the Lord said, in the sixth verse, that he was greater than the temple, now he affirms himself greater than the statute law of Moses; nay, he is greater than the Sabbath law established by God at the creation. Thus does he maintain himself to be the incarnate Legislator of the world, He is truly God manifest in the flesh. Our Lord here asserts his high dignity in order to silence the murmurings of the Jews at his assuming to change the fundamental interpretations of the law. But may we not also believe that he here hints as Lord of the Sabbath, that some change would be made in its observance under the new dispensation of the Son of man?
In regard to the Sabbath we may here observe,
1. There is good proof that it was established on the day of the holy rest of God, at the end of the creative week. That day was the first Sabbath, just as that week was the first week. This Sabbath formed a part of the patriarchal religion, and was adopted with the great body of the patriarchal system into the law of Moses. Yet under Moses much that was specially Jewish was overlaid upon the original Sabbath, so that a double Sabbath, as it were, existed on the same day.
2. The decalogue, which is of perpetual validity, commands the observance of one day in seven as Sabbath or rest, (for rest is the meaning of the word Sabbath,) but lays down no unchangeable law as to the particular day.
3. After the resurrection of Christ the Jewish Sabbath, which was laid upon the primitive Sabbath, was abolished, and “the Lord’s day,” (Revelation 1:10,) or Christian Sabbath, was superimposed upon another day. Thus the Christian Sabbath, being the same as the decalogue Sabbath, or the creation Sabbath, is of perpetual obligation and universal observance.
4. That Sunday is the “Lord’s day,” is clear from early Christian history; that it is the weekly holy day of the Christian dispensation is clear, because this day is alone mentioned as a sacred day after the resurrection; it is not identical with the overlaid Jewish Sabbaths, for they are abolished. It is, therefore, by necessity identical with the universal creational Sabbath, which is perpetual in its obligations.
§ 34. — WITHERED HAND RESTORED, 9-21.
And when he was departed thence, he went into their synagogue:
And, behold, there was a man which had his hand withered. And they asked him, saying, Is it lawful to heal on the sabbath days? that they might accuse him.
Adam Clarke
Verse 10. A man which had his hand withered.] Probably through a partial paralysis. The man’s hand was withered; but God’s mercy had still preserved to him the use of his feet: He uses them to bring him to the public worship of God, and Jesus meets and heals him there. How true is the proverb-It is never so ill with us, but it might be much worse!
Joseph Benson
Verse 10. There was a man which had his hand withered — The nerves and sinews of it being shrunk up, so that it was entirely useless. And they — Namely, the scribes and Pharisees, who had either mixed with the crowd that followed Jesus, or were in the synagogue before he came; asked him, saying, Is it lawful to heal on the sabbath day? — They made this inquiry merely that they might find matter whereon to ground an accusation against him. For they fully expected he would say that it was lawful, in opposition to the doctrine of their learned men, who accounted performing cures on the sabbath a violation of the holy rest of that day. Accordingly Mark says, They watched him whether he would heal, &c. — So gross was their hypocrisy, that they resolved to raise an outcry against him, if on the sabbath he should give a lame man the use of his hand, while they themselves were profaning it by an action which would have polluted any day; were seeking an opportunity to murder one who had never done them any harm, but had been and was incessantly doing them good!
Daniel Whedon
10. His hand withered — A case of paralysis, by which the hand was shrunken away, and the nerves of motion had become incapable of action. This has ever been regarded as an incurable disease. They asked him — Luke informs us that they were watching our Lord’s movements that they might be able to accuse him of breaking the Sabbath. That they might accuse him — The position of the minds of the accusers of our Lord was peculiar and strange. They did not doubt that he was about to work a miracle; they expected it. But they are intending to make out that his miracles are contrary to the divine law, and so immoral. They would then have some ground for saying that he worked miracles by a diabolical power; which charge they did soon begin to make.
Richard Watson
Verse 10. Is it lawful to heal on the Sabbath day? — This was a question debated among the Jews; and many distinctions were set up as to the cases in which medicine might be lawfully prescribed, and those in which it would involve a breach of the Sabbath. The more rigid of the school of Shammai utterly forbade any attentions being paid to the sick on the Sabbath. The general opinion probably was, that to administer medicine was unlawful, except in imminent danger of life. This debated question, therefore, respecting the lawfulness of healing on the Sabbath, was put to our Lord in the synagogue, with the desire of obtaining matter of accusation against him; for as it arose out of the circumstance of a man being present in the synagogue who had a “withered” or paralytic hand, here was a case in which there was no immediate danger of life, and should he heal him he might be proceeded against in their courts as a Sabbath- breaker.
And he said unto them, What man shall there be among you, that shall have one sheep, and if it fall into a pit on the sabbath day, will he not lay hold on it, and lift it out?
Adam Clarke
Verse 11. If it fall into a pit on the Sabbath-day, &c.] It was a canon among the Jews: “We must take a tender care of the goods of an Israelite.” Hence:-
“If a beast fall into a ditch, or into a pool of water, let (the owner) bring him food in that place if he can; but, if he cannot, let him bring clothes and litter, and bear up the beast; whence, if he can come up, let him come up, &c.”
“If a beast or its foal fall into a ditch on a holy day, R. Lazar saith, Let him lift up the former to kill him, and let him kill him; but let him give fodder to the other, lest he die in that place. R. Joshua saith, Let him lift up the former with the intention of killing him, although he kill him not; let him lift up the other also, although it be not in his mind to kill him.” To these canons our Lord seems here very properly to appeal, in vindication of his intention to heal the distressed man. See Lightfoot.
Self-interest is a very decisive casuist, and removes abundance of scruples in a moment. It is always the first consulted, and the must readily obeyed. It is not sinful to hearken to it, but it must not govern nor determine by itself.
Joseph Benson
Verses 11-13. And he said — That he might show their unreasonableness, and confute them by their own practice: What man — that shall have — Or, Who, if he have but one sheep, that on the sabbath day shall fall into a pit, and it be in danger of perishing there, will not lay hold on it, &c. — The stress of the question does not lie on supposing a man to have only one sheep, but on one only falling into a pit; and yet, for the comparatively small value of that one, his not scrupling to undertake the labour of helping it out on the sabbath day. How much then is a man better than a sheep? As if he had said, If the regard you have for the life of your cattle leads you to do servile work on the sabbath, for the preservation of a single sheep, charity should much rather induce you to labour for the preservation of a fellow-creature, though the good office is to be done on the sabbath day. Wherefore it is lawful to do well — To save a beast, much more a man, or to perform any of the lovely acts of mercy and charity on the sabbath day. Our Lord, having spoken as above, according to St. Mark 3:5, looked round about upon them with anger, with a holy indignation at their wickedness, being grieved for the hardness of their hearts, for their stupidity and impenitence, and for that condemnation and ruin which he knew they were thus bringing on themselves, as well as for the pernicious effect which their conduct would have on others. But at the same time that he testified his displeasure at the Pharisees, he relieved and comforted the infirm man, saying to him, Stretch forth thy hand, and, a divine power accompanying the word, he immediately stretched it out, and, in an instant, it was made sound as the other. The evangelists say no more; but leave their readers to imagine the wonder and astonishment of the numerous spectators, and the joy of the man who had recovered the use of so necessary a member.
Daniel Whedon
11. And he said — Our Lord proceeds to answer them by showing, from their own practice, that deeds of necessary mercy did not infringe the Sabbath day. Pit — Cisterns dug in the earth for the purpose of water, into which animals often fell. It is said by Stier, that the Jews (probably in consequence of these words of our Saviour) were afterward accustomed to cover these pits with planks. Our Lord here does not merely convict the Jews on their own ground. He proves by this example, again, that they are making the preceptive law war against the law of universal benevolence.
How much then is a man better than a sheep? Wherefore it is lawful to do well on the sabbath days.
John Wesley
V. 12. It is lawful to do good on the Sabbath day-To save a beast, much more a man.
Adam Clarke
Verse 12. How much then is a man better than a sheep?] Our Lord’s argument is what is called argumentum ad hominem; they are taken on their own ground, and confuted on their own maxims and conduct. There are many persons who call themselves Christians, who do more for a beast of burden or pleasure than they do for a man for whom Christ died! Many spend that on coursers, spaniels, and hounds, of which multitudes of the followers of Christ are destitute:-but this also shall come to judgment. Wherefore, it is lawful to do well, &c.] This was allowed by a multitude of Jewish canons. See Schoettgen.
Joseph Benson
Verses 11-13. And he said — That he might show their unreasonableness, and confute them by their own practice: What man — that shall have — Or, Who, if he have but one sheep, that on the sabbath day shall fall into a pit, and it be in danger of perishing there, will not lay hold on it, &c. — The stress of the question does not lie on supposing a man to have only one sheep, but on one only falling into a pit; and yet, for the comparatively small value of that one, his not scrupling to undertake the labour of helping it out on the sabbath day. How much then is a man better than a sheep? As if he had said, If the regard you have for the life of your cattle leads you to do servile work on the sabbath, for the preservation of a single sheep, charity should much rather induce you to labour for the preservation of a fellow-creature, though the good office is to be done on the sabbath day. Wherefore it is lawful to do well — To save a beast, much more a man, or to perform any of the lovely acts of mercy and charity on the sabbath day. Our Lord, having spoken as above, according to St. Mark 3:5, looked round about upon them with anger, with a holy indignation at their wickedness, being grieved for the hardness of their hearts, for their stupidity and impenitence, and for that condemnation and ruin which he knew they were thus bringing on themselves, as well as for the pernicious effect which their conduct would have on others. But at the same time that he testified his displeasure at the Pharisees, he relieved and comforted the infirm man, saying to him, Stretch forth thy hand, and, a divine power accompanying the word, he immediately stretched it out, and, in an instant, it was made sound as the other. The evangelists say no more; but leave their readers to imagine the wonder and astonishment of the numerous spectators, and the joy of the man who had recovered the use of so necessary a member.
Daniel Whedon
12. A man better than a sheep — By as much as a man is better than a brute, by so much is it more justifiable to heal this man than to rescue your cattle.
The physician performs his work of preserving health and life rightfully on the Sabbath day; though a conscientious one will allow his profession to interfere as little as possible with his Sabbath duties. And so, though it is not lawful to employ the day in making property, it may be lawful to prevent destruction, as in case of fire.
Richard Watson
Verse 12. How much better is a man than a sheep? &c. — It was held lawful to save their cattle from injury or destruction on the Sabbath: by how much, therefore, a man is better than a sheep, argues our Lord, so much more was it a duty to relieve a human being from pain and infirmity. Wherefore it is lawful to do well, kalwv poiein, to confer benefits, on the Sabbath days, evidently meaning on the sick and infirm; and thus our Lord attacked a heartless superstition, by determining the lawfulness of healing or administering medicine to the sick, and paying them all attentions necessary to the alleviation of their case, on the Sabbath. In confirmation of his decision he healed the man with the withered hand, in the presence of all who were present in the synagogue, although he was in no immediate danger of life: he might be in pain, he was at least oppressed by an infirmity; and that was a sufficient reason for giving him instant relief.
Then saith he to the man, Stretch forth thine hand. And he stretched it forth; and it was restored whole, like as the other.
Adam Clarke
Verse 13. Stretch forth thine hand.] The bare command of God is a sufficient reason of obedience. This man might have reasoned thus: “Lord, my hand is withered; how then can I stretch it out? Make it whole first, and afterwards I will do as thou commandest.” This may appear reasonable, but in his case it would have been foolishness. At the command of the Lord he made the effort, and in making it the cure was effected! Faith disregards apparent impossibilities, where there is a command and promise of God. The effort to believe is, often, that faith by which the soul is healed. A little before (Matthew 12:6, 8) Jesus Christ had asserted his Godhead, in this verse he proves it. What but the omnipotence of the living God could have, in a moment, restored this withered hand? There could be no collusion here; the man who had a real disease was instantaneously and therefore miraculously cured; and the mercy and power of God were both amply manifested in this business.
It is worthy of remark, that as the man was healed with a word, without even a touch, the Sabbath was unbroken, even according to their most rigid interpretation of the letter of the law.
Joseph Benson
Verses 11-13. And he said — That he might show their unreasonableness, and confute them by their own practice: What man — that shall have — Or, Who, if he have but one sheep, that on the sabbath day shall fall into a pit, and it be in danger of perishing there, will not lay hold on it, &c. — The stress of the question does not lie on supposing a man to have only one sheep, but on one only falling into a pit; and yet, for the comparatively small value of that one, his not scrupling to undertake the labour of helping it out on the sabbath day. How much then is a man better than a sheep? As if he had said, If the regard you have for the life of your cattle leads you to do servile work on the sabbath, for the preservation of a single sheep, charity should much rather induce you to labour for the preservation of a fellow-creature, though the good office is to be done on the sabbath day. Wherefore it is lawful to do well — To save a beast, much more a man, or to perform any of the lovely acts of mercy and charity on the sabbath day. Our Lord, having spoken as above, according to St. Mark 3:5, looked round about upon them with anger, with a holy indignation at their wickedness, being grieved for the hardness of their hearts, for their stupidity and impenitence, and for that condemnation and ruin which he knew they were thus bringing on themselves, as well as for the pernicious effect which their conduct would have on others. But at the same time that he testified his displeasure at the Pharisees, he relieved and comforted the infirm man, saying to him, Stretch forth thy hand, and, a divine power accompanying the word, he immediately stretched it out, and, in an instant, it was made sound as the other. The evangelists say no more; but leave their readers to imagine the wonder and astonishment of the numerous spectators, and the joy of the man who had recovered the use of so necessary a member.
Joseph Sutcliffe
Ver. 13. Stretch forth thine hand. This was done in a synagogue. The Saviour would not let this man go without a cure, though the eyes of the pharisees were watching him for evil. A fine model for us to follow. The gospel of the Nazarenes and Ebionites makes him say, “I was a lapidary, and by that employment got my living. I beseech thee, Jesus, to restore my hand, that I may not be reduced to the degrading condition of begging my bread.” This seems to have induced the rulers to ask, whether it was lawful to heal on the sabbath day. Now Jesus, that he might not provoke them, explained the liberty of the sabbath to help a beast out of a pit, and then without touching the man, he said, Stretch forth thy hand. Oh my soul, maimed and impotent with sin, dost thou say, I cannot stretch forth my hand? Try, try in the strength of the Lord. Thou canst not tell without trial, what the power of grace can enable thee to do.
Daniel Whedon
13. Stretch forth thine hand — Our Lord here commanded an intrinsically impossible act. Yet the volition or will to stretch forth was not impossible. And when the will was exerted, power to accomplish was granted. When men say that they cannot obey the will of God, because God’s Spirit does not operate upon them, let them know that a graciously bestowed power from God is conferred on all, through the atonement, to will to obey, if they will use it. And as they proceed onward in the effort to obey, they will find divine strength supplied when needed and used. Let them truly exert, in the spirit of this man’s faith, their graciously conferred powers, as Christ’s Gospel directs, and they will find their powers energized and recreated.
Then the Pharisees went out, and held a council against him, how they might destroy him.
Adam Clarke
Verse 14. Held a council against him] Nothing sooner leads to utter blindness, and hardness of heart, than envy. There are many who abandon themselves to pleasure-taking and debauchery on the Sabbath, who condemn a poor man whom necessity obliges to work on what is termed a holiday, or a national fast.
Joseph Benson
Verses 14, 15. Then the Pharisees went out, and held a council against him — They were so incensed at the affront which they imagined they had received, in our Lord’s neglecting their censure, and intimating his knowledge of the evil purposes of their hearts, (Luke 6:8,) that they were no longer able to bear the place, and therefore withdrew. Luke says, They were filled with madness, and communed with one another what they might do to Jesus; or, as Matthew and Mark express it, how they might destroy him. Being as little able to find fault with the miracle, as they had been to answer the argument by which Jesus justified his performing it on the sabbath day, they were filled with such diabolical rage, that they acted like downright madmen. They could not but be sensible of the greatness of the miracle, and, perhaps, were convinced of the truth of his mission who had performed it; but their wrath, on account of his having violated their precepts concerning the sabbath, and their other evil passions, pushed them on to such a pitch of extravagance, that they went away and joined counsel with their inveterate enemies, the Herodians, or Sadducees, (Mark 3:6,) in order to have him taken out of the way; for they found it was not in their power otherwise to keep the people from being impressed with his doctrine and miracles. This, it must be observed, is the first time that mention is made of a design on our Saviour’s life. Thus, “while the eyes of distressed multitudes were turned to Christ as their only physician and most valuable friend, the eyes of these Pharisees were continually upon him for evil: and they beheld his miracles, not for their own conviction, but that they might, if possible, turn them into the means of his destruction. So ineffectual are the most obvious and demonstrative arguments, till divine grace conquer men’s natural aversion to the Redeemer’s kingdom, and captivate their hearts to the obedience of the faith! To have reviled and dishonoured Christ, and to have endeavoured to prevent the success of his ministry, would have been a daring crime: but these desperate wretches conspire against his life; and, different as their principles and interests were, form a transient friendship, to be cemented by his blood. Blessed Jesus! well mightest thou say, Many good works have I shown you, and for which of them would you murder me?” — Doddridge. But, when Jesus knew it — Or rather, Jesus, knowing it, withdrew himself from thence, in order that nothing might hinder him from fulfilling his ministry. It appears from Mark
3. that he retired into Galilee, where he preached and wrought miracles as privately as possible, that he might avoid giving offence. His fame, however, was now so great that vast multitudes gathered round him there, among whom were many who, having seen or heard of the miracle on the infirm man at Bethesda, (John 5.,) and on the withered hand in the synagogue, followed him from Jerusalem and Judea. And he healed them all — That is, all that had need of healing. By this it appears, that it was not mere curiosity that drew together this immense multitude. Many, no doubt, were moved by that principle, but others came to him to be healed of their infirmities and diseases, and others again to hear and be instructed by his divine discourses.
Daniel Whedon
14. Then the Pharisees went out — They were determined not to admit the defence which they could not confute, and were bent upon using the act to charge our Lord’s miracles to a diabolical source.
Held a council — Mark says that the Pharisees at this council called in the aid of the Herodians. These were the partisans of Herod, who maintained the rightfulness of the Roman dominion over Judea, and the propriety of introducing Greek and Roman customs among the Jews. Thus did these sticklers for the law of Moses unite with its bold political subverters in order to accomplish their designs against Jesus. Little sincere surely could have been their burning zeal for that Sabbath and the law at the moment they were plotting thus with the overthrowers of both.
Richard Watson
Verse 14. Held a council how they might destroy him. — Sumboulion elabon, they took counsel, or consulted together, when they had left the synagogue. They might probably advise how they might found a charge of blasphemy upon his having declared himself “greater than the temple,” and “the Lord of the Sabbath day;” but as the violator of the Sabbath was equally liable as the blasphemer to be punished with death, they would also endeavour to interpret the act of healing, in a case where no immediate danger of life was manifest, into this capital offence. That our Lord felt himself in danger from them, is plain from his departure to another place. There also, however, multitudes, still unperverted by the scribes and Pharisees, followed him; and he healed them all, that is, all the sick they brought out to him. See the notes on Mark 3:1-6.
But when Jesus knew it, he withdrew himself from thence: and great multitudes followed him, and he healed them all;
Adam Clarke
Verse 15. Jesus-withdrew himself from thence] It is the part of prudence and Christian charity not to provoke, if possible, the blind and the hardened; and to take from them the occasion of sin. A man of God is not afraid of persecution; but, as his aim is only to do good, by proclaiming every where the grace of the Lord Jesus, he departs from any place when he finds the obstacles to the accomplishment of his end are, humanly speaking, invincible, and that he can not do good without being the means of much evil. Yield to the stream when you cannot stem it. Great multitudes followed him, and he healed them all] The rejection of the Gospel in one place has often been the means of sending it to and establishing it in another. Jesus healed all that followed him, i.e. all who had need of healing, and who desired to be healed; for thus the passage must be understood:- and is he not still the same? No soul shall ever implore his healing power in vain; but let it be remembered, that only those who follow Christ, and apply to him, are healed of their spiritual maladies.
Joseph Benson
Verses 14, 15. Then the Pharisees went out, and held a council against him — They were so incensed at the affront which they imagined they had received, in our Lord’s neglecting their censure, and intimating his knowledge of the evil purposes of their hearts, (Luke 6:8,) that they were no longer able to bear the place, and therefore withdrew. Luke says, They were filled with madness, and communed with one another what they might do to Jesus; or, as Matthew and Mark express it, how they might destroy him. Being as little able to find fault with the miracle, as they had been to answer the argument by which Jesus justified his performing it on the sabbath day, they were filled with such diabolical rage, that they acted like downright madmen. They could not but be sensible of the greatness of the miracle, and, perhaps, were convinced of the truth of his mission who had performed it; but their wrath, on account of his having violated their precepts concerning the sabbath, and their other evil passions, pushed them on to such a pitch of extravagance, that they went away and joined counsel with their inveterate enemies, the Herodians, or Sadducees, (Mark 3:6,) in order to have him taken out of the way; for they found it was not in their power otherwise to keep the people from being impressed with his doctrine and miracles. This, it must be observed, is the first time that mention is made of a design on our Saviour’s life. Thus, “while the eyes of distressed multitudes were turned to Christ as their only physician and most valuable friend, the eyes of these Pharisees were continually upon him for evil: and they beheld his miracles, not for their own conviction, but that they might, if possible, turn them into the means of his destruction. So ineffectual are the most obvious and demonstrative arguments, till divine grace conquer men’s natural aversion to the Redeemer’s kingdom, and captivate their hearts to the obedience of the faith! To have reviled and dishonoured Christ, and to have endeavoured to prevent the success of his ministry, would have been a daring crime: but these desperate wretches conspire against his life; and, different as their principles and interests were, form a transient friendship, to be cemented by his blood. Blessed Jesus! well mightest thou say, Many good works have I shown you, and for which of them would you murder me?” — Doddridge. But, when Jesus knew it — Or rather, Jesus, knowing it, withdrew himself from thence, in order that nothing might hinder him from fulfilling his ministry. It appears from Mark
3. that he retired into Galilee, where he preached and wrought miracles as privately as possible, that he might avoid giving offence. His fame, however, was now so great that vast multitudes gathered round him there, among whom were many who, having seen or heard of the miracle on the infirm man at Bethesda, (John 5.,) and on the withered hand in the synagogue, followed him from Jerusalem and Judea. And he healed them all — That is, all that had need of healing. By this it appears, that it was not mere curiosity that drew together this immense multitude. Many, no doubt, were moved by that principle, but others came to him to be healed of their infirmities and diseases, and others again to hear and be instructed by his divine discourses.
And charged them that they should not make him known:
Adam Clarke
Verse 16. Charged them that they should not make him known] See Matthew 8:4. Jesus Christ, as GOD, could have easily concealed himself, but he chooses to do it as man, and to use no other than human means, as these were quite sufficient for the purpose, to teach us not to neglect them in our necessity. Indeed, he always used his power less on his own account, than on that of men.
Joseph Benson
Verses 16-21. And charged them that they should not make him known — Partly that he might avoid the envy and rage of his persecutors, and partly because the time was not yet come for him to declare himself openly to be the Messiah. That it might be fulfilled, &c. — Here the evangelist assigns another reason why the Lord Jesus prosecuted his ministry in this humble, meek, quiet, and unostentatious way: it was, that he might fulfil Isaiah’s prophecy, Isaiah 42:1-4, in which it was foretold that he should conduct himself in this manner. It must be observed, that the passage here referred to is not quoted exactly according to the Hebrew original, the evangelist contenting himself with giving us the substance of it in a contracted form: nor is it quoted according to the version of the LXX., who have given but a very indifferent interpretation of it. He shall show judgment — The word krisiv, judgment, here used by Matthew, answers to fpVm, in the prophet, a word which, in the Old Testament, is often put for the laws of God in general. And by Christ’s showing judgment to the Gentiles, is evidently meant his declaring the laws of religion, the eternal rules of righteousness, or the will of his heavenly Father, not only to the single nation of the Jews, but also, and especially, to the Gentile nation. He shall not strive, nor cry, &c. — He shall not be contentious, noisy, or ostentatious; but gentle, quiet, and lowly. A bruised reed shall he not break — Such as are convinced of their sinfulness and guilt, and bruised under the weight thereof. Smoking flax shall he not quench — The least good desire, the faintest spark of grace. He alludes to the wick of a lamp when it is first beginning to kindle, and is put out by any little motion. Till he send forth judgment unto victory — Till he make righteousness completely victorious over all its enemies. And in his name, that is, in him, shall the Gentiles trust, for salvation, present and eternal. See notes on Isaiah 42:1; where the original passage is explained at large.
Joseph Sutcliffe
Ver. 16. He charged them that they should not make him known. The healed having, no doubt, confessed him to be the Messiah, the Lord did not choose to be made known to the infidel sanhedrim. Fenelon says, that Mentor, or Minerva, did not choose to be known to Calypso.
Daniel Whedon
16. Charged them… not make him known — Our Lord is now sensible that his enemies are aroused. His deeds of goodness must be in secret. He who came to save men must hide his benefactions from the eyes of men. See note on Matthew 8:4.
Richard Watson
Verse 16. And charged them, that they should not make him known. — That is, that they should not declare him to be the person who had healed them; that they should not, as others had done, fill the country with his fame, and excite greater attention to him; but should quietly retire home, giving thanks indeed to God, but being silent before men. This was not enjoined either to disarm the rage of the Pharisees, as some have supposed, or, as others, to prevent their adding to their sins by avoiding all excitements to these renewed efforts to persecute and destroy him; but, as the application of the following prophecy shows, out of pure dislike to that clamorous and tumultuous popularity which everywhere followed him, and which he took every means, consistent with his public usefulness, to repress.
That it might be fulfilled which was spoken by Esaias the prophet, saying,
Joseph Benson
Verses 16-21. And charged them that they should not make him known — Partly that he might avoid the envy and rage of his persecutors, and partly because the time was not yet come for him to declare himself openly to be the Messiah. That it might be fulfilled, &c. — Here the evangelist assigns another reason why the Lord Jesus prosecuted his ministry in this humble, meek, quiet, and unostentatious way: it was, that he might fulfil Isaiah’s prophecy, Isaiah 42:1-4, in which it was foretold that he should conduct himself in this manner. It must be observed, that the passage here referred to is not quoted exactly according to the Hebrew original, the evangelist contenting himself with giving us the substance of it in a contracted form: nor is it quoted according to the version of the LXX., who have given but a very indifferent interpretation of it. He shall show judgment — The word krisiv, judgment, here used by Matthew, answers to fpVm, in the prophet, a word which, in the Old Testament, is often put for the laws of God in general. And by Christ’s showing judgment to the Gentiles, is evidently meant his declaring the laws of religion, the eternal rules of righteousness, or the will of his heavenly Father, not only to the single nation of the Jews, but also, and especially, to the Gentile nation. He shall not strive, nor cry, &c. — He shall not be contentious, noisy, or ostentatious; but gentle, quiet, and lowly. A bruised reed shall he not break — Such as are convinced of their sinfulness and guilt, and bruised under the weight thereof. Smoking flax shall he not quench — The least good desire, the faintest spark of grace. He alludes to the wick of a lamp when it is first beginning to kindle, and is put out by any little motion. Till he send forth judgment unto victory — Till he make righteousness completely victorious over all its enemies. And in his name, that is, in him, shall the Gentiles trust, for salvation, present and eternal. See notes on Isaiah 42:1; where the original passage is explained at large.
Daniel Whedon
17. By Esaias the prophet — The evangelist considers this quietude of our Lord as going to fulfil Isaiah 43:1-4, a passage in which the Messiah is described, under the image of one of the ancient Hebrew judges, as establishing righteousness in the earth by the most silent and spiritual means and influences. It predicted these things:
1. That the Messiah should come from God, as his minister and servant. 2. That his own personal character should be of the most mild and gentle kind. 3. He should be most tender in his dealings. 4. He should give victory to truth and righteousness in the world. 5. That not only Jews, but Gentiles should trust in his name. This prophecy, be it remembered, was delivered centuries before our Lord’s birth, and was applied by the early Jews to the coming of the Messiah.
Richard Watson
Verse 17. That it might be fulfilled, &c. — On the authority of the inspired evangelist we are taught that this prophecy had a direct reference to the Messiah, and was truly fulfilled in our Lord. From it we learn that the Messiah was God’s chosen servant; his beloved, in whom he is well pleased; that he was anointed of the Holy Ghost, I will put my Spirit upon him; that he should show judgment, that is, make a revelation of truth, for the word signifies a body of doctrine, not only to the Jews, but also to the Gentiles; and that in his name the Gentiles should trust, should rely upon him for salvation, and find it in him. Now it was necessary that some marks should be exhibited by which the great personage who was appointed to confer such benefits should be known when he appeared upon earth, and these the prophecy distinctly sets forth. The first is the humble and unostentatious manner in which he should fulfil his great ministry: “He shall not strive, nor cry” in vehement contention with his opposers in support of his claims; neither shall any man hear his voice in the streets, in loud and boastful proclamation of them. The second mark is his tender condescension to the weak, the afflicted, and the lowly: A bruised reed shall he not break, and the smoking flax shall he not quench. To these particulars, inserted in the prophecy on purpose to make the Messiah manifest to the attentive observer when he should in fact appear, our Lord’s conduct so strikingly corresponded, and in so natural and unaffected a manner that this agreement proves that he was the person intended in the prophecy. A dignified humility, an entire deadness to human applause, and the meekest submission to his whole appointed course of reproach and calumny, are among the most obvious traits of his character as a public teacher; and whether we take the beautiful figures which are employed by the prophet to illustrate his tenderness, as representations of the bodily or mental infirmities and afflictions of men, the application is equally convincing. Their first application to the corporal infirmities and almost expiring life of those our Lord healed, is obvious; but still more emphatically, the bruised reed is the emblem of the sorrow under which the spirit bows, as a reed which when bruised can no longer stand erect; hence, “to hang down the head like a bulrush,” or reed, has become proverbial. The smoking expiring wick of the lamp, requiring a fresh supply of oil, represents the almost expiring state of the light of the truth in the minds of the Jewish people, approaching utter extinction, and calling for immediate attention to excite the flickering dying flame: both the figures too are taken from mean and common things, to indicate that the persons represented were precisely those whom the Jewish teachers most despised, the poor and humble. How many such characters came to Jesus during his sojourn on earth for help and deliverance! and which of them ever applied in vain? Bruised spirits, bent down by a sense of sin, or a weight of bodily suffering, and often both, were the objects of his special compassion; and innumerable were the monuments which he left throughout the land of his prompt and effectual pity. Nor with less sympathy did he regard the ignorance of a neglected people, in danger of having the last ray of truth extinguished in their minds from the want of proper instructers. In every docile and inquiring mind he trimmed the lamp of the understanding; and amid all the fogs and vapours of prejudices, which rendered the communication of truth difficult in itself, and trying to the patience of the teacher, as the kindling of a lamp where the wick is faulty and the atmosphere foul, he kindled that light which “guided their feet into the way of peace,” and rendered many of them the guides of their nation and the world into the way of salvation. To our blessed Lord alone these characters belong, and they prove that the whole prophecy had respect to him. To apply it, as some have done, to Cyrus, or to the nation of Israel, has not the slightest plausibility; for of neither can any one of its particulars be affirmed, even in a primary and inferior sense. The Chaldee paraphrast and several of the Jewish writers regard it as spoken wholly to the Messiah; and “to no other person whatever,” says Bishop Lowth, “can it with any justice or propriety be applied.” St. Matthew’s quotation differs from the Septuagint, but agrees with the Hebrew, in all but two clauses. “Till he have set forth judgment in the earth,” is, in the evangelist, till he send forth judgment unto victory. The sense is, however, the same; for to SET or establish judgment in the earth, and to bring forth or lead on judgment to victory, each obviously refers to the triumphs of his doctrine, cpvm, the truth he reveals; for in the Old Testament it is used for the laws of God, his Divine laws and institutions, which should PREVAIL at length over all nations, through that very compassion and tenderness which brought under their influence so many of his own people, and trained them up to instruct others. And in his name shall the Gentiles trust, is, in Isaiah, “And the isles shall wait for his law.” The evangelist here agrees with the Septuagint, which takes the isles, in an extensive sense, for any Gentiles, however distant; and to wait for, in the sense of to hope or trust, which the Hebrew word justifies. Thus the difference is only apparent, and arises from translation only.
Behold my servant, whom I have chosen; my beloved, in whom my soul is well pleased: I will put my spirit upon him, and he shall shew judgment to the Gentiles.
John Wesley
V. 18. He shall show judgment to the heathens-That is, he shall publish the merciful Gospel to them also: the Hebrew word signifies either mercy or justice. Isaiah 42:1, &c.
Adam Clarke
Verse 18. Behold my servant] This title was given to our blessed Lord in several prophecies. See Isaiah 42:1; 53:2. Christ assumes it, Psalms 40:7Psalm 40:7-9. Compare these with John 17:4, and <502007> Philippians 2:7. God required an acceptable and perfect service from man; but man, being sinful, could not perform it. Jesus, taking upon him the nature of man, fully performed the whole will of God, and communicates grace to all his followers, to enable them perfectly to love and worthily to magnify their Maker.
And he shall show judgment to the Gentiles.] That is, He will publish the Gospel to the heathens; for the word krisin here answers to the word cpvm mishpat of the prophet, and it is used among the Hebrews to signify laws, precepts, and a whole system or body of doctrine. See Psalms 19:9Psalm 19:9; 119:30, 39; Isaiah 58:2.
Joseph Benson
Verses 16-21. And charged them that they should not make him known — Partly that he might avoid the envy and rage of his persecutors, and partly because the time was not yet come for him to declare himself openly to be the Messiah. That it might be fulfilled, &c. — Here the evangelist assigns another reason why the Lord Jesus prosecuted his ministry in this humble, meek, quiet, and unostentatious way: it was, that he might fulfil Isaiah’s prophecy, Isaiah 42:1-4, in which it was foretold that he should conduct himself in this manner. It must be observed, that the passage here referred to is not quoted exactly according to the Hebrew original, the evangelist contenting himself with giving us the substance of it in a contracted form: nor is it quoted according to the version of the LXX., who have given but a very indifferent interpretation of it. He shall show judgment — The word krisiv, judgment, here used by Matthew, answers to fpVm, in the prophet, a word which, in the Old Testament, is often put for the laws of God in general. And by Christ’s showing judgment to the Gentiles, is evidently meant his declaring the laws of religion, the eternal rules of righteousness, or the will of his heavenly Father, not only to the single nation of the Jews, but also, and especially, to the Gentile nation. He shall not strive, nor cry, &c. — He shall not be contentious, noisy, or ostentatious; but gentle, quiet, and lowly. A bruised reed shall he not break — Such as are convinced of their sinfulness and guilt, and bruised under the weight thereof. Smoking flax shall he not quench — The least good desire, the faintest spark of grace. He alludes to the wick of a lamp when it is first beginning to kindle, and is put out by any little motion. Till he send forth judgment unto victory — Till he make righteousness completely victorious over all its enemies. And in his name, that is, in him, shall the Gentiles trust, for salvation, present and eternal. See notes on Isaiah 42:1; where the original passage is explained at large.
Joseph Sutcliffe
Ver. 18. Behold my servant. See on Isaiah 42:1.
Daniel Whedon
18. Behold my servant — Christ, though the Son, humbled himself, and took upon himself the form of a servant. He shall show judgment — That is, he shall reveal the principles of truth and righteousness to the Gentiles. Here the enlargement of the dispensation of the Messiah beyond the limits of Judaism (which was so great a difficulty at first even with our Lord’s apostles and the Apostolic Church) is expressly predicted by the Old Testament prophets.
He shall not strive, nor cry; neither shall any man hear his voice in the streets.
John Wesley
V. 19. He shall not strive, nor clamour; neither shall any man hear his voice in the streets-That is, he shall not be contentious, noisy, or ostentatious: but gentle, quiet, and lowly. We may observe each word rises above the other, expressing a still higher degree of humility and gentleness.
Adam Clarke
Verse 19. He shall not strive, nor cry] The spirit of Christ is not a spirit of contention, murmuring, clamour, or litigiousness. He who loves these does not belong to him. Christ therefore fulfilled a prophecy by withdrawing from this place, on account of the rage of the Pharisees.
Joseph Benson
Verses 16-21. And charged them that they should not make him known — Partly that he might avoid the envy and rage of his persecutors, and partly because the time was not yet come for him to declare himself openly to be the Messiah. That it might be fulfilled, &c. — Here the evangelist assigns another reason why the Lord Jesus prosecuted his ministry in this humble, meek, quiet, and unostentatious way: it was, that he might fulfil Isaiah’s prophecy, Isaiah 42:1-4, in which it was foretold that he should conduct himself in this manner. It must be observed, that the passage here referred to is not quoted exactly according to the Hebrew original, the evangelist contenting himself with giving us the substance of it in a contracted form: nor is it quoted according to the version of the LXX., who have given but a very indifferent interpretation of it. He shall show judgment — The word krisiv, judgment, here used by Matthew, answers to fpVm, in the prophet, a word which, in the Old Testament, is often put for the laws of God in general. And by Christ’s showing judgment to the Gentiles, is evidently meant his declaring the laws of religion, the eternal rules of righteousness, or the will of his heavenly Father, not only to the single nation of the Jews, but also, and especially, to the Gentile nation. He shall not strive, nor cry, &c. — He shall not be contentious, noisy, or ostentatious; but gentle, quiet, and lowly. A bruised reed shall he not break — Such as are convinced of their sinfulness and guilt, and bruised under the weight thereof. Smoking flax shall he not quench — The least good desire, the faintest spark of grace. He alludes to the wick of a lamp when it is first beginning to kindle, and is put out by any little motion. Till he send forth judgment unto victory — Till he make righteousness completely victorious over all its enemies. And in his name, that is, in him, shall the Gentiles trust, for salvation, present and eternal. See notes on Isaiah 42:1; where the original passage is explained at large.
Daniel Whedon
19. He shall not strive — Here the peaceful character of the Saviour is set in beautiful contrast with the greatness of his deeds. Though he rule the nations with his law, he shall be peaceful and noiseless. His victories shall be the victories of peace. The rulers of Christendom have sometimes spread Christianity by the sword; but that was in express contradiction both to the personal character of Christ and to the precepts and principles of his Gospel. Strive — To strive is to fight. Our Lord at this time retreated from publicity to avoid all contest or strife. Nor cry — He shall raise no battle cry. Voice in the streets — Rallying his partisans to the riot and the sedition.
A bruised reed shall he not break, and smoking flax shall he not quench, till he send forth judgment unto victory.
John Wesley
V. 20. A bruised reed-A convinced sinner: one that is bruised with the weight of sin:
smoking flax-One that has the least good desire, the faintest spark of grace:
till he send forth judgment unto victory-That is, till he make righteousness completely victorious over all its enemies.
Adam Clarke
Verse 20. A bruised reed shall he not break] A reed is, in Scripture, the emblem of weakness, Ezekiel 29:6; and a bruised reed must signify that state of weakness that borders on dissolution and death.
And smoking flax shall he not quench] linon tufomenon. linov means the wick of a lamp, and tufomenon is intended to point out its expiring state, when the oil has been all burnt away from it, and nothing is left but a mere snuff, emitting smoke. Some suppose the Jewish state, as to ecclesiastical matters, is here intended, the prophecy declaring that Christ would not destroy it, but leave it to expire of itself, as it already contained the principles of its own destruction. Others have considered it as implying that great tenderness with which the blessed Jesus should treat the weak and the ignorant, whose good desires must not be stifled, but encouraged. The bruised reed may recover itself, if permitted to vegetate under the genial influences of heaven; and the life and light of the expiring lamp may be supported by the addition of fresh oil. Jesus therefore quenches not faint desires after salvation, even in the worst and most undeserving of men; for even such desires may lead to the fulness of the blessing of the Gospel of peace.
Judgment unto victory.] See Matthew 12:18. By judgment, understand the Gospel, and by victory its complete triumph over Jewish opposition, and Gentile impiety. He will continue by these mild and gentle means to work till the whole world is Christianized, and the universe filled with his glory.
Joseph Benson
Verses 16-21. And charged them that they should not make him known — Partly that he might avoid the envy and rage of his persecutors, and partly because the time was not yet come for him to declare himself openly to be the Messiah. That it might be fulfilled, &c. — Here the evangelist assigns another reason why the Lord Jesus prosecuted his ministry in this humble, meek, quiet, and unostentatious way: it was, that he might fulfil Isaiah’s prophecy, Isaiah 42:1-4, in which it was foretold that he should conduct himself in this manner. It must be observed, that the passage here referred to is not quoted exactly according to the Hebrew original, the evangelist contenting himself with giving us the substance of it in a contracted form: nor is it quoted according to the version of the LXX., who have given but a very indifferent interpretation of it. He shall show judgment — The word krisiv, judgment, here used by Matthew, answers to fpVm, in the prophet, a word which, in the Old Testament, is often put for the laws of God in general. And by Christ’s showing judgment to the Gentiles, is evidently meant his declaring the laws of religion, the eternal rules of righteousness, or the will of his heavenly Father, not only to the single nation of the Jews, but also, and especially, to the Gentile nation. He shall not strive, nor cry, &c. — He shall not be contentious, noisy, or ostentatious; but gentle, quiet, and lowly. A bruised reed shall he not break — Such as are convinced of their sinfulness and guilt, and bruised under the weight thereof. Smoking flax shall he not quench — The least good desire, the faintest spark of grace. He alludes to the wick of a lamp when it is first beginning to kindle, and is put out by any little motion. Till he send forth judgment unto victory — Till he make righteousness completely victorious over all its enemies. And in his name, that is, in him, shall the Gentiles trust, for salvation, present and eternal. See notes on Isaiah 42:1; where the original passage is explained at large.
Joseph Sutcliffe
Ver. 20. A bruised reed shall he not break. Vatablus, Heinsuis, and our Dr. Hammond have long and critical notes on this text. The Synopsis also is copious here. This text confessedly imports the forbearance of Christ to his enemies who sought to kill him, ver. 14, and likewise his great tenderness towards those who are weak in grace, like the bruised reed, and as the smoking flax almost extinguished in the lamp; or rather as the slow- match, by which the husbandman carries fire to burn the quicks in his field. But the point of variation is concerning “the judgment unto victory,” or truth. It must first be applied to Christ’s enemies, as in Isaiah 43:17. Speaking of the host and chariots which fought against Israel, “They are extinct, they are quenched as the tow.” Thus when Jerusalem was destroyed, Christ sent forth judgment unto truth or victory; or according to St. Paul, judgment to the uttermost, yea to the extremity. Let the weak and sincere soul be comforted; though Christ expects perfection in his church, and admits none to glory till made without spot, yet he is merciful till his work be complete in the heart. Let us, like the reeds, abide by the water- courses of grace; let us make a rapid shoot, and let us, like the reeds, associate and shelter one another from the blasts of temptation and sin. — Secondly, If grace be in our hearts as fire in the smoking flax, let us add fresh fuel, and pray that the wind of the Spirit may kindle the heart with a flame of sanctifying love. May grace and justice at the same time send forth vengeance on our inward corruptions, as on the outward enemies of the church.
Daniel Whedon
20. A bruised reed — He shall be the tenderest of all conquerors to those who desire to submit to his authority. The spirit, bruised like a bruised reed, shall receive no crushing blow from him. He will be rather the tender cultivator, who will bind up and restore the broken plant, than the ravager, who will break its bruised stem. Smoking flax — Rather smoking lamp-wick. The submitting soul, whose life flickers like the last spark of the expiring lamp-wick, will find that He will not extinguish, but pouring in fresh oil will raise it to a blaze. Judgment unto victory — Tender as he is, he still shall conquer. Judgment here means rectitude, or righteousness, as laid down in the divine law and embodied in the Gospel. But this righteousness the Messiah shall send forth to victory, to conquest, and to triumph in the earth. So successful, though so meek, shall this subduer be.
And in his name shall the Gentiles trust.
John Wesley
V. 21. In his name-That is, in him.
Adam Clarke
Verse 21. And in his name shall the Gentiles trust.] elpiousi, they shall hope. Jesus Christ is the sole hope and trust of mankind; to trust and hope in his name, JESUS, is to expect salvation and all things necessary from him alone, to despise, comparatively, all earthly promises, to esteem, love, and desire heavenly things only, and to bear with patience and tranquillity all the losses and evils of this life, upon the prospect and hope of that felicity which he has purchased for us.
Joseph Benson
Verses 16-21. And charged them that they should not make him known — Partly that he might avoid the envy and rage of his persecutors, and partly because the time was not yet come for him to declare himself openly to be the Messiah. That it might be fulfilled, &c. — Here the evangelist assigns another reason why the Lord Jesus prosecuted his ministry in this humble, meek, quiet, and unostentatious way: it was, that he might fulfil Isaiah’s prophecy, Isaiah 42:1-4, in which it was foretold that he should conduct himself in this manner. It must be observed, that the passage here referred to is not quoted exactly according to the Hebrew original, the evangelist contenting himself with giving us the substance of it in a contracted form: nor is it quoted according to the version of the LXX., who have given but a very indifferent interpretation of it. He shall show judgment — The word krisiv, judgment, here used by Matthew, answers to fpVm, in the prophet, a word which, in the Old Testament, is often put for the laws of God in general. And by Christ’s showing judgment to the Gentiles, is evidently meant his declaring the laws of religion, the eternal rules of righteousness, or the will of his heavenly Father, not only to the single nation of the Jews, but also, and especially, to the Gentile nation. He shall not strive, nor cry, &c. — He shall not be contentious, noisy, or ostentatious; but gentle, quiet, and lowly. A bruised reed shall he not break — Such as are convinced of their sinfulness and guilt, and bruised under the weight thereof. Smoking flax shall he not quench — The least good desire, the faintest spark of grace. He alludes to the wick of a lamp when it is first beginning to kindle, and is put out by any little motion. Till he send forth judgment unto victory — Till he make righteousness completely victorious over all its enemies. And in his name, that is, in him, shall the Gentiles trust, for salvation, present and eternal. See notes on Isaiah 42:1; where the original passage is explained at large.
Daniel Whedon
21. Gentiles trust — The spirit of inspiration here paraphrases the words of the prophet, giving his essential meaning rather than the exact terms. In the book of Isaiah the words are, “The isles shall wait for his law.” By the isles are meant the distant nations of the earth, especially those separated by water, and so the Gentiles in general. We have here a clear prediction that the religion of the Gospel shall become universal.
Mr. Gibbon objects to the proofs from prophecy, because they so commonly predict the Messiah as a conquering warrior. The present prophecy is one of those predictions that clearly show the descriptions of his warlike victories to be truly figurative representations of the triumphs of his holy doctrines.
Then was brought unto him one possessed with a devil, blind, and dumb: and he healed him, insomuch that the blind and dumb both spake and saw.
John Wesley
V. 22. A demoniac, blind and dumb-Many undoubtedly supposed these defects to be merely natural. But the Spirit of God saw otherwise, and gives the true account both of the disorder and the cure. How many disorders, seemingly natural, may even now be owing to the same cause? Luke 11:14.
Adam Clarke
Verse 22. One possessed with a devil, blind and dumb] A person from whom the indwelling demon took away both sight and hearing. Satan makes himself master of the heart, the eyes, and the tongue of the sinner. His heart he fills with the love of sin; his eyes he blinds that he may not see his guilt, and the perdition which awaits him; and his tongue he hinders from prayer and supplication, though he gives it increasing liberty in blasphemies, lies, slanders, &c. None but Jesus can redeem from this threefold captivity.
Joseph Benson
Verses 22-24. Then was brought unto him — Namely, By the person’s friends, one possessed with a devil, blind and dumb — Many, no doubt, supposed these defects to be merely natural: but the Spirit of God saw otherwise, and gives the true account, both of the disorder and the cure. How many other disorders, seemingly natural, may even now be owing to the same cause! And he healed him — He immediately expelled the evil spirit, and in an instant removed the effects of his diabolical influence: And all the people were amazed — At so extraordinary a miracle, by which the noblest sense, and likewise the most useful faculty of the human body, were restored together: and said, Is not this the Son of David? — that is, The Messiah. But when the Pharisees — Who were present, and the scribes, who had come down from Jerusalem, heard it, that is, heard this natural reflection of the people, and observed that they were beginning to infer, from the wonderful miracles which they saw Jesus perform, that he was the expected Messiah; fearing lest such a belief, if it should gain ground, would put an end to their credit with, and authority over, the people, they said, This fellow doth not cast out devils but by Beelzebub, &c. — Thus giving the most malicious and unreasonable turn to the matter which could be imagined.
Daniel Whedon
22. One possessed with a devil, blind, and dumb — The kingdom of wickedness naturally associates with the natural evils of men. Disease and possession are the product of sin, and they are thus found going naturally together. See note on Matthew 4:24.
Richard Watson
Verse 22. Blind and dumb. — This instance of possession being accompanied both with blindness and the loss of speech, induced in consequence, probably, of the terrible power exerted by the devil upon the whole frame, rendered the sudden healing of this unfortunate man, by the expulsion of Satan, exceedingly remarkable; and as it produced great amazement among the people, so that they said, “Is not this the son of David?” and showed a disposition to acknowledge our Lord to be the Messiah in a tumultuary manner, so it excited the Pharisees to endeavour to countervail this impression, by spreading among the people the blasphemous theory they had adopted to account for his miracles, “This man doth not cast out devils, but by Beelzebub, the prince of the devils.”
And all the people were amazed, and said, Is not this the son of David?
John Wesley
V. 23. Is not this the son of David-That is, the Messiah.
Adam Clarke
Verse 23. Is not this the son of David?] Is not this the true Messiah? Do not these miracles sufficiently prove it? See Isaiah 35:5.
Joseph Benson
Verses 22-24. Then was brought unto him — Namely, By the person’s friends, one possessed with a devil, blind and dumb — Many, no doubt, supposed these defects to be merely natural: but the Spirit of God saw otherwise, and gives the true account, both of the disorder and the cure. How many other disorders, seemingly natural, may even now be owing to the same cause! And he healed him — He immediately expelled the evil spirit, and in an instant removed the effects of his diabolical influence: And all the people were amazed — At so extraordinary a miracle, by which the noblest sense, and likewise the most useful faculty of the human body, were restored together: and said, Is not this the Son of David? — that is, The Messiah. But when the Pharisees — Who were present, and the scribes, who had come down from Jerusalem, heard it, that is, heard this natural reflection of the people, and observed that they were beginning to infer, from the wonderful miracles which they saw Jesus perform, that he was the expected Messiah; fearing lest such a belief, if it should gain ground, would put an end to their credit with, and authority over, the people, they said, This fellow doth not cast out devils but by Beelzebub, &c. — Thus giving the most malicious and unreasonable turn to the matter which could be imagined.
Daniel Whedon
23. Amazed — These fresh displays of love surprised and melted their hearts. They cannot but feel the movings of faith upon one so mighty and so benevolent. Son of David — They no doubt were aware that he was reputed to be of the royal line; and these miracles, coming thus from him, awakened a presentiment that he might indeed be the illustrious Son of David, predicted in the prophets as the coming Messiah.
But when the Pharisees heard it, they said, This fellow doth not cast out devils, but by Beelzebub the prince of the devils.
Adam Clarke
Verse 24. Beelzebub] See Matthew 10:25.
Joseph Benson
Verses 22-24. Then was brought unto him — Namely, By the person’s friends, one possessed with a devil, blind and dumb — Many, no doubt, supposed these defects to be merely natural: but the Spirit of God saw otherwise, and gives the true account, both of the disorder and the cure. How many other disorders, seemingly natural, may even now be owing to the same cause! And he healed him — He immediately expelled the evil spirit, and in an instant removed the effects of his diabolical influence: And all the people were amazed — At so extraordinary a miracle, by which the noblest sense, and likewise the most useful faculty of the human body, were restored together: and said, Is not this the Son of David? — that is, The Messiah. But when the Pharisees — Who were present, and the scribes, who had come down from Jerusalem, heard it, that is, heard this natural reflection of the people, and observed that they were beginning to infer, from the wonderful miracles which they saw Jesus perform, that he was the expected Messiah; fearing lest such a belief, if it should gain ground, would put an end to their credit with, and authority over, the people, they said, This fellow doth not cast out devils but by Beelzebub, &c. — Thus giving the most malicious and unreasonable turn to the matter which could be imagined.
Joseph Sutcliffe
Ver. 24. By Beelzebub. See notes on 2 Kings 1:2.
Daniel Whedon
24. Pharisees heard it — The miracle was reported doubtless to them for explanation. They felt that if his pure doctrines should prevail, their influence was at an end. The miracle they do not deny, but ascribe it to an infernal power.
Beelzebub the prince of the devils — So great and numerous are the miracles that they cannot ascribe them to any one less than the prince. Beelzebub was worshipped at Ekron, (2 Kings 1:1, 2,) as the god of flies; that is, as the god who protected the inhabitants from the annoyance of gnats and flies. See note on Matthew 10:25.
And Jesus knew their thoughts, and said unto them, Every kingdom divided against itself is brought to desolation; and every city or house divided against itself shall not stand:
John Wesley
V. 25. Jesus knowing their thoughts-It seems they had as yet only said it in their hearts.
Adam Clarke
Verse 25. Every kingdom divided against itself is brought to desolation] Our Lord’s argument was thus:-“The welfare of any kingdom, city, or family, depends on its concord and unanimity; Satan, like every other potentate, must wish to rule his empire in peace and security; how then can he be in league with me, who oppose his authority, and am destroying his kingdom?”
The reasoning of the Pharisees, Matthew 12:24, was not expressed, and Jesus, knowing their thoughts, gave them ample proof or his omniscience. This, with our Lord’s masterly confutation of their reasonings, by a conclusion drawn from their own premises, one would have supposed might have humbled and convinced these men; but the most conclusive reasoning, and the most astonishing miracles, were lost upon a people who were obstinately determined to disbelieve every thing good, relative to Christ. How true the saying-He came unto his own, and his own received him not!
Joseph Benson
Verses 25, 26. And Jesus knew their thoughts — “It often happens, that through ignorance or weakness men form wrong judgments of things;” a conduct which, though censurable, admits of some excuse: “but when wrong judgments proceed from evil dispositions, then, indeed, do they become highly culpable. Therefore, to show that the judgment which the Pharisees passed at this time upon our Lord’s miracles was of the latter kind, the evangelist observes, that Jesus knew their thoughts: he knew that the wickedness of their hearts, and not the weakness of their understandings, had led them to form the opinion they had uttered, if it was their real opinion; or rather, to affirm it contrary to the conviction of their minds, which was the reason that, at the conclusion of his defence, he reprimanded them in the sharpest manner.” And said, Every kingdom divided against itself &c. — He proceeds to demonstrate the absurdity of their calumny, by an argument drawn from the common affairs of life: — As if he had said, “If evil spirits assist me in working miracles for the confirmation of my doctrine, they do what they can to promote the spiritual worship and ardent love of the true God, and, as effectually as possible, excite men to the practice of universal justice, benevolence, temperance, and self-government; all these virtues being powerfully recommended by my doctrine. But thus to make the evil spirits fight against themselves, is evidently to make them ruin their own interest; unless it can be thought that the strength and welfare of a society is advanced by jarring discord and destructive civil wars. Your judgment, therefore, of my conduct, is palpably malicious and absurd.” — Macknight. The word Beelzebub signifies the lord or master of flies. This was the great idol of the Ekronites; and from his name we may infer that they considered him as having the command of the various insects wherewith, in those warm climates, they were infested, and which ofttimes gathered into such swarms as proved both a noisome and a deadly plague. The Greeks, likewise, had a god, whose title was muiargov, Muscarum venator, The destroyer of flies. But he was in no great reputation among them, their country not being subject to this sort of calamity. The Ekronites being near neighbours to the Jews, the great veneration which they had for this idol made him the object both of the horror and detestation of the devout worshippers of the true God. Accordingly, to express in what detestation they held him, they appropriated his name to the most hateful being in the universe, calling the devil, or the prince of the evil angels. Beelzebub; for the next verse shows, that Beelzebub and Satan are different names of the same person; and consequently that Satan was considered as the prince of those demons who were cast out by Christ, and who are elsewhere represented as his angels. The word in the Greek is Beelzebul, which signifies, the lord of a dunghill, and seems to be a contemptuous change of the former name, by which it was intimated, that the noblest of the heathen deities were more fit to dwell on a dunghill than to be worshipped in a magnificent temple.
Daniel Whedon
25. Every kingdom divided against itself — Our Lord proceeds to refute the slander that he is confederated with the prince of darkness. It is plain that he is working against the evil power, He is driving the infernal power from his strongest posts, and beating him back from his boldest incursions into the world. Now this would imply that the kingdom of evil was working against itself, and that Satan was in the act of self-destruction. No doubt the kingdom of evil is the kingdom of confusion, but it cannot be conceived that it should divide against itself and one half fight for the good.
Richard Watson
Verses 25-29. And Jesus knew their thoughts, &c. — As the Pharisees “said” this blasphemy, and that probably very openly, in order to prevent the people from acknowledging Christ, by their thoughts we must here understand their INTENTIONS. He knew that their purpose in devising this blasphemy was to prevent the people from forming a right judgment on the case, and he therefore calmly and convincingly refutes it. His first argument is drawn from the very policy of Satan. As a kingdom divided against itself, where one part seeks the destruction of another, cannot stand, so, if Satan cast out Satan, if one devil counteract another in his designs and acts of mischief, the Satanic kingdom is divided; its order and subordination, both of which it has, as being “a kingdom,” managed on a regular system to a common end, to delude and to destroy, would be at once subverted, and by such intestine divisions it must fall. The second argument is from their own practice. By whom do your children cast them out? The children are the disciples of the Jewish teachers; for the terms “father” and “son” were often given by the Jews to master and scholar. Both before and after the time of Christ the Jewish exorcists cast out, or attempted to cast out devils, by “the authority of the great and fearful name.” Whether or not, in some cases, God interposed in his mercy, and gave affect to their attempts, we know not; and the argument is equally strong on either supposition. They never attempted to cast out Satan by Satan, but by the name and power of the true God. They therefore acted upon the principle, that a kingdom could not be divided against itself; and they consequently relied upon a superior power, and that, the power of the Spirit of God. Either, therefore, the Pharisees must confess that their disciples were in league with Satan, to cast out devils, or they could not sustain their absurd charge against Christ, and must confess that if their children cast out devils by the Spirit of God, then that he also cast them out by the same Spirit. The force of this conclusion appears in the following verses.
And if Satan cast out Satan, he is divided against himself; how shall then his kingdom stand?
John Wesley
V. 26. How shall his kingdom be established-Does not that subtle spirit know this is not the way to establish his kingdom?
Adam Clarke
Verse 26. If Satan cast out Satan] A good cause will produce a good effect, and an evil cause an evil effect. Were I on Satan’s side, I would act for his interest and confirm his influence among you; but I oppose his maxims by my doctrine, and his influence by my power.
Joseph Benson
Verses 25, 26. And Jesus knew their thoughts — “It often happens, that through ignorance or weakness men form wrong judgments of things;” a conduct which, though censurable, admits of some excuse: “but when wrong judgments proceed from evil dispositions, then, indeed, do they become highly culpable. Therefore, to show that the judgment which the Pharisees passed at this time upon our Lord’s miracles was of the latter kind, the evangelist observes, that Jesus knew their thoughts: he knew that the wickedness of their hearts, and not the weakness of their understandings, had led them to form the opinion they had uttered, if it was their real opinion; or rather, to affirm it contrary to the conviction of their minds, which was the reason that, at the conclusion of his defence, he reprimanded them in the sharpest manner.” And said, Every kingdom divided against itself &c. — He proceeds to demonstrate the absurdity of their calumny, by an argument drawn from the common affairs of life: — As if he had said, “If evil spirits assist me in working miracles for the confirmation of my doctrine, they do what they can to promote the spiritual worship and ardent love of the true God, and, as effectually as possible, excite men to the practice of universal justice, benevolence, temperance, and self-government; all these virtues being powerfully recommended by my doctrine. But thus to make the evil spirits fight against themselves, is evidently to make them ruin their own interest; unless it can be thought that the strength and welfare of a society is advanced by jarring discord and destructive civil wars. Your judgment, therefore, of my conduct, is palpably malicious and absurd.” — Macknight. The word Beelzebub signifies the lord or master of flies. This was the great idol of the Ekronites; and from his name we may infer that they considered him as having the command of the various insects wherewith, in those warm climates, they were infested, and which ofttimes gathered into such swarms as proved both a noisome and a deadly plague. The Greeks, likewise, had a god, whose title was muiargov, Muscarum venator, The destroyer of flies. But he was in no great reputation among them, their country not being subject to this sort of calamity. The Ekronites being near neighbours to the Jews, the great veneration which they had for this idol made him the object both of the horror and detestation of the devout worshippers of the true God. Accordingly, to express in what detestation they held him, they appropriated his name to the most hateful being in the universe, calling the devil, or the prince of the evil angels. Beelzebub; for the next verse shows, that Beelzebub and Satan are different names of the same person; and consequently that Satan was considered as the prince of those demons who were cast out by Christ, and who are elsewhere represented as his angels. The word in the Greek is Beelzebul, which signifies, the lord of a dunghill, and seems to be a contemptuous change of the former name, by which it was intimated, that the noblest of the heathen deities were more fit to dwell on a dunghill than to be worshipped in a magnificent temple.
Daniel Whedon
26. Cast out Satan — Our Lord here assumes, what doubtless the Jews would grant, that to cast out Satan is the strongest proof that can be visibly given of hostility to Satan. It is a case of the directest possible issue. It is a point where the kingdom of God and of Satan come into direct hostile contact. Certainly, as the general fights the battle for one side, the side of good, it is the highest possible proof that he is truly on that side.
Richard Watson
Verses 25-29. And Jesus knew their thoughts, &c. — As the Pharisees “said” this blasphemy, and that probably very openly, in order to prevent the people from acknowledging Christ, by their thoughts we must here understand their INTENTIONS. He knew that their purpose in devising this blasphemy was to prevent the people from forming a right judgment on the case, and he therefore calmly and convincingly refutes it. His first argument is drawn from the very policy of Satan. As a kingdom divided against itself, where one part seeks the destruction of another, cannot stand, so, if Satan cast out Satan, if one devil counteract another in his designs and acts of mischief, the Satanic kingdom is divided; its order and subordination, both of which it has, as being “a kingdom,” managed on a regular system to a common end, to delude and to destroy, would be at once subverted, and by such intestine divisions it must fall. The second argument is from their own practice. By whom do your children cast them out? The children are the disciples of the Jewish teachers; for the terms “father” and “son” were often given by the Jews to master and scholar. Both before and after the time of Christ the Jewish exorcists cast out, or attempted to cast out devils, by “the authority of the great and fearful name.” Whether or not, in some cases, God interposed in his mercy, and gave affect to their attempts, we know not; and the argument is equally strong on either supposition. They never attempted to cast out Satan by Satan, but by the name and power of the true God. They therefore acted upon the principle, that a kingdom could not be divided against itself; and they consequently relied upon a superior power, and that, the power of the Spirit of God. Either, therefore, the Pharisees must confess that their disciples were in league with Satan, to cast out devils, or they could not sustain their absurd charge against Christ, and must confess that if their children cast out devils by the Spirit of God, then that he also cast them out by the same Spirit. The force of this conclusion appears in the following verses.
And if I by Beelzebub cast out devils, by whom do your children cast them out? therefore they shall be your judges.
John Wesley
V. 27. By whom do your children-That is, disciples,
cast them out-It seems, some of them really did this; although the sons of Sceva could not.
Therefore shall they be your judge-Ask them, if Satan will cast out Satan: let even them be judges in this matter. And they shall convict you of obstinacy and partiality, who impute that in me to Beelzebub, which in them you impute to God. Beside, how can I rob him of his subjects, till I have conquered him?
The kingdom of God is come upon you-Unawares; before you expected: so the word implies.
Adam Clarke
Verse 27. By whom do your children cast them out?] Children, or sons of the prophets, means the disciples of the prophets; and children or sons of the Pharisees, disciples of the Pharisees. From Acts 19:13, 14, it is evident there were exorcists among the Jews, and, from our Lord’s saying here, it is also evident that the disciples of the Pharisees did east out demons, or, at least, those who educated them wished to have it believed that they had such a power. Our Lord’s argument here is extremely conclusive: If the man who casts out demons proves himself thereby to be in league with and influenced by Satan, then your disciples, and you who taught them, are all of you in league with the devil: ye must either give up your assertion, that I cast out demons by Beelzebul, or else admit this conclusion, in its fullest force and latitude, that ye are all children of the devil, and leagued with him against God.
Envy causes persons often to condemn in one, what they approve in another.
Joseph Benson
Verses 27, 28. And if I by Beelzebub, &c. — This is the second argument made use of by Jesus for confuting the calumny of the Pharisees; by whom do your children cast them out? — As if he had said, “For the same reason that you attribute my miracles to the devil, you may attribute all the miracles that ever were wrought in the world to the devil, and particularly the miracles of your own prophets which, nevertheless, you acknowledge to be divine.” To this purpose Dr. Chandler paraphrases the verse, “Ye do not impute the miracles of your prophets to Beelzebub, but on the evidence of these miracles ye receive them as the messengers of God. Nevertheless, ye reject me, who work greater and more numerous miracles than they, and impute them to the power of evil spirits. Is this conduct of a piece? Wherefore these prophets shall be your judges; they shall condemn you.” It seems, however, more probable that, by your children, is meant your disciples, or your countrymen in general, for “that many of the Jews did, at this time, attempt to cast out devils, is plain from Mark 9:38; Luke 9:49; Acts 19:13; Josephus, Antiq., 8:2. Calvin thinks that God conferred power of this kind on some particular persons among the Jews anciently, that by thus proving his presence among them he might retain the nation in the faith of his covenant; and that the people, having experienced God’s power in those instances, came foolishly to institute for themselves the office of an exorcist. Agreeably to this it may be observed, that our Lord’s argument does not require that the demons were actually expelled by these exorcists. It is sufficient that the Jews thought they were expelled, and did not find fault with those pretended miracles, as they did with Christ’s real ones.” Therefore they shall be your judges — Ask them, if Satan will cast out Satan; let even them be judges in this matter. And they shall convict you of obstinacy and partiality, who impute that in me to Beelzebub, which in them you impute to God. But if I cast out devils by the Spirit of God — As it is evident, and you cannot reasonably deny that I do; then the kingdom of God is come nigh unto you — The time is certainly come which God has appointed for taking the power out of the hands of the devil, in order that he may himself rule, both in the bodies and souls of men. The word efqasen, rendered is come, implies, is come unawares; before you expected it. In other words, the Messiah’s kingdom is come, and you ought with joy to enter it.
Joseph Sutcliffe
Ver. 27. By whom do your children cast them out? Exorcists pretended to do this, and might be allowed to do so; but the sons of Sceva could not do it. Acts 19:13.
Daniel Whedon
27. Your children — That is, your disciples. That there were among the Jews exorcists, who at least professed to cast out devils, we know from the Apocrypha, from Josephus, and from Acts 19:12-14. It appears by the writings of the earliest Christian fathers that this power of exorcism remained for some time in the primitive Church. The truth doubtless is, that as the power of Satan had been for a period extraordinarily manifest at our Saviour’s coming, (see note on Matthew 1:20,) by the fact of possession, so some power had been divinely allowed to the Jews to dispossess. If, therefore, the Jews looked upon the appearance of demoniac possession as an increase of the power of Satan in the world, and if they looked upon the power of expulsion exercised by their own sons as a benevolent power and hostile to Satan, what right had they to ascribe this stupendous mastery over evil spirits, displayed by our Lord and exercised by him in the most merciful way, to any power but the highest power of God? Judging our Saviour as they judged their own sons, they were bound to attribute his miracles to a gracious power.
Richard Watson
Verses 25-29. And Jesus knew their thoughts, &c. — As the Pharisees “said” this blasphemy, and that probably very openly, in order to prevent the people from acknowledging Christ, by their thoughts we must here understand their INTENTIONS. He knew that their purpose in devising this blasphemy was to prevent the people from forming a right judgment on the case, and he therefore calmly and convincingly refutes it. His first argument is drawn from the very policy of Satan. As a kingdom divided against itself, where one part seeks the destruction of another, cannot stand, so, if Satan cast out Satan, if one devil counteract another in his designs and acts of mischief, the Satanic kingdom is divided; its order and subordination, both of which it has, as being “a kingdom,” managed on a regular system to a common end, to delude and to destroy, would be at once subverted, and by such intestine divisions it must fall. The second argument is from their own practice. By whom do your children cast them out? The children are the disciples of the Jewish teachers; for the terms “father” and “son” were often given by the Jews to master and scholar. Both before and after the time of Christ the Jewish exorcists cast out, or attempted to cast out devils, by “the authority of the great and fearful name.” Whether or not, in some cases, God interposed in his mercy, and gave affect to their attempts, we know not; and the argument is equally strong on either supposition. They never attempted to cast out Satan by Satan, but by the name and power of the true God. They therefore acted upon the principle, that a kingdom could not be divided against itself; and they consequently relied upon a superior power, and that, the power of the Spirit of God. Either, therefore, the Pharisees must confess that their disciples were in league with Satan, to cast out devils, or they could not sustain their absurd charge against Christ, and must confess that if their children cast out devils by the Spirit of God, then that he also cast them out by the same Spirit. The force of this conclusion appears in the following verses.
But if I cast out devils by the Spirit of God, then the kingdom of God is come unto you.
Adam Clarke
Verse 28. But if I cast out devils by the Spirit of God] Perhaps the Spirit of God is here mentioned by way of opposition to the magical incantations of the Jews; for it is well known that by fumigations and magical washings, they professed to cast out devils. See a case mentioned by Schoettgen on this verse.
Then the kingdom of God] For the destruction of the kingdom of Satan plainly implies the setting up of the kingdom of God.
Is come unto you.] Is come unexpectedly upon you. efqasen, from fqanw, to appear suddenly-unexpectedly.
They pretended to be in expectation of the kingdom of God, and consequently of the destruction of the kingdom of Satan. But, by being not prepared to receive Christ in these proofs of his Divine mission, they showed that their expectation was but pretended. They were too carnal to mind spiritual things.
Joseph Benson
Verses 27, 28. And if I by Beelzebub, &c. — This is the second argument made use of by Jesus for confuting the calumny of the Pharisees; by whom do your children cast them out? — As if he had said, “For the same reason that you attribute my miracles to the devil, you may attribute all the miracles that ever were wrought in the world to the devil, and particularly the miracles of your own prophets which, nevertheless, you acknowledge to be divine.” To this purpose Dr. Chandler paraphrases the verse, “Ye do not impute the miracles of your prophets to Beelzebub, but on the evidence of these miracles ye receive them as the messengers of God. Nevertheless, ye reject me, who work greater and more numerous miracles than they, and impute them to the power of evil spirits. Is this conduct of a piece? Wherefore these prophets shall be your judges; they shall condemn you.” It seems, however, more probable that, by your children, is meant your disciples, or your countrymen in general, for “that many of the Jews did, at this time, attempt to cast out devils, is plain from Mark 9:38; Luke 9:49; Acts 19:13; Josephus, Antiq., 8:2. Calvin thinks that God conferred power of this kind on some particular persons among the Jews anciently, that by thus proving his presence among them he might retain the nation in the faith of his covenant; and that the people, having experienced God’s power in those instances, came foolishly to institute for themselves the office of an exorcist. Agreeably to this it may be observed, that our Lord’s argument does not require that the demons were actually expelled by these exorcists. It is sufficient that the Jews thought they were expelled, and did not find fault with those pretended miracles, as they did with Christ’s real ones.” Therefore they shall be your judges — Ask them, if Satan will cast out Satan; let even them be judges in this matter. And they shall convict you of obstinacy and partiality, who impute that in me to Beelzebub, which in them you impute to God. But if I cast out devils by the Spirit of God — As it is evident, and you cannot reasonably deny that I do; then the kingdom of God is come nigh unto you — The time is certainly come which God has appointed for taking the power out of the hands of the devil, in order that he may himself rule, both in the bodies and souls of men. The word efqasen, rendered is come, implies, is come unawares; before you expected it. In other words, the Messiah’s kingdom is come, and you ought with joy to enter it.
Daniel Whedon
28. The kingdom of God — So numerous and powerful had been our Saviour’s works that the Jews had ascribed them, not to a spirit of common order, but to the very prince of hell. But if they were as beneficent as they were powerful, why not ascribe them to the prince of heaven, and so conclude that the kingdom of heaven had come?
Richard Watson
Verse 28. But if I cast out devils by the Spirit of God, then, &c. — This was the certain proof that he had set up a KINGDOM among them, more powerful than the kingdom of Satan; or else, he adds, how can one enter into a strong man’s house and spoil his goods, unless he first bind the strong man? by which he shows his superior power. Thus our Lord declares, both that his kingdom is hostile to that of Satan, and that it is more mighty, since he was able at pleasure to bind the very head and ruler of this dark monarchy, and cast him out. This illustration sufficiently shows that when our Lord cast out devils, he exerted this power over Satan to indicate the spiritual conquests which he was to attain over the dominion of Satan in the hearts of men, and in the institutions of society. The ejection of devils from the possessed was the visible sign that “the kingdom of God was come unto them;” that kingdom which, by claiming redeemed men for its subjects, delivers them from the polluting and destructive tyranny of the devil, and restores them to spiritual health and liberty. Hence the guilt of the Pharisees was heightened. They contended, not merely against Christ, but against the kingdom of God itself, and all those glorious attestations of its establishment which resulted from the seal set upon it by the miraculous operations of the Holy Spirit. In such a contest between the powers of light and darkness, between the mercy of God and the malice of Satan, even neutrality was a crime. He that is not for me is against me; and he that gathereth not with me scattereth. How much more guilty then must be the enemies and opposers of this kingdom! and most of all those who, like the Pharisees, not merely opposed, but blasphemed the Holy Spirit himself, by ascribing those works by which he attested the mission of Christ, and the establishment of God’s kingdom, to the agency of Satan! This leads our Lord to that awful declaration of the unpardonableness of this offence which is contained in the ensuing verses. See note on Luke 11:14, 21.
Or else how can one enter into a strong man’s house, and spoil his goods, except he first bind the strong man? and then he will spoil his house.
John Wesley
V. 29. How can one enter into the strong one's house, unless he first bind the strong one-So Christ coming into the world, which was then eminently the strong one's, Satan's house, first bound him, and then took his spoils.
Adam Clarke
Verse 29. Else how can one enter into a strong man’s house] Men, through sin, are become the very house and dwelling place of Satan, having of their own accord surrendered themselves to this unjust possessor; for whoever gives up his soul to sin gives it up to the devil. It is Jesus, and Jesus alone, who can deliver from the power of this bondage. When Satan is cast out, Jesus purifies and dwells in the heart.
Joseph Benson
Verses 29, 30. How can one enter, &c. — How could I cast out Satan, and destroy his works, if I did not first overcome him? “The house of the strong man (or, strong one, as tou iscurou should rather be rendered) into which Christ entered, was the world, fitly called Beelzebub’s house, or palace, because there he is served by luxury, lust, covetousness, pride, anger, and the other evil passions of men. The goods or vessels belonging to the strong one are the wicked, called Satan’s vessels metaphorically, as Paul is called Christ’s chosen vessel, Acts 9:15. Or, by the vessels, or furniture of Beelzebub’s house, we may understand the lusts and passions of men’s hearts, the instruments by which he keeps possession of them.” He that is not with me is against me — He that does not unite and co- operate with me, who am contending against Satan and his kingdom, is against me, as being unwilling that his kingdom should be destroyed. And he that gathereth not with me — That does not set himself, according to his ability, to gather subjects into my kingdom, and promote the cause of truth and grace among men, scattereth abroad — Hinders the work of God upon earth, and either prevents men from entering upon a life of piety and virtue, or obstructs their progress therein. In other words, there are no neuters in this war: every one must be either with Christ or against him; either a loyal subject or a rebel; and there are none upon earth who neither promote nor obstruct his kingdom. For every one does either one or the other daily. Much more criminal and fatal, then, must the character and conduct of those be, who, with deliberate, implacable malice, oppose Christ’s cause, and are resolved, at all adventures, to do their utmost to bring it down, as the Pharisees were now attempting to do by these vile suggestions, whereby they endeavoured to represent Christ, who came to save men, as an accomplice with Satan, who was labouring to destroy them.
Daniel Whedon
29. A strong man’s house — Our Lord here argues that his expelling devils proves his superiority over them. As a strong man enters the house of a weaker and spoils his goods, so our Lord enters the devil’s tenement and despoils him of it.
Richard Watson
Verses 25-29. And Jesus knew their thoughts, &c. — As the Pharisees “said” this blasphemy, and that probably very openly, in order to prevent the people from acknowledging Christ, by their thoughts we must here understand their INTENTIONS. He knew that their purpose in devising this blasphemy was to prevent the people from forming a right judgment on the case, and he therefore calmly and convincingly refutes it. His first argument is drawn from the very policy of Satan. As a kingdom divided against itself, where one part seeks the destruction of another, cannot stand, so, if Satan cast out Satan, if one devil counteract another in his designs and acts of mischief, the Satanic kingdom is divided; its order and subordination, both of which it has, as being “a kingdom,” managed on a regular system to a common end, to delude and to destroy, would be at once subverted, and by such intestine divisions it must fall. The second argument is from their own practice. By whom do your children cast them out? The children are the disciples of the Jewish teachers; for the terms “father” and “son” were often given by the Jews to master and scholar. Both before and after the time of Christ the Jewish exorcists cast out, or attempted to cast out devils, by “the authority of the great and fearful name.” Whether or not, in some cases, God interposed in his mercy, and gave affect to their attempts, we know not; and the argument is equally strong on either supposition. They never attempted to cast out Satan by Satan, but by the name and power of the true God. They therefore acted upon the principle, that a kingdom could not be divided against itself; and they consequently relied upon a superior power, and that, the power of the Spirit of God. Either, therefore, the Pharisees must confess that their disciples were in league with Satan, to cast out devils, or they could not sustain their absurd charge against Christ, and must confess that if their children cast out devils by the Spirit of God, then that he also cast them out by the same Spirit. The force of this conclusion appears in the following verses.
He that is not with me is against me; and he that gathereth not with me scattereth abroad.
John Wesley
V. 30. He that is not with me is against me-For there are no neuters in this war. Every one must be either with Christ or against him; either a loyal subject or a rebel. And there are none upon earth, who neither promote nor obstruct his kingdom. For he that does not gather souls to God, scatters them from him.
Adam Clarke
Verse 30. He that is not with me is against me] In vain do men seek for methods to reconcile God and mammon. There is no medium between loving the Lord and being his enemy-between belonging to Christ or to Satan. If we be on the side of the devil, we must expect to go to the devil’s hell; if we be on the side of Christ, we may expect to go to his heaven. When Christ, his truth, and his servants are assaulted, he who does not espouse their cause is not on Christ’s side, but incurs the guilt of deserting and betraying him. There are many, (it is to be feared,) in the world who are really against Christ, and scatter abroad, who flatter themselves that they are workers together with him, and of the number of his friends! Scattereth abroad.] This seems to have been a proverbial form of speech, and may be a metaphor taken from shepherds. He who does not help the true shepherd to gather his flock into the fold is, most likely, one who wishes to scatter them, that he may have the opportunity of stealing and destroying them. I do not find any parallel to this proverbial mode of speech in the Jewish rabbins, if it be one, nor have I met with it among the Greek or Roman writers.
Joseph Benson
Verses 29, 30. How can one enter, &c. — How could I cast out Satan, and destroy his works, if I did not first overcome him? “The house of the strong man (or, strong one, as tou iscurou should rather be rendered) into which Christ entered, was the world, fitly called Beelzebub’s house, or palace, because there he is served by luxury, lust, covetousness, pride, anger, and the other evil passions of men. The goods or vessels belonging to the strong one are the wicked, called Satan’s vessels metaphorically, as Paul is called Christ’s chosen vessel, Acts 9:15. Or, by the vessels, or furniture of Beelzebub’s house, we may understand the lusts and passions of men’s hearts, the instruments by which he keeps possession of them.” He that is not with me is against me — He that does not unite and co- operate with me, who am contending against Satan and his kingdom, is against me, as being unwilling that his kingdom should be destroyed. And he that gathereth not with me — That does not set himself, according to his ability, to gather subjects into my kingdom, and promote the cause of truth and grace among men, scattereth abroad — Hinders the work of God upon earth, and either prevents men from entering upon a life of piety and virtue, or obstructs their progress therein. In other words, there are no neuters in this war: every one must be either with Christ or against him; either a loyal subject or a rebel; and there are none upon earth who neither promote nor obstruct his kingdom. For every one does either one or the other daily. Much more criminal and fatal, then, must the character and conduct of those be, who, with deliberate, implacable malice, oppose Christ’s cause, and are resolved, at all adventures, to do their utmost to bring it down, as the Pharisees were now attempting to do by these vile suggestions, whereby they endeavoured to represent Christ, who came to save men, as an accomplice with Satan, who was labouring to destroy them.
Daniel Whedon
30. Not with me is against me — Our Lord here illustrates by a proverbial maxim the contrariety of Satan’s kingdom and his own, as shown by the opposite works of the two.
He — Any one; here spoken in allusion to Satan. Not with me — That does not harmonize with me in spirit and in action. Is against me — And therefore one is not to be considered the ally of the other, as you charge me with being the ally of Satan. Gathereth… scattereth — These words allude to a gathering in harvest. Co-labourers gather in concert; the ravager of their fields scattereth the produce.
Wherefore I say unto you, All manner of sin and blasphemy shall be forgiven unto men: but the blasphemy against the Holy Ghost shall not be forgiven unto men.
John Wesley
V. 31. The blasphemy against the Spirit-How much stir has been made about this? How many sermons, yea, volumes, have been written concerning it? And yet there is nothing plainer in all the Bible. It is neither more nor less than the ascribing those miracles to the power of the devil, which Christ wrought by the power of the Holy Ghost. Mark 3:28; Luke 12:10.
Adam Clarke
Verse 31. All manner of sin and blasphemy] blasfhmia, injurious or impious speaking. [Anglo-Saxon], mocking and deriding speech, Anglo-Saxon. See Matthew 9:3.
But the blasphemy against the Holy Ghost] Even personal reproaches, revilings, persecutions against Christ, were remissible; but blasphemy, or impious speaking against the Holy Spirit was to have no forgiveness: i.e. when the person obstinately attributed those works to the devil, which he had the fullest evidence could be wrought only by the Spirit of God. That this, and nothing else, is the sin against the Holy Spirit, is evident from the connection in this place, and more particularly from Mark 3:28-30. “All sins shall be forgiven unto the sons of men, and blasphemies wherewith soever they shall blaspheme; but he that shall blaspheme against the Holy Ghost hath never forgiveness, but is in danger of eternal damnation; BECAUSE they said, He hath an unclean spirit.” Here the matter is made clear beyond the smallest doubt-the unpardonable sin, as some term it, is neither less nor more than ascribing the miracles Christ wrought, by the power of God, to the spirit of the devil. Many sincere people have been grievously troubled with apprehensions that they had committed the unpardonable sin; but let it be observed that no man who believes the Divine mission of Jesus Christ, ever can commit this sin: therefore let no man’s heart fail because of it, from henceforth and for ever, Amen. See below.
Joseph Benson
Verse 31. All manner of sin and blasphemy — The word rendered blasphemy: denotes injurious expressions, whether against God or man. When God is the object, it is properly rendered blasphemy. It is evident that, in this passage, both are included, as the different kinds are compared together: consequently the general term detraction, or injurious speech, ought to be employed, which is applicable alike to both; whereas the term blasphemy, with us, is not used of any verbal injury that is not aimed directly against God. Shall be forgiven unto men — That is, on condition of true repentance, and faith in the mercy of God through Christ; or, as the words evidently mean, may be forgiven unto men; for we are not to understand our Lord as asserting that every such sin shall actually be pardoned, but that it is, in the divine economy, capable of being pardoned. But the blasphemy against the Holy Ghost shall not be forgiven unto men — By the blasphemy here spoken of, we are evidently to understand injurious or impious speaking against the Spirit of God, such as the Pharisees were now guilty of; that is, attributing to the devil those miracles which Christ gave full proof that he wrought by the Holy Spirit. That this, and nothing but this, is the sin here intended, is manifest from the connection in which the words stand in this place; and more especially still from the parallel passage, Mark 3:28-30, in which the evangelist, assigning the reason of our Lord’s making this declaration, adds, Because they said, He hath an unclean spirit; that is, “hath Beelzebub, and by the prince of devils casteth out devils.” This, then, and this only, is the sin, or blasphemy, as it should rather be called, (and as the Scriptures always call it,) against the Holy Ghost. It is an offence of the tongue; it is committed not by thinking, but by speaking, by evil-speaking, by belying, slandering, or reviling the Divine Spirit, by which our Lord wrought his miracles, ascribing them to the devil: which in fact was calling the Holy Ghost, or the Spirit of the one living and true God, the devil: a more heinous crime than which is not to be conceived.
Joseph Sutcliffe
Ver. 31. All manner of sin and blasphemy shall be forgiven unto men; but the blasphemy against the Holy Ghost shall not be forgiven. The scribes of Israel had a fair share of oriental literature; they could not but know that several miracles which Jesus performed were equal to the creation of man, and that those miracles were the seals of his mission. Hence he said, believe me for the very works’ sake: and, had I not done among you the works which no other man did, ye had not had sin, the great sin which forfeits your covenant. Now to slander and execrate those highest displays of power and grace, as being wrought by Beelzebub, the lord of idolatry, the worst or prince of devils; this slander was certainly against the brightest evidence that God thought proper to give to man, and it proceeded from the foulest malice which can possibly lodge in the human breast. Hence it is greatly to be feared that it was, to many of the pharisees, a damning sin: this sin was peculiar to the enlightened scribes, for we have no authority to say, that any man has committed it. And our gracious master, foreseeing that tender consciences would stumble at it, opened the sentence with the most glowing language of pardon to all other sins. And those fears and scruples of tender minds are full proof to them, that they have not slandered Christ as the worst of demons, nor sinned away the day of grace, of which Baxter, Shower, and Saurin speak. Their fears prove that a gracious influence still operates in their hearts. See Mark 3:30.
Daniel Whedon
31. Wherefore — That is, in consequence of what has just been said. This seems to imply either that the Pharisees had committed a blasphemy against the Holy Ghost, or were in great danger of so doing. There is nothing to show conclusively which. All manner — All sorts of sin may upon repentance, through the atonement, be forgiven. Blasphemy — The original meaning of the word blasphemy is simply reproach or slander. At the present time it is applied almost exclusively in reference to the Supreme Being. It may therefore, in general, be defined “the utterance of a presumptuous insult toward God.” But as it may be as truly committed in thought or in act as in speech, it may rather be defined the offering a presumptuous insult to God. It is a great sin. Humanly speaking, there may be greater crimes; but there can be no greater sin. If the magnitude of an offence be measured by the rank of the dignity insured, this must be pre-eminently an infinite sin. It is therefore the wonder and the glory of the atonement that it should be forgiven, or that the author of it should escape everlasting retribution. This passage informs us that such forgiveness, through the atonement, can take place, when the blasphemy and the insult infringe against the Father or the Son; but when the blasphemy finds itself appropriated by the Holy Ghost as an insult to himself, there is no forgiveness.
Richard Watson
Verses 31, 32. All manner of sin and blasphemy, &c. — The importance of a right understanding of this passage renders the most careful consideration of it necessary. Sin is the transgression of the law; blasphemy, when applied to men, is injurious and calumnious speaking; and when considered as a crime against the Divine Majesty, it consists in reproachful speeches uttered against God, or in a denial to him of those attributes and excellences which, according to the revelation he has been pleased to make of himself, he is known to possess; and thus in both cases includes in it the idea of wilful and rebellious enmity. For all such blasphemy there is, however, forgiveness upon repentance; but for that particular blasphemy which consists, as expressed in the next verse, in speaking against the Holy Ghost, — that is, saying, in opposition to all evidence, and against reasonable conviction, that the “Spirit of God,” by which our Lord cast out devils, was the unclean and evil spirit, Satan himself, and doing this from enmity to the kingdom and truth of God, which by these miracles the Holy Spirit attested and established, — there is no forgiveness. Nothing can be more clear than that this is the unpardonable blasphemy of which our Lord speaks, and that these are the circumstances under which it was committed. Blasphemy, or speaking against the Son of man, was remissible; such as denying his Messiahship, calling him a winebibber and gluttonous, &c.; all which, though high and dangerous crimes, yet were not excluded from the Divine mercy. But when, after the Pharisees had always admitted, according to the faith of their nation, that devils could not be cast out but by the Spirit of God, and had seen how intimately connected all the works of Christ were with a holy doctrine and a holy life, they were so far influenced by their wicked passions as to resist that evidence of a Divine power in his case which they admitted in other cases, the cases of their own children or disciples, to be conclusive; and when they audaciously attributed that power exerted by Christ to Satan himself, of which they had sufficient proof, even upon their own principles, that it could only proceed from the Spirit of God, and yet, after all, wilfully and most wickedly, said of the power of the Holy Spirit, “This is the working of Beelzebub himself,” this fatal offence was committed. Our Lord had thrown a veil around him by his humility, which often hid the glory of his majesty, so that men might for a time question who he might be. Not so the Holy Spirit: he fully revealed himself in the works of Christ; so that had they been performed by the meanest of their prophets, the Pharisees would have acknowledged in them the finger of God, which now they denied; and therefore they sinned directly and wilfully against the Holy Ghost. This was their blasphemy and their crime, and our Lord solemnly declares that those who had been guilty of it should not be forgiven, neither in this life, nor in the world to come. This phrase is equivalent to, “Shall never at any future time be forgiven;” hence Mark expresses it, “Is in danger of eternal damnation.” There is no reference in this expression to the notions of the Jews, that some sins would be forgiven to the seed of Abraham after death: for it is not probable that our Lord would seem to sanction so unscriptural an opinion by even an allusion: nor is “the world,” or age “to come,” to be understood, with others, of the age of the Messiah; for that had already commenced. The expression, as appears from similar phrases in the later Jewish writers, was proverbial for never; or, if there was in it any reference to a future state, it signifies that, as in this life that sin could not be forgiven, so, at the day of judgment, there could be no declaration of its having been forgiven, though the forgiveness of sins of every other description will then be made manifest and publicly proclaimed. So, clearly is the nature of this sin marked, that it is somewhat surprising that there should have been so much difference of opinion respecting it. One of the least defensible notions is that which refers it forward to the rejection of the Gospel after the Holy Ghost had been shed forth in his miraculous gifts; whereas, the very occasion on which our Lord uses the words, and the particular character of the crime itself, which consisted in attributing the casting out of devils by the Spirit of God to the agency of Satan, proves indubitably that the sin might not only at that time be committed, but was actually so. The chief differences of opinion have, however, arisen, not from any difficulty in ascertaining in what the original crime consisted, but from the questions, how far others beside the Pharisees could be guilty of it; and from what its irremissibility arose. As to the first, it is difficult to say whether those Jews who might see the miracles of the Holy Spirit wrought by the apostles, and ascribe them to Satan, did not also commit precisely the same offence. They probably did; but still we have no authority for saying that this sin could be committed by any but the eye-witnesses of the miracles themselves, or at least by those who fully admitted them as FACTS. We are likewise to recollect that there are blasphemies often committed against the Holy Ghost, of a deeply aggravated and dangerous nature, by infidels, and scoffers, and apostates, which are not THE blasphemy against the Holy Ghost; and these are not to be confounded with it, though awfully criminal. As to the second question, in what the irremissibility of this sin consisted, perhaps it is best for us at once to confess our ignorance. Certain it is, that the pretended solution of those who make it merely a consequence of the nature of the offence, cannot be admitted, because in that respect it stands on the same ground as many other offences. The Pharisees, they tell us, by resisting the strongest evidence, put themselves beyond the possibility of being convinced of the truth, because no higher evidence could be given them: but this was equally true of all obstinate unbelievers then, though many of them were not charged with this particular offence; and it is also equally true of all unbelievers now, who have received all the evidence which God intends to afford. The only satisfactory conclusion on this awful subject is, that God was pleased to make this exception from the mercies of his Gospel as a warning to all mankind, who, if not capable of committing that precise sin, may all make dangerous approaches to it. It was designed to exhibit the evil of spiritual pride and bigotry; to show that there are sins of the INTELLECT and WILL, as well as of the senses, most hateful to God, because leading to a malignant opposition to his holy truth; and that a state of heart is attainable by perseverance in sin, from which the insulted Holy Spirit, after much patience, takes his everlasting flight, and leaves the sinner incapable of repentance. Still, while it operates as a warning, by showing how awful a degree of depravity man is capable of, there is no just ground for any apprehensions to be entertained by pious and scrupulous minds; for, not to urge that the fears of such persons are a sufficient proof that they have not committed this greatest of all offences, it may be confidently concluded that as those only are charged with the blasphemy against the Holy Ghost who saw the miracles of Christ performed, and yet attributed them to Satan, so no one in these later times can be guilty of this particular crime; and no one is, therefore, on that account, excluded from forgiveness. We have no right to enlarge an EXCEPTION from the mercies of the Gospel, beyond its strict LETTER. If any exception to a general rule demands a severely rigid interpretation, it is this which stands in direct opposition to the general character of the covenant of grace.
And whosoever speaketh a word against the Son of man, it shall be forgiven him: but whosoever speaketh against the Holy Ghost, it shall not be forgiven him, neither in this world, neither in the world to come.
John Wesley
V. 32. Whosoever speaketh against the Son of man-In any other respects:
It shall be forgiven him-Upon his true repentance:
But whosoever speaketh thus against the Holy Ghost, it shall not be forgiven, neither in this world nor in the world to come-This was a proverbial expression among the Jews, for a thing that would never be done. It here means farther, He shall not escape the punishment of it, either in this world, or in the world to come. The judgment of God shall overtake him, both here and hereafter.
Adam Clarke
Verse 32. Neither in this world, neither in the world to come.] Though I follow the common translation, yet I am fully satisfied the meaning of the words is, neither in this dispensation, (viz. the Jewish,) nor in that which is to come, viz. the Christian. abh µlw[ olam ha-bo, the world to come, is a constant phrase for the times of the Messiah in the Jewish writers. See below. The sin here spoken of by our Lord ranks high in the catalogue of presumptuous sins, for which there was no forgiveness under the Mosaic dispensation. See Numbers 15:30, 31; 35:31; Leviticus 20:10; 1 Samuel 2:25. When our Lord says that such a sin hath no forgiveness, is he not to be understood as meaning that the crime shall be punished under the Christian dispensation as it was under the Jewish, viz. by the destruction of the body? And is not this the same mentioned 1 John 1:7, called there the sin unto death; i.e. a sin that was to be punished by the death of the body, while mercy might be extended to the soul? The punishment for presumptuous sins, under the Jewish law, to which our Lord evidently alludes, certainly did not extend to the damnation of the soul, though the body was destroyed: therefore I think that, though there was no such forgiveness to be extended to this crime as to absolve the man from the punishment of temporal death, yet, on repentance, mercy might be extended to the soul; and every sin may be repented of under the Gospel dispensation.
Dr. Lightfoot has sufficiently vindicated this passage from all false interpretation. “They that endeavour hence to prove the remission of some sins after death, seem little to understand to what Christ had respect when he spake these words. Weigh well this common and, most known doctrine of the Jewish schools, and judge.
“He that transgresses an affirmative precept, if he presently repent, is not moved until the Lord pardon him; and of such it is said, Be ye converted, O back sliding children! and I will heal your backslidings. He that transgresses a negative precept, and repents, his repentance suspends judgment, and the day of expiation expiates him; as it is said, This day shall all your uncleannesses be expiated to you. He that transgresses to cutting off (by the stroke of God) or to death by the Sanhedrin, and repents, repentance and the day of expiation do suspend judgment, and the strokes that are laid upon him wipe off sin, as it is said, And I will visit their transgression with a rod, and their iniquity with scourges. But he by whom the name of God is profaned (or blasphemed) repentance is of no avail to him to suspend judgment, nor the day of expiation to expiate it, nor scourges (or corrections inflicted) to wipe it off, but all suspend judgment, and death wipes it off. Thus the Babylonian Gemara writes; but the Jerusalem thus: Repentance and the day of expiation expiate as to the third part, and corrections as to the third part, and death wipes it off, as it is said, And your iniquities shall not be expiated to you until ye die: behold, we learn that death wipes off. Note this, which Christ contradicts, concerning blasphemy against the Holy Ghost. It shall not be forgiven, saith he, neither in this world, nor in the world to come; that is, neither before death, nor, as you dream, by death. Jerus. Sanhed. fol. 37. and Bab. Yoma, fol. 86.
“In the world to come.-I. Some phrases were received into common use, by which, in common speech, they opposed the heresy of the Sadducces, who denied immortality, Of that sort were abh µlw[ olam ha-ba, aiwn o mellwn, The world to come. ˆd[ גנ gan aden, paradeisov, paradise: הנום wg gei hinnom, geenna, hell, &c.
“At the end of all the prayers in the temple (as we observed before) they said µlw[ d[ ad olam, for ever. But when the heretics (i.e. the Sadducees) brake in, and said there was NO AGE but one, then it was appointed to be said for ever and ever. העולם מנ העולם ועד min ha-olam, vead ha-olam. Bab. Beracoth, fol. 54. This distinction of hzh µlw[ olam hazeh, this world, and of abh µlw[ olam ha-ba, the world to come, you may find almost in every page of the rabbins.
“The Lord recompense thee a good reward for this thy good work in this world, and let thy reward be perfected in the world to come. Targum on Ruth.
“It (that is, the history of the creation and of the Bible) therefore begins with the letter b beth, (in the word tyvyrb bereshith,) because two worlds were created, this world and a world to come. Baal Turim. “The world to come hints two things especially, (of which see Rambam, in Sanhed. cap. ii. Chelek.) I. The times of the Messiah: ‘Be mindful of the day wherein thou camest out of Egypt, all the days of thy life: the wise men say, by the days of thy life is intimated this world: by all the days of thy life, the days of the Messiah are superinduced.’ In this sense the apostle seems to speak, Hebrews 2:5; 6:5. II. The state after death: thus Rab. Tancum, The world to come, is when a man has departed out of this world.”
Joseph Benson
Verse 32. Whosoever speaketh a word against the Son of man — In any other respect, it shall be forgiven him — Upon his true repentance: But whosoever speaketh, namely, in this manner, against the Holy Ghost — and most unreasonably ascribes his extraordinary and beneficent operations to the grand enemy of God and man, it shall not be forgiven him, neither in this world, neither in the world to come — The original words, oute en toutw tw aiwni, oute en tw mellonti, may be rendered, neither in this age, or dispensation, (namely, the Jewish,) nor in the age, or dispensation, to come, namely, the Christian. Thus the clause is understood by Macknight, who considers it as importing, that “no expiation was provided for the blasphemy against the Holy Spirit, either under the Jewish or Christian dispensations.” But it seems rather to have been a mere proverbial expression among the Jews, for a thing that would never be done. Accordingly, in the parallel passage in Mark, we read, He that shall blaspheme against the Holy Ghost hath never forgiveness, but is in danger of, or rather, is liable to, eternal damnation. It is well known, that the Papists argue from this passage, for the remission of some sins in purgatory, after this life is ended, which are not remitted by God here. But “the Scripture,” says Whitby, “knows only two times for the remission of sins: one here upon earth, Mark 9:6, to the penitent and believing; and the other at the day of judgment, when the great Judge shall pronounce the sentence of absolution to all his faithful servants; Christ, therefore, here signifies, that this blasphemy shall neither obtain forgiveness now, nor at the great day of final accounts: that is, shall never be forgiven. It may be proper to observe here, that as no one call be pardoned for any sins but through Christ, and in consequence of faith in him, as the Son of God and Saviour of the world; and as none can believe in him as such that supposes he wrought his miracles by the aid of the devil; and as his miracles, united with his holy life, were the chief proofs of his divine mission; therefore, those who attributed them to Satan, were of course thereby precluded from believing on him, and of consequence from obtaining pardon.” Mr. Baxter’s paraphrase on the passage is to nearly the same purpose — thus: “All other sin and blasphemy against me, as I appear in my human nature, hath some excuse, and may be cured, and so pardoned: but seeing the great works of the Holy Ghost done by me, and to be done by my disciples, in miracles and sanctification, are the greatest evidences that God will give the world to convince them of the truth of my gospel; he that is convinced of the fact, that all these miracles and this holiness is wrought, and yet will deny it to be God’s attestation, and blasphemously insist that it is the work of the devil; this man rejects the greatest evidences, and shall have no greater, and so his infidelity is incurable, and aggravated with blasphemy and obstinacy, and will never be repented of, nor forgiven.”
Daniel Whedon
32. Against the Son — Olshausen has called special attention to the gradations of aggravation implied in the blasphemy successively against the Father and the Son and the Spirit. But perhaps in detail he has hardly so developed it as to bring out the true point.
Let it be remarked, that when sin is committed against the Father or the Son, neither is ever viewed as withdrawing himself from the sinner during the day of his probation. God, the Father, as Creator and Providence, still continues his mercies; and the atonement of God the Son is never probationarily withdrawn. But the Spirit does become grieved, and does become vexed and depart.
God the Father is contemplated as the original back-ground, so to speak, of Deity; God the Son is Deity manifest in the redemptive plan and dispensation; God the Holy Spirit is Deity, specially in his sanctifying personality, going forth as a Spirit of purity, making his trials to win and assimilate man to his own pure nature. As a pure Spirit, he is also represented as a tender and a sensitive Spirit. He is easily vexed and grieved and made to depart. On this point let us remark:
1. To grieve, to vex, or to resist the Holy Spirit does not of itself amount to this blaspheming the Holy Spirit. For all these, as matter of fact, are done, and yet the sinners do repent and be saved. And from this fact has perhaps arisen the real difficulty which commentators have found in this passage.
2. Nor is this blasphemy of the Holy Spirit the same as becoming hardened against impression, or becoming hopeless by continuance in sin, or as “sinning away the day of grace.” It is plainly, however long the preparation, one heinous act; so heinous in itself as that the Spirit becomes, therefor, the sinner’s enemy. Isaiah 63:10.
3. Not every reproach, nay, not every word or expression truly in itself blasphemous toward the Holy Spirit, not even with blasphemous intention, really reaches its aim; that is, really is accepted by the Holy Spirit as blasphemy against itself. Experience shows that such words are repented of, and, though perhaps not often, forgiven. Even a dignified human spirit will frequently refuse to impute to persons the full insult they intend. The mind of the Spirit itself is most pure, wise, and sovereign judge when the insult offered to itself shall be held as blasphemy against itself. Just as many a man of high and sensitive honour will not be insulted by certain characters, either from their insignificance, or their irresponsibility, or their ignorance, so the Holy Spirit will not always accept of intended insult offered to itself as this blasphemy against itself.
4. When the Holy Spirit does so think right to accept and feel the full force of a blasphemy offered in thought, word, or deed against itself, then does it resent the insult with a justice that knows no mercy. It makes not the decision capriciously or arbitrarily, but with perfect measurement of the actual guilt; and then with absolute finality it abandons the sinner, never to return. The man is left in a hardness that will never relent. He will live doubtless in a state of moveless indifference until his departure to his own place. This results from the very fact of his being abandoned. The atonement, though not withdrawn, will never avail, and the Spirit of holiness is his perfect and pure “enemy.” That relation is as immortal as the nature of both.
Whosoever speaketh against — A softer phrase is here used than blasphemeth. Nakedly taken, it would imply that every uttered word derogatory to the Holy Spirit is unpardonable. The phrase to speak against, must, however, be interpreted by the previous phrase blasphemy against. Or else we may make a difference between blasphemy or reproachful words uttered in regard to the Holy Ghost, and blasphemy or evil speaking against the Holy Ghost; meaning by the latter phrase that blasphemy which the Holy Ghost does, in his infinite wisdom and justice, interpret and accept against itself. Of the sin against the Holy Ghost, the Holy Ghost is the sole Judge. It behooves blasphemous men to beware. The unfrequency with which such men ever come to God is sad proof that they do sin beyond all pardon. But it may be remarked, that inasmuch as the withdrawal of the Spirit will ever result in complete indifference, the very fear of a penitent man, that he has committed it, is full demonstration that he has not so done.
A sin unto death is spoken of by Saint John, for which no prayer is to be offered. That the sin mentioned by Saint John, is the same as our Lord here describes is evident from this, that our Lord declares that all other sins are pardonable; whereas the sin described by John is unpardonable. The same may perhaps be said of the sin of apostacy described by the apostle in the sixth chapter of Hebrews. It appears that there is but one unpardonable sin, and all these are it. Neither in this… to come — Neither in time nor in eternity. Mark 3:24, expresses it: “Hath never forgiveness, but is in danger of eternal damnation.” It is difficult to say in what words the eternity of retribution could be more unequivocally expressed.
Richard Watson
Verses 31, 32. All manner of sin and blasphemy, &c. — The importance of a right understanding of this passage renders the most careful consideration of it necessary. Sin is the transgression of the law; blasphemy, when applied to men, is injurious and calumnious speaking; and when considered as a crime against the Divine Majesty, it consists in reproachful speeches uttered against God, or in a denial to him of those attributes and excellences which, according to the revelation he has been pleased to make of himself, he is known to possess; and thus in both cases includes in it the idea of wilful and rebellious enmity. For all such blasphemy there is, however, forgiveness upon repentance; but for that particular blasphemy which consists, as expressed in the next verse, in speaking against the Holy Ghost, — that is, saying, in opposition to all evidence, and against reasonable conviction, that the “Spirit of God,” by which our Lord cast out devils, was the unclean and evil spirit, Satan himself, and doing this from enmity to the kingdom and truth of God, which by these miracles the Holy Spirit attested and established, — there is no forgiveness. Nothing can be more clear than that this is the unpardonable blasphemy of which our Lord speaks, and that these are the circumstances under which it was committed. Blasphemy, or speaking against the Son of man, was remissible; such as denying his Messiahship, calling him a winebibber and gluttonous, &c.; all which, though high and dangerous crimes, yet were not excluded from the Divine mercy. But when, after the Pharisees had always admitted, according to the faith of their nation, that devils could not be cast out but by the Spirit of God, and had seen how intimately connected all the works of Christ were with a holy doctrine and a holy life, they were so far influenced by their wicked passions as to resist that evidence of a Divine power in his case which they admitted in other cases, the cases of their own children or disciples, to be conclusive; and when they audaciously attributed that power exerted by Christ to Satan himself, of which they had sufficient proof, even upon their own principles, that it could only proceed from the Spirit of God, and yet, after all, wilfully and most wickedly, said of the power of the Holy Spirit, “This is the working of Beelzebub himself,” this fatal offence was committed. Our Lord had thrown a veil around him by his humility, which often hid the glory of his majesty, so that men might for a time question who he might be. Not so the Holy Spirit: he fully revealed himself in the works of Christ; so that had they been performed by the meanest of their prophets, the Pharisees would have acknowledged in them the finger of God, which now they denied; and therefore they sinned directly and wilfully against the Holy Ghost. This was their blasphemy and their crime, and our Lord solemnly declares that those who had been guilty of it should not be forgiven, neither in this life, nor in the world to come. This phrase is equivalent to, “Shall never at any future time be forgiven;” hence Mark expresses it, “Is in danger of eternal damnation.” There is no reference in this expression to the notions of the Jews, that some sins would be forgiven to the seed of Abraham after death: for it is not probable that our Lord would seem to sanction so unscriptural an opinion by even an allusion: nor is “the world,” or age “to come,” to be understood, with others, of the age of the Messiah; for that had already commenced. The expression, as appears from similar phrases in the later Jewish writers, was proverbial for never; or, if there was in it any reference to a future state, it signifies that, as in this life that sin could not be forgiven, so, at the day of judgment, there could be no declaration of its having been forgiven, though the forgiveness of sins of every other description will then be made manifest and publicly proclaimed. So, clearly is the nature of this sin marked, that it is somewhat surprising that there should have been so much difference of opinion respecting it. One of the least defensible notions is that which refers it forward to the rejection of the Gospel after the Holy Ghost had been shed forth in his miraculous gifts; whereas, the very occasion on which our Lord uses the words, and the particular character of the crime itself, which consisted in attributing the casting out of devils by the Spirit of God to the agency of Satan, proves indubitably that the sin might not only at that time be committed, but was actually so. The chief differences of opinion have, however, arisen, not from any difficulty in ascertaining in what the original crime consisted, but from the questions, how far others beside the Pharisees could be guilty of it; and from what its irremissibility arose. As to the first, it is difficult to say whether those Jews who might see the miracles of the Holy Spirit wrought by the apostles, and ascribe them to Satan, did not also commit precisely the same offence. They probably did; but still we have no authority for saying that this sin could be committed by any but the eye-witnesses of the miracles themselves, or at least by those who fully admitted them as FACTS. We are likewise to recollect that there are blasphemies often committed against the Holy Ghost, of a deeply aggravated and dangerous nature, by infidels, and scoffers, and apostates, which are not THE blasphemy against the Holy Ghost; and these are not to be confounded with it, though awfully criminal. As to the second question, in what the irremissibility of this sin consisted, perhaps it is best for us at once to confess our ignorance. Certain it is, that the pretended solution of those who make it merely a consequence of the nature of the offence, cannot be admitted, because in that respect it stands on the same ground as many other offences. The Pharisees, they tell us, by resisting the strongest evidence, put themselves beyond the possibility of being convinced of the truth, because no higher evidence could be given them: but this was equally true of all obstinate unbelievers then, though many of them were not charged with this particular offence; and it is also equally true of all unbelievers now, who have received all the evidence which God intends to afford. The only satisfactory conclusion on this awful subject is, that God was pleased to make this exception from the mercies of his Gospel as a warning to all mankind, who, if not capable of committing that precise sin, may all make dangerous approaches to it. It was designed to exhibit the evil of spiritual pride and bigotry; to show that there are sins of the INTELLECT and WILL, as well as of the senses, most hateful to God, because leading to a malignant opposition to his holy truth; and that a state of heart is attainable by perseverance in sin, from which the insulted Holy Spirit, after much patience, takes his everlasting flight, and leaves the sinner incapable of repentance. Still, while it operates as a warning, by showing how awful a degree of depravity man is capable of, there is no just ground for any apprehensions to be entertained by pious and scrupulous minds; for, not to urge that the fears of such persons are a sufficient proof that they have not committed this greatest of all offences, it may be confidently concluded that as those only are charged with the blasphemy against the Holy Ghost who saw the miracles of Christ performed, and yet attributed them to Satan, so no one in these later times can be guilty of this particular crime; and no one is, therefore, on that account, excluded from forgiveness. We have no right to enlarge an EXCEPTION from the mercies of the Gospel, beyond its strict LETTER. If any exception to a general rule demands a severely rigid interpretation, it is this which stands in direct opposition to the general character of the covenant of grace.
Either make the tree good, and his fruit good; or else make the tree corrupt, and his fruit corrupt: for the tree is known by his fruit.
John Wesley
V. 33. Either make the tree good and its fruit good: or make the tree corrupt and its fruit corrupt-That is, you must allow, they are both good, or both bad.-For if the fruit is good, so is the tree; if the fruit is evil, so is the tree also.
For the tree is known by its fruit-As if he had said, Ye may therefore know me by my fruits. By my converting sinners to God, you may know that God hath sent me. Matthew 7:16; Luke 6:43.
Adam Clarke
Verse 33. Either make the tree good] That is, the effect will be always similar to the cause; a bad tree will produce bad fruit, and a good tree, good fruit.
The works will resemble the heart: nothing good can proceed from an evil spirit; no good fruit can proceed from a corrupt heart. Before the heart of man can produce any good, it must be renewed and influenced by the Spirit of God.
Joseph Benson
Verses 33-35. Either make the tree good, and his fruit good, &c. — That is, you must allow they are both good, or both bad: for if the fruit be good, so is the tree; if the fruit be evil, so is the tree also. “Judge, therefore, by my works, of the power by which I work: if it be not a good work to heal the sick, and blind, and lame, and cast out devils, and preach repentance and forgiveness of sins, to convert and save souls, then God is not the author of them. If they be bad works, they have a bad cause; if they be good works, they have a good author: either say plainly, (you that ascribe them to the devil,) that the works are good and the devil is good; or else that the devil is bad and the works are bad: or, if you confess that the works are good, confess that they are done by the Spirit of God.” — Baxter. O generation of vipers — Perverse, venomous, deceitful creatures; how can ye, being evil — Being envious and malicious, speak good things — It is surely a force upon nature whenever you do so; and you will easily return to such uncharitable and impious language as we have now been hearing from you; the thoughts of your hearts showing themselves by the words of your mouths. For out of the abundance of the heart — The overflowing pride, envy, and malice thereof, the mouth speaketh — Utters words of the same nature with the corrupt source from whence they flow. A good man, out of the good treasure of the heart — The wisdom and piety, the truth and grace lodged there, bringeth forth good things. — Freely and abundantly, to the edification of all with whom he converses. And an evil man — A man full of corrupt affections and dispositions; a man of an earthly, sensual, and devilish mind, out of the evil treasure — The corrupt principles and inclinations which are within him, bringeth forth evil things — Wicked words and actions, and that naturally and readily: “and even when he labours most artfully to disguise himself and his character, breaks out, like you, in some unguarded moment, into such language as betrays the shame he would conceal.”
Daniel Whedon
33. Either make the tree good — That is, consider or hold the tree to be good. There cannot be a permanent contrariety between a moral agent’s moral actions and his moral dispositions.
There is a sort of religious doctrine which teaches that men are not depraved in their natures, but only in their actions. Their nature back of their actions, it is claimed, is either innocent or it is neutral — neither good nor bad; and all of human depravity consists in the fact that men do freely act bad, and always will do so. Now, in opposition to this doctrine, our Lord teaches that there is in men a moral nature back of moral action; just as the tree is back of the fruit, just as the fountain is back of the stream, and just as the treasury full of good or evil is drawn from by the owner. It follows from this fact of man’s fallen moral nature, that in order to be pure in life he must become pure in heart. There must be a change in heart in order that there should be a complete change in moral action. This does not indeed deny that in individual acts (as in the fall of the angels or of man) their free will may choose wrong from a right nature. But in their permanent history, the actions and the character will conform to each other.
Now no nature can change itself. If the nature is bad, the resulting action is bad; and if the action is bad, that bad action cannot react and make the nature good. So that no mere natural man can regenerate himself; that is, make his own nature good and pure. No filthy stream can make its fountain clean. No corrupt fruit can send back a stream of pure sap and regenerate the tree.
There must then be a divine aid. A gracious power must be able to enter our nature, and there, by power, make all right, or must communicate to the fallen nature the power to perform those conditions by which it may come right. Fatalism teaches that God by arbitrary power seizes some part of the human race, and absolutely makes them right. Our own Church teaches that God gives the power to all men by his Holy Spirit to do works meet for repentance; that grace used obtains further grace and power; so that by a gracious ability, and not by a natural ability, man may attain reformation, regeneration, and salvation. Yet that grace is not irresistible, nor necessarily unresisted, but accepted and used in action, with a full power of willing and acting otherwise instead.
Tree corrupt — Moral corruption of nature lies to a great degree in the state of the dispositions. It consists in a permanent temper and purpose to indulge the appetites, passions, and desires, with little or no regard to the divine law or the obligations of absolute right. Hence sin is either a state or an action which is a transgression of the law.
Richard Watson
Verse 33. Either make the tree good, &c. — The connection of these words with the Pharisees appears to lie in their being an exhortation to them to put off the guise of hypocrisy, and to appear to be what they were in reality. As you have uttered blasphemy against God, pretend no more to sanctity and reverence for sacred things: either retract your blasphemies, or show that you are open mockers and contemners of God; for that you are so in reality, your conduct in reviling the Holy Spirit, rather than acknowledge a doctrine attested by him, sufficiently proves; for the tree is known by his fruit.
O generation of vipers, how can ye, being evil, speak good things? for out of the abundance of the heart the mouth speaketh.
John Wesley
V. 34. In another kind likewise, the tree is known by its fruit-Namely, the heart by the conversation.
Adam Clarke
Verse 34. O generation of vipers] These are apparently severe words; but they were extremely proper in reference to that execrable people to whom they were addressed: the whole verse is an inference from what was spoken before.
Out of the abundance (perisseumatov, the overflowings) of the heart] Wicked words and sinful actions may be considered as the overflowings of a heart that is more than full of the spirit of wickedness; and holy words and righteous deeds may be considered as the overflowings of a heart that is filled with the Holy Spirit, and running over with love to God and man.
Joseph Benson
Verses 33-35. Either make the tree good, and his fruit good, &c. — That is, you must allow they are both good, or both bad: for if the fruit be good, so is the tree; if the fruit be evil, so is the tree also. “Judge, therefore, by my works, of the power by which I work: if it be not a good work to heal the sick, and blind, and lame, and cast out devils, and preach repentance and forgiveness of sins, to convert and save souls, then God is not the author of them. If they be bad works, they have a bad cause; if they be good works, they have a good author: either say plainly, (you that ascribe them to the devil,) that the works are good and the devil is good; or else that the devil is bad and the works are bad: or, if you confess that the works are good, confess that they are done by the Spirit of God.” — Baxter. O generation of vipers — Perverse, venomous, deceitful creatures; how can ye, being evil — Being envious and malicious, speak good things — It is surely a force upon nature whenever you do so; and you will easily return to such uncharitable and impious language as we have now been hearing from you; the thoughts of your hearts showing themselves by the words of your mouths. For out of the abundance of the heart — The overflowing pride, envy, and malice thereof, the mouth speaketh — Utters words of the same nature with the corrupt source from whence they flow. A good man, out of the good treasure of the heart — The wisdom and piety, the truth and grace lodged there, bringeth forth good things. — Freely and abundantly, to the edification of all with whom he converses. And an evil man — A man full of corrupt affections and dispositions; a man of an earthly, sensual, and devilish mind, out of the evil treasure — The corrupt principles and inclinations which are within him, bringeth forth evil things — Wicked words and actions, and that naturally and readily: “and even when he labours most artfully to disguise himself and his character, breaks out, like you, in some unguarded moment, into such language as betrays the shame he would conceal.”
Daniel Whedon
34. O generation of vipers — Our Lord in the last verse had used these doctrines to show that he was pure and good, because his actions were so. He now turns upon his opponents to convince them that they were the reverse in nature, and must be the reverse in action. The term generation of vipers indicates that depravity is inborn. As the viper’s nature is derived by propagation from its original parents, so man’s moral nature is derived from his progenitors. Divine grace is therefore necessary as that which by nature we cannot have; and a man must as a free agent use that grace which worketh within him both to will and to do. He must not receive the grace of God in vain. How can ye — They could not by mere nature, any more than an Ethiop can make himself white. Experience, Scripture, and reason teach this. God’s grace, over and above nature, must give the power of change, and man must use it. Abundance of the heart — Abundance of the dispositions back of the will.
Richard Watson
Verse 34. O generation of vipers, &c. — He compares them to the ecidnai, the most deadly of the serpent brood, because of the malignity of their dispositions, and the fatal venom of their tongues. “The poison of asps” was truly “under their lips.” And how many were infected by their slanders against Christ, and by that wicked hypothesis which destroyed the force of the evidence of the miracles of Christ, by accounting for them on the principle of Satanic agency, the increasing unsuccessfulness of his ministry was the awful proof. A ministry which commenced by making so general and favourable an impression upon vast multitudes, gradually seemed to excite little but prejudiced and malignant objections; except that now and then the people in some places, for a time, and but for a time, manifested somewhat of a more docile spirit. Yet were the scribes and Pharisees always at hand to wither every appearance of good. The poison of deadly serpents was not more fatal to life, than their blasphemies to the souls of men; and our Lord therefore adds, carrying on this allusion to their blasphemous slanders, How can ye, being evil, wholly evil, having evil substantiated in your whole nature, speak good things? for out of the abundance, ek tou perisseumatov, out of the exuberance, the overflowing abundance, of the heart, the mouth speaketh; that is, when the heart is so fully charged that it can no longer restrain, the mouth will declare the quality of the principles and passions by which it is so powerfully actuated; and thus, by the blasphemies uttered by the Pharisees, their true character was unveiled, and the full charged wickedness of their hearts wholly laid open.
A good man out of the good treasure of the heart bringeth forth good things: and an evil man out of the evil treasure bringeth forth evil things.
Adam Clarke
Verse 35. A good man out of the good treasure of the heart] thv kardiav, of the heart, is omitted by upwards of one hundred MSS., many of them of the greatest antiquity and authority; by all the Syriac, Arabic, and Persic; by the Slavonic, Saxon, Vulgate, and Itala, (except four,) and by several of the primitive fathers. It seems to have been added here by some copyist, merely to explain. The good heart is the good treasury, and the treasure that is in it is the love of God, and of all mankind. The bad heart is the bad treasury, and its treasure is the carnal mind, which is enmity against God, and ill-will to man.
Joseph Benson
Verses 33-35. Either make the tree good, and his fruit good, &c. — That is, you must allow they are both good, or both bad: for if the fruit be good, so is the tree; if the fruit be evil, so is the tree also. “Judge, therefore, by my works, of the power by which I work: if it be not a good work to heal the sick, and blind, and lame, and cast out devils, and preach repentance and forgiveness of sins, to convert and save souls, then God is not the author of them. If they be bad works, they have a bad cause; if they be good works, they have a good author: either say plainly, (you that ascribe them to the devil,) that the works are good and the devil is good; or else that the devil is bad and the works are bad: or, if you confess that the works are good, confess that they are done by the Spirit of God.” — Baxter. O generation of vipers — Perverse, venomous, deceitful creatures; how can ye, being evil — Being envious and malicious, speak good things — It is surely a force upon nature whenever you do so; and you will easily return to such uncharitable and impious language as we have now been hearing from you; the thoughts of your hearts showing themselves by the words of your mouths. For out of the abundance of the heart — The overflowing pride, envy, and malice thereof, the mouth speaketh — Utters words of the same nature with the corrupt source from whence they flow. A good man, out of the good treasure of the heart — The wisdom and piety, the truth and grace lodged there, bringeth forth good things. — Freely and abundantly, to the edification of all with whom he converses. And an evil man — A man full of corrupt affections and dispositions; a man of an earthly, sensual, and devilish mind, out of the evil treasure — The corrupt principles and inclinations which are within him, bringeth forth evil things — Wicked words and actions, and that naturally and readily: “and even when he labours most artfully to disguise himself and his character, breaks out, like you, in some unguarded moment, into such language as betrays the shame he would conceal.”
Daniel Whedon
35. Good treasure of the heart — A most beautiful expression. The heart of a good man is a treasure of good things. Divine truths, blessed expressions, spiritual susceptibilities, holy emotions, dwell there richly, and abound. Like a wealthy banker, he has only to draw the precious treasure forth whenever occasion demands. Evil treasure — But the depraved man also has his treasury of evil. Hostile feelings against truth and goodness, skeptical arguments, malign emotions, purpose to prefer self-interest to right, hatred of God and religion, are all heaped together, and ready to furnish of their store whenever the occasion demands.
Richard Watson
Verse 35. The good treasure of his heart, &c. — Thv kardiav is wanting in so many MSS. and versions, that it was probably a marginal addition from St. Luke, where it occurs, Luke 6:45. But the sense is not altered by omitting or retaining it. The treasure, or rather the treasury, is the heart; but the treasury is put metaphorically for what is contained in it. In the case of a good man there are laid up in the heart wisdom, holy principles, and all the benevolent affections; the heart of an evil man is a treasury, a receptacle charged with error, prejudice, sensuality, irreligion, envy, hatred, malice, and all uncharitableness. The word qhsaurov, does not necessarily convey the idea of value: that depends upon the quality of the articles collected and deposited. These may be “gold, silver, precious stones,” “corn, wine, and oil,” or “fire-brands, arrows, and death;” the heart being often a magazine of all hurtful and deadly tempers and emotions, like that of the Pharisees here so strongly reproved. These our Lord calls evil treasures.
But I say unto you, That every idle word that men shall speak, they shall give account thereof in the day of judgment.
John Wesley
V. 36. Ye may perhaps think, God does not so much regard your words. But I say to you-That not for blasphemous and profane words only, but for every idle word which men shall speak-For want of seriousness or caution; for every discourse which is not conducive to the glory of God, they shall give account in the day of judgment.
Adam Clarke
Verse 36. Every idle word] rhma argon, a word that does nothing, that neither ministers grace nor instruction to them who hear it. The word argon corresponds to the Hebrew awv shave, which signifies not only vain or empty, but also wicked and injurious, such as a false testimony against a neighbour, compare Deuteronomy 5:11, 20. Add to this, that Symmachus translates lwgp piggul, polluted, Leviticus 19:7, by the very Greek word in the text. It was to explain this ambiguous meaning of the word, that ten MSS. have changed argon Into ponhron, evil. Our Lord must be understood here as condemning all false and injurious words: the scope of the place necessarily requires this meaning.
Joseph Benson
Verses 36, 37. But I say unto you — You may perhaps think God does not much regard your words, but I assure you, that not only for blasphemous and profane, malicious, false, slanderous, and reviling words, but for every idle word which men shall speak: for all light, vain, trifling expressions; for all useless, unprofitable conversation, and all discourse uttered without seriousness and caution, and which does not conduce to the glory of God and the good of mankind; that men shall speak — At any time, or on any occasion, they shall give an account in the day of judgment — “I cannot think,” says Dr. Doddridge, “that our Lord here uses argon, idle, merely to signify mischievous. We are certainly accountable for useless as well as wicked discourses, and they will be taken into that last survey which is to determine our character and state: which they whose life is one continued scene of whim, or sneering raillery, would do well seriously to consider. And it was to our Lord’s purpose to observe it here, as it inferred, by the strongest consequence, the danger of such vile and criminal discourses as those of the Pharisees in this case. But discourse tending to exhilarate the spirits is not idle discourse; as the time spent in necessary recreation is not idle time; nor does a wise and gracious God expect from men the life of angels. If any are dissatisfied with the account of things here given, I would beg leave to ask them whether unprofitable talk be not a sinful wasting of time? and whether that must not render a man in some degree criminal before God?” For by thy words — That is, by the evidence of thy words, as well as of thy tempers and works, thou shall be justified, &c. — Shalt be either acquitted or condemned; since by the tenor of these the disposition of thy heart is shown, and thy true character discovered. Therefore these shall be produced in evidence for or against thee at the great day, and by this evidence thou shalt then stand or fall.
Daniel Whedon
36. Every idle word — Every worthless and unworthy word. The term idle means not merely unimportant or insignificant; but implies that there is some positive evil in the word, something on account of which it were better omitted.
It is not meant by this that all the prattle of the mother to her child, or of children among themselves, or all the pleasantries of social life, are in themselves evil; to be condemned because they do not tend to some special religious, pecuniary, or scientific end. It may indeed be said they do tend to a right and natural end. They give play to the pleasant and cheerful emotions, which are a part of rightful human happiness. They develop the faculties, and physiologically quicken the vital circulation, and are necessary to health both of body and of mind. Only beware that they are regulated by good sense, decency, and moderation; for, let it be remembered, they are all to pass God’s judgment trial, to be condemned if evil, and thereby to condemn us.
Richard Watson
Verse 36. Every idle word that men shall speak, &c — The words here referred to are not those trifling and unprofitable words which are not meant to injure others, or to convey falsehood; for, however blamable these are, and often endangering to men’s spiritual interests, and therefore to their souls, our Lord has still reference to the blasphemous slanders of the Pharisees, and to that state of the heart which renders it impossible for those he describes as being evil to speak good things, as the context shows. The primitive sense of argov is idle or useless, from a, negative, and ergov, work. It is, however, itself a vague term, the sense of which must be determined by the context. Origen says that argov logov, in the language of logicians, was used to express a sophism or false reasoning, employed with a view to deceive. The meaning of our Lord appears to be, that, as for every calumnious word, the malice of which consisted in the design to make a false impression, which men may speak, they shall be condemned at the last day, so did the Pharisees render themselves liable to the just judgment of God by those blasphemous slanders in which they had indulged with the design of making him odious to the people. From this particular case he, however, according to his custom, deduces a great general truth. Words, as well as actions, are to be the subjects of solemn account at the last day; and the abuse of speech not less than the abuse of any other faculty shall subject men to condemnation. What account then will mere triflers give, men who spend life in useless talking and “foolish jesting,” in singing vain songs, and framing vain witticisms? But still more severe will be the punishment of the censorious, of “lying lips,” and especially of those whose tongues have been employed in uttering corrupt doctrines, misleading and destructive to the souls of men!
For by thy words thou shalt be justified, and by thy words thou shalt be condemned.
John Wesley
V. 37. For by thy words (as well as thy tempers and works) thou shalt then be either acquitted or condemned. Your words as well as actions shall be produced in evidence for or against you, to prove whether you was a true believer or not. And according to that evidence you will either be acquitted or condemned in the great day.
Adam Clarke
Verse 37. By thy words thou shalt be justified] That is, the whole tenor of thy conversation will be an evidence for or against thee, in the great day. How many are there who count words for nothing! and yet eternity often depends on them. Lord, put a watch before the door of my lips! is a prayer proper for all men.
Joseph Benson
Verses 36, 37. But I say unto you — You may perhaps think God does not much regard your words, but I assure you, that not only for blasphemous and profane, malicious, false, slanderous, and reviling words, but for every idle word which men shall speak: for all light, vain, trifling expressions; for all useless, unprofitable conversation, and all discourse uttered without seriousness and caution, and which does not conduce to the glory of God and the good of mankind; that men shall speak — At any time, or on any occasion, they shall give an account in the day of judgment — “I cannot think,” says Dr. Doddridge, “that our Lord here uses argon, idle, merely to signify mischievous. We are certainly accountable for useless as well as wicked discourses, and they will be taken into that last survey which is to determine our character and state: which they whose life is one continued scene of whim, or sneering raillery, would do well seriously to consider. And it was to our Lord’s purpose to observe it here, as it inferred, by the strongest consequence, the danger of such vile and criminal discourses as those of the Pharisees in this case. But discourse tending to exhilarate the spirits is not idle discourse; as the time spent in necessary recreation is not idle time; nor does a wise and gracious God expect from men the life of angels. If any are dissatisfied with the account of things here given, I would beg leave to ask them whether unprofitable talk be not a sinful wasting of time? and whether that must not render a man in some degree criminal before God?” For by thy words — That is, by the evidence of thy words, as well as of thy tempers and works, thou shall be justified, &c. — Shalt be either acquitted or condemned; since by the tenor of these the disposition of thy heart is shown, and thy true character discovered. Therefore these shall be produced in evidence for or against thee at the great day, and by this evidence thou shalt then stand or fall.
Daniel Whedon
37. For by thy words thou shalt be justified — This explains the preceding verse. By our words, however unimportant, we shall be justified or condemned, according as they are good or evil.
Richard Watson
Verse 37. For by thy words thou shalt be justified, &c. — Words as well as actions shall be exhibited as proofs of character, and be evidence in that day for or against every man; by them too, as far as words are the matter of judicial decision, he shall be acquitted or condemned.
Then certain of the scribes and of the Pharisees answered, saying, Master, we would see a sign from thee.
John Wesley
V. 38. We would see a sign-Else we will not believe this. Matthew 16:1; Luke 11:16, 29.
Adam Clarke
Verse 38. We would see a sign from thee.] That is, we wish now to see thee work a miracle. Pride, vain curiosity, and incredulity, have never proof sufficient of the truth: for they will not be satisfied.
Joseph Benson
Verses 38-40. Then certain of the scribes, &c. — Now present, upon hearing how plainly Christ admonished, and how severely he rebuked them, answered — Probably with a view to divert the discourse to another topic, We would see a sign from thee — As if they had said, Otherwise we will not believe this doctrine. Thus they insinuated that the ejection of devils was but a trifling miracle, which, for all he had said to the contrary, might be done by the help of devils, and that no signs of that kind, however numerous, should convince them; for that they would not believe unless he would prove his mission by what is here called a sign, and in Luke 11:16, a sign from heaven, meaning, probably, some such celestial appearance as several of the ancient prophets gave; particularly Moses, Joshua, Samuel, and Elijah. But he answered, An evil and adulterous generation — A spurious breed, which has degenerated from the faith and piety of their great progenitor, Abraham; or, a generation whose heart wanders from God, though they profess him to be their husband. Such adulterers are all those who love the world, and all who seek the friendship of it. Seeketh a sign — After all the signs they have had already, which were abundantly sufficient to have convinced them, had not their hearts been estranged from God, and consequently averse to the truth. And there shall no sign be given to it, but [or, unless it be] the sign of the Prophet Jonas — Who was herein a type of Christ. For as Jonas was three days and three nights, &c. — It was customary with the eastern nations to reckon any part of a natural day of twenty-four hours for the whole day. Accordingly, they used to say a thing was done after three, or seven days, &c., if it was done on the third or seventh day from that last mentioned. Instances of this may be seen, 1 Kings 20:29; 2 Chronicles 10:5, 12, and in many other places. And, as the Hebrews had no word exactly answering to the Greek nucqhmeron, to signify a natural day of twenty- four hours, they used night and day, or day and night, for it. See also Esther 4:16; 5:1; Genesis 7:4, 12; Exodus 24:18; 34:28. In the whale’s belly — Or, in the belly of the great fish that swallowed him. See note on Jonah 1:17. So shall the Son of man be — in the heart of the earth — That is, in the earth; for the expression does not imply that he was to be buried in the middle of the earth, but in the earth simply. Thus, in Ezekiel 28:2, Tyre is said to be in the heart of the sea, though it was so near the continent, that, when Alexander besieged it, he carried a causeway from the land to the city.
Joseph Sutcliffe
Ver. 38. Master, we would see a sign from thee. Strange question, after all the signs sent in tidings to John. It is generally supposed that they meant some such signs as accompanied the emancipation of their fathers from Egypt. Here the Saviour, indignant that they should reject the gracious signs of the gospel for the terrific visitations on the wicked, was constant in the declaration that no sign should be given to that generation, but the sign of his resurrection from the dead.
When this demand was made on his first preaching in the temple, he replied, “Destroy this temple, and in three days I will raise it again;” they understood not then that he spake of the temple of his body. So here, the demand being repeated, he would give them no sign, but that of Jonah raised on the third day from the deep. See Matthew 16:4. Truly, this was a great sign to heaven and earth. On that day he was declared the Son of God with power, and made Lord both of the living and the dead. Romans 1:4. 14:9. So the apostle argues at large in the synagogue of Antioch. Acts 13:30-37.
Daniel Whedon
38. Master, we would see a sign — This asking for a sign seemed to be a standing demand, made at different times; by the scribes and Pharisees, as here; by the Pharisees with the Sadducees in Matthew 16:1, 4; and by the people in Luke 11:16, 29. See also John 6:30; 1 Corinthians 1:22. Our Lord uniformly not only refused compliance, but rebuked the request. From this, some skeptics have boldly inferred that our Lord could not furnish the sign; and that he really performed no miracles; since miracles are signs. To these cavils, perhaps answers will appear in the course of our remarks. But we may here remark that although a miracle is in a true sense a sign, yet there is a difference between a miracle and a sign. A miracle is a work going forth from our Lord’s own power and act. A sign would be some divine token, given from some other source, as a confirmatory seal of his Messiahship. Now, as miracles going out from our Lord’s power were proper and true manifestations of himself, it was upon proof of those that our Lord rightly held that he was to be received. He claimed to be accepted for what he himself was or did. What the Jews at this time sought, as appears from Luke, was a sign from heaven; and it is probable that they had in their minds what in Matthew 24:30, is called “the sign of the Son of man in heaven;” that is, the glory of his approaching presence, preceding and betokening him. And this is explained in Daniel 7:13, where the Son of man, with his glory in the heavens, is described, exhibiting the Lord in the same array of state, though not upon the same occasion. The Jews may have identified this glorious manifestation in the skies with the Messiah’s first advent or coming. And as it was, possibly, this sign of the Son of man, or manifestation in the heavens, which the Jews now had in their thoughts in asking a celestial sign, so hence we have a good reason why our Lord does not grant their request. It was out of the divine order; inasmuch as that glorious appearing belonged to his second coming in power and judgment, and not to his first coming in humiliation and for salvation. But see notes on Matthew 16:1-4.
Richard Watson
Verses 38, 39. We would see a sign from thee, &c. — They probably meant, as they expressed it on other occasions, “a sign FROM HEAVEN.” Perhaps they urge this as their apology for not being convinced by his miracles, as though greater power was required to produce some preternatural appearance in the atmosphere, than to raise the dead, or cast out devils, and to heal the sick by a word or touch; or, as though upon their own theory, as wicked as absurd, that Christ was in league with Satan, that mighty spirit could not as easily produce a portent in the heavens as any other miraculous work which they pretended to ascribe to him, Their fellow infidels, in all ages, have demanded different evidence from that which God has been pleased to give, and with the same insincerity. He who is unconvinced by proofs so stupendous as those on which Christianity rests, is an unbeliever, not for want of evidence, but from some evil bias upon his judgment and will, which no additional demonstration could remedy. Thus our Lord here traces the unbelief of the scribes and Pharisees to its true source: an evil and adulterous generation, pretending not to be convinced by miracles which have made manifest “the finger of God,” still seeketh after a sign, and that in the same unbelieving spirit. The reason of this was, that they were evil and adulterous, as their polygamy, frequent divorces, and other sensualities, so general among them though covered by their hypocrisy, or defended by their immoral casuistry, sufficiently proved. Where such deep immoralities prevailed, immersing men in the very dregs of sensuality, unbelief was sufficiently accounted for, as well as their fierce hatred of the pure and self-denying doctrines taught by Christ.
But he answered and said unto them, An evil and adulterous generation seeketh after a sign; and there shall no sign be given to it, but the sign of the prophet Jonas:
John Wesley
V. 39. An adulterous generation-Whose heart wanders from God, though they profess him to be their husband. Such adulterers are all those who love the world, and all who seek the friendship of it. Seeketh a sign-After all they have had already, which were abundantly sufficient to convince them, had not their hearts been estranged from God, and consequently averse to the truth.
The sign of Jonah-Who was herein a type of Christ.
Adam Clarke
Verse 39. An evil and adulterous generation] Or, race of people; for so genea should be translated here, and in most other places in the Gospels; for our Lord, in general, uses it to point out the Jewish people. This translation is a key to unlock some very obscure passages in the evangelists.
Seeketh after a sign] Or, seeketh another sign, (epizhtei,) so I think this word should be translated. Our Lord had already given the Jews several signs; and here they desire sign upon sign.
Our Lord terms the Jews an adulterous race. Under the old covenant, the Jewish nation was represented as in a marriage contract with the Lord of hosts; as believers, in the new covenant, are represented as the spouse of Christ. All unfaithfulness and disobedience was considered as a breach of this marriage contract; hence the persons who were thus guilty are denominated adulterers and adulteresses. But, independently of this, there is the utmost proof, from their own writings, that in the time of our Lord they were most literally an adulterous race of people: for, at this very time, R. Jochanan ben Zacchai abrogated the trial by the bitter waters of jealousy, because so many were found to be thus criminal. See on John 8:3.
Joseph Benson
Verses 38-40. Then certain of the scribes, &c. — Now present, upon hearing how plainly Christ admonished, and how severely he rebuked them, answered — Probably with a view to divert the discourse to another topic, We would see a sign from thee — As if they had said, Otherwise we will not believe this doctrine. Thus they insinuated that the ejection of devils was but a trifling miracle, which, for all he had said to the contrary, might be done by the help of devils, and that no signs of that kind, however numerous, should convince them; for that they would not believe unless he would prove his mission by what is here called a sign, and in Luke 11:16, a sign from heaven, meaning, probably, some such celestial appearance as several of the ancient prophets gave; particularly Moses, Joshua, Samuel, and Elijah. But he answered, An evil and adulterous generation — A spurious breed, which has degenerated from the faith and piety of their great progenitor, Abraham; or, a generation whose heart wanders from God, though they profess him to be their husband. Such adulterers are all those who love the world, and all who seek the friendship of it. Seeketh a sign — After all the signs they have had already, which were abundantly sufficient to have convinced them, had not their hearts been estranged from God, and consequently averse to the truth. And there shall no sign be given to it, but [or, unless it be] the sign of the Prophet Jonas — Who was herein a type of Christ. For as Jonas was three days and three nights, &c. — It was customary with the eastern nations to reckon any part of a natural day of twenty-four hours for the whole day. Accordingly, they used to say a thing was done after three, or seven days, &c., if it was done on the third or seventh day from that last mentioned. Instances of this may be seen, 1 Kings 20:29; 2 Chronicles 10:5, 12, and in many other places. And, as the Hebrews had no word exactly answering to the Greek nucqhmeron, to signify a natural day of twenty- four hours, they used night and day, or day and night, for it. See also Esther 4:16; 5:1; Genesis 7:4, 12; Exodus 24:18; 34:28. In the whale’s belly — Or, in the belly of the great fish that swallowed him. See note on Jonah 1:17. So shall the Son of man be — in the heart of the earth — That is, in the earth; for the expression does not imply that he was to be buried in the middle of the earth, but in the earth simply. Thus, in Ezekiel 28:2, Tyre is said to be in the heart of the sea, though it was so near the continent, that, when Alexander besieged it, he carried a causeway from the land to the city.
Joseph Sutcliffe
Ver. 39. An evil and adulterous generation. Divorces, accompanied with habitual polygamy, entitled the jews of that age to the odious character here given them. Their conscience drove them out of the temple when called upon, if innocent, to cast the first stone at the woman taken in adultery. John 8:7. Our Lord’s censure on that profligate age therefore was not too severe.
Daniel Whedon
39. He answered — Our Lord uniformly rebuked this demand for a sign. The temper of the demand itself was not to be indulged. Luke says that they made the request tempting, or making experiments upon him. They had a moblike desire to see splendid shows in the sky, not unlike the excitement of the populace for fireworks on some day of public celebration. And for a Messiah they wished a leader of the people who should gratify their riotous tastes and give them war and victory. This is the Messiah that gross human nature ever seeks. Adulterous — Compare note, Matthew 4:8, and introduction to chap. v, par. 4. Israel had once been, as it were, the true spouse and bride of Jehovah. Their true spouse now was Jesus, the Jehovah incarnate. But with a vile spiritual adultery they were forsaking him, and embracing in their hearts a false Messiah, the incarnation of their own riotous tastes and appetites. Hence they were not only an evil, but adulterous generation. Sign of the prophet Jonas — Our Lord, even in refusing a sign, gives a sign. His prophecy of his burial, after the manner of the swallowing of Jonah, was in itself a miracle of foreknowledge, and so a proof of his Messiahship.
Richard Watson
Verses 38, 39. We would see a sign from thee, &c. — They probably meant, as they expressed it on other occasions, “a sign FROM HEAVEN.” Perhaps they urge this as their apology for not being convinced by his miracles, as though greater power was required to produce some preternatural appearance in the atmosphere, than to raise the dead, or cast out devils, and to heal the sick by a word or touch; or, as though upon their own theory, as wicked as absurd, that Christ was in league with Satan, that mighty spirit could not as easily produce a portent in the heavens as any other miraculous work which they pretended to ascribe to him, Their fellow infidels, in all ages, have demanded different evidence from that which God has been pleased to give, and with the same insincerity. He who is unconvinced by proofs so stupendous as those on which Christianity rests, is an unbeliever, not for want of evidence, but from some evil bias upon his judgment and will, which no additional demonstration could remedy. Thus our Lord here traces the unbelief of the scribes and Pharisees to its true source: an evil and adulterous generation, pretending not to be convinced by miracles which have made manifest “the finger of God,” still seeketh after a sign, and that in the same unbelieving spirit. The reason of this was, that they were evil and adulterous, as their polygamy, frequent divorces, and other sensualities, so general among them though covered by their hypocrisy, or defended by their immoral casuistry, sufficiently proved. Where such deep immoralities prevailed, immersing men in the very dregs of sensuality, unbelief was sufficiently accounted for, as well as their fierce hatred of the pure and self-denying doctrines taught by Christ.
For as Jonas was three days and three nights in the whale’s belly; so shall the Son of man be three days and three nights in the heart of the earth.
John Wesley
V. 40. Three days and three nights-It was customary with the eastern nations to reckon any part of a natural day of twenty-four hours, for the whole day. Accordingly they used to say a thing was done after three or seven days, if it was done on the third or seventh day, from that which was last mentioned. Instances of this may be seen, 1 Kings 20:29; and in many other places. And as the Hebrews had no word to express a natural day, they used night and day, or day and night for it. So that to say a thing happened after three days and three nights, was with them the very same, as to say, it happened after three days, or on the third day. See Esther 4:16; 5:1; Genesis 7:4, 12; Exodus 24:18; 34:28. Jonah 2:1.
Adam Clarke
Verse 40. Three days and three nights] Our Lord rose from the grave on the day but one after his crucifixion: so that, in the computation in this verse, the part of the day on which he was crucified, and the part of that on which he rose again, are severally estimated as an entire day; and this, no doubt, exactly corresponded to the time in which Jonah was in the belly of the fish. Our Lord says, As Jonah was, so shall the Son of man be, &c. Evening and morning, or night and day, is the Hebrew phrase for a natural day, which the Greeks termed nuxqhmeron, nuchthemeron. The very same quantity of time which is here termed three days and three nights, and which, in reality, was only one whole day, a part of two others, and two whole nights, is termed three days and three nights, in the book of Esther: Go; neither eat nor drink THREE DAYS, NIGHT or DAY, and so I will go in unto the king: Esther 4:16. Afterwards it follows, Esther 5:1. On the THIRD DAY, Esther stood in the inner court of the king’s house. Many examples might be produced, from both the sacred and profane writers, in vindication of the propriety of the expression in the text. For farther satisfaction, the reader, if he please, may consult Whitby and Wakefield, and take the following from Lightfoot.
“I. The Jewish writers extend that memorable station of the unmoving sun, at Joshua’s prayer, to six and thirty hours; for so Kimchi upon that place: ‘According to more exact interpretation, the sun and moon stood still for six and thirty hours: for when the fight was on the eve of the Sabbath, Joshua feared lest the Israelites might break the Sabbath; therefore he spread abroad his hands, that the sun might stand still on the sixth day, according to the measure of the day of the Sabbath, and the moon according to the measure of the night of the Sabbath, and of the going out of the Sabbath, which amounts to six and thirty hours.’
“II. If you number the hours that pass from our Saviour’s giving up the ghost upon the cross to his resurrection, you shall find almost the same number of hours; and yet that space is called by him three days and three nights, whereas two nights only came between, and one complete day. Nevertheless, while he speaks these words, he is not without the consent both of the Jewish schools and their computation. Weigh well that which is disputed in the tract Scabbath, concerning the separation of a woman for three days; where many things are discussed by the Gemarists, concerning the computation of this space of three days. Among other things these words occur: R. Ismael saith, Sometimes it contains four hwnwa onoth, sometimes five, sometimes six. But how much is the space of an hnwa onah? R. Jochanan saith, Either a day or a night. And so also the Jerusalem Talmud: ‘R. Akiba fixed a DAY for an onah, and a NIGHT for an onah.’ But the tradition is, that R. Eliazar ben Azariah said, A day and a night make an onah: and a PART of an onah is as the WHOLE. And a little after, R. Ismael computed a part of the onah for the whole.”
Thus, then, three days and three nights, according to this Jewish method of reckoning, included any part of the first day; the whole of the following night; the next day and its night; and any part of the succeeding or third day.
In the whale’s belly] That a fish of the shark kind, and not a whale, is here meant, Bochart has abundantly proved, vol. iii. col. 742, &c., edit. Leyd. 1692. It is well known that the throat of a whale is capable of admitting little more than the arm of an ordinary man; but many of the shark species can swallow a man whole, and men have been found whole in the stomachs of several. Every natural history abounds with facts of this kind. Besides, the shark is a native of the Mediterranean Sea, in which Jonah was sailing when swallowed by what the Hebrew terms lwdg gd dag gadol, a great fish; but every body knows that whales are no produce of the Mediterranean Sea, thought some have been by accident found there, as in most other parts of the maritime world: but, let them be found where they may, there is none of them capable of swallowing a man. Instead of either whale or shark, some have translated lwdg gd dag gadol, Jonah 1:17, by a fishing cove, or something of this nature; but this is merely to get rid of the miracle: for, according to some, the whole of Divine revelation is a forgery-or it is a system of metaphor or allegory, that has no miraculous interferences in it. But, independently of all this, the criticism is contemptible. Others say, that the great fish means a vessel so called, into which Jonah went, and into the hold of which he was thrown, where he continued three days and three nights. In short, it must be any thing but a real miracle, the existence of which the wise men, so called, of the present day, cannot admit. Perhaps these very men are not aware that they have scarcely any belief even in the existence of God himself!
Joseph Benson
Verses 38-40. Then certain of the scribes, &c. — Now present, upon hearing how plainly Christ admonished, and how severely he rebuked them, answered — Probably with a view to divert the discourse to another topic, We would see a sign from thee — As if they had said, Otherwise we will not believe this doctrine. Thus they insinuated that the ejection of devils was but a trifling miracle, which, for all he had said to the contrary, might be done by the help of devils, and that no signs of that kind, however numerous, should convince them; for that they would not believe unless he would prove his mission by what is here called a sign, and in Luke 11:16, a sign from heaven, meaning, probably, some such celestial appearance as several of the ancient prophets gave; particularly Moses, Joshua, Samuel, and Elijah. But he answered, An evil and adulterous generation — A spurious breed, which has degenerated from the faith and piety of their great progenitor, Abraham; or, a generation whose heart wanders from God, though they profess him to be their husband. Such adulterers are all those who love the world, and all who seek the friendship of it. Seeketh a sign — After all the signs they have had already, which were abundantly sufficient to have convinced them, had not their hearts been estranged from God, and consequently averse to the truth. And there shall no sign be given to it, but [or, unless it be] the sign of the Prophet Jonas — Who was herein a type of Christ. For as Jonas was three days and three nights, &c. — It was customary with the eastern nations to reckon any part of a natural day of twenty-four hours for the whole day. Accordingly, they used to say a thing was done after three, or seven days, &c., if it was done on the third or seventh day from that last mentioned. Instances of this may be seen, 1 Kings 20:29; 2 Chronicles 10:5, 12, and in many other places. And, as the Hebrews had no word exactly answering to the Greek nucqhmeron, to signify a natural day of twenty- four hours, they used night and day, or day and night, for it. See also Esther 4:16; 5:1; Genesis 7:4, 12; Exodus 24:18; 34:28. In the whale’s belly — Or, in the belly of the great fish that swallowed him. See note on Jonah 1:17. So shall the Son of man be — in the heart of the earth — That is, in the earth; for the expression does not imply that he was to be buried in the middle of the earth, but in the earth simply. Thus, in Ezekiel 28:2, Tyre is said to be in the heart of the sea, though it was so near the continent, that, when Alexander besieged it, he carried a causeway from the land to the city.
Joseph Sutcliffe
Ver. 40. In the whale’s belly. See note on Jonah 1:17.
Daniel Whedon
40. Three days — His resurrection, connected with the diurnal revolution, would be an astronomical sign.
Our Saviour was not in the tomb three days and three entire nights, according to our modes of calculation. He expired on Friday afternoon and rose on Sunday morning. He was therefore entombed but the nights of Friday and Saturday. But the Jews reckoned the entire twenty-four hours in an unbroken piece, as a night-and-day. They counted the odd fragment of a day, in computation, as an entire night-and-day. Our Lord therefore was dead during three night-and-days.
The sign of the prophet Jonah was full of warning to the Jews. Jerusalem was the modern Nineveh; a living parallel to Jonah, greater than Jonah himself, was predicting its destruction; and the three night-and-days suggested that without repentance Jerusalem might meet the destruction that Nineveh, by repentance, escaped. Jonah prophesied a destruction in forty days; Jerusalem was destroyed after forty years. Whale — Rather, sea monster. But Dr. Thomson has the following remarks on this subject: “The Bible says that the Lord had prepared a great fish to swallow up the prophet; but in Matthew it is called a whale by our Saviour. Now, if I am correctly informed, there are no whales in the Mediterranean. How do you explain this?
“Simply by the fact that the multiplication of ships in this sea, after the time of Jonah, frightened them out of it, as other causes have driven all lions out of Palestine, where they were once numerous. It is well known that some of the best fishing stations, even in the great oceans, have been abandoned by the whales because of the multitude of whalers that visited them. This sea would of course be forsaken. If you could stock it thoroughly with these monsters to-day, there would be none left a year hence. But up to the time of Jonah navigation was in its infancy, ships were few and small, and they kept mostly along the shores, leaving the interior undisturbed. Whales may therefore have been common in the Mediterranean. And there are instances on record of the appearance of huge marine creatures in this sea in ancient days. Some of these may have been whales. The Hebrew word dâg, it is true, means simply any great fish; but nothing is gained by resorting to such a solution of the difficulty. Our Lord calls it a whale, and I am contented with his translation; and whale it was, not a shark or lamia, as some critics maintain. In a word, the whole affair was miraculous, and as such, is taken out of the category of difficulties.”
Heart of the earth — As our Lord was not buried in the ground, but enclosed in a tomb of rock, some have understood by the phrase, heart of the earth, the place of departed spirits, to which our Lord at his death descended. But surely the rock is a part of the earth, as truly as the soil. The bosom of a rock is very expressively styled the heart of the earth.
Richard Watson
Verse 40. As Jonas was three days and three nights, &c. — That the Prophet Jonah was a type of Christ is not to be deduced from these words. He was now, on this occasion, made by our Lord “a sign:” and the reason was, that our Lord, who now for the first time lays down his resurrection from the dead as the grand SIGN and DEMONSTRATIVE evidence of the truth of all his claims, chose, for obvious reasons, to speak of this event enigmatically, and to fix upon that part of the history of Jonah, his being three days and three nights in the belly of the fish which had swallowed him, so that his meaning might not be fully explained until after the event. The whale’s belly. — This is an unfortunate translation, both because neither the Hebrew nor the Greek term necessarily signifies a whale, but only a great fish, or sea monster; and because, in fact, whales are not found in the Mediterranean Sea, into which the disobedient prophet was cast, The shark, or the lamia, or canis carcharius, might be the fish employed on this miraculous occasion.
Three days and three nights in the heart of the earth. — The heart of the earth is beneath its surface, as Jonah was said to be in “the heart” of the sea, though not in its middle or centre. A similar mode of speaking occurs in Ezekiel 28:2: “Tyre, in the heart of the sea,” because nearly surrounded by it, though not far from the land. The Jewish mode of computing time will explain the phrase three days and three nights, which according to our modes of reckoning far exceeds the time during which our Lord lay in the grave. With them, a day and a night was the same portion of time as a day; for, like us, they had no one word, says Bishop Pearce, by which to express a day of twenty-four hours, or a nucqhmeron, as the Greeks called it; that is a night-day. They sometimes called it a day, as we do; but at other times a day and a night, or a night and a day; so that we are to understand by the expression three days and three nights, three days as we should express it, reckoning inclusively the first and the last for two days, though only parts of days, and counting those parts of days for whole days. “A part,” say the rabbins, “of an onah or Jewish day is as the whole.” Thus in computing the circumcision of eight days, if the child is born all hour before the evening, when the day began, that hour of the day is reckoned as one whole day. Thus as to our Lord’s remaining in the grave, Friday is reckoned one day, Saturday the second, Sunday the third; Saturday commencing on the evening of the Friday. He was laid in the grave a little before sunset on the Friday or the sixth day, which space being part of the day was reckoned as the whole; he continued there the night and day following, which was the seventh day; and rose again early on the first day, during a part of which therefore he was also in the grave, and this part according to the Jewish mode was considered as the whole; so that to say he was three days and three nights in the grave, was very easy to be understood, and created no difficulty with the Jews, or St. Matthew, writing after the resurrection, would doubtless have added some explanation.
The men of Nineveh shall rise in judgment with this generation, and shall condemn it: because they repented at the preaching of Jonas; and, behold, a greater than Jonas is here.
Adam Clarke
Verse 41. The men of Nineveh shell rise in judgment] The voice of God, threatening temporal judgments, caused a whole people to repent, who had neither Moses nor Christ, neither the law nor the prophets; and who perhaps never had but this one preacher among them. What judgment may not we expect, if we continue impenitent, after all that God has bestowed upon us?
A greater than Jonas is here.] pleion, for ti pleion, something more. The evidence offered by Jonah sufficed to convince and lead the Ninevites to repentance; but here was more evidence, and a greater person; and yet so obstinate are the Jews that all is ineffectual. 1. Christ, who preached to the Jews, was infinitely greater than Jonah, in his nature, person, and mission. 2. Jonah preached repentance in Nineveh only forty days, and Christ preached among the Jews for several years. 3. Jonah wrought no miracles to authorize his preaching; but Christ wrought miracles every day, in every place where he went, and of every kind. And 4. Notwithstanding all this, the people of Judea did not repent, though the people of Nineveh did.
Joseph Benson
Verse 41. The men of Nineveh, &c. — “The Ninevites being judged at the same time with the men of that generation, and their behaviour being compared with theirs, should make their guilt appear in its true colour and condemn them. For though they were idolaters, they repented at the preaching of Jonah, a stranger, a poor person, one that continued among them only three days, and wrought no miracle to make them believe him. But the men of that generation, though worshippers of the true God by profession, could every day hear unmoved the much more powerful preaching of a prophet infinitely greater than Jonah, even the preaching of the eternal Son of God, who confirmed his doctrine by the most astonishing miracles.” — Macknight. Of the reasons which might induce the Ninevites to repent, see note on Jonah 3:5, 6.
Daniel Whedon
41. Shall condemn it — The far superior example of the Ninevites shall reflect condemnation on the Jerusalemites. They repented — Though Jonah and Nineveh were a type of Jesus and Jerusalem, yet there is one point in which there is contrast rather than parallel. Nineveh repented on much less evidence. Jerusalem rejected the most beneficent miracles, persisted in sin, and died in impenitence. Thus did our Lord, in refusing a sign, give a sign and a witness.
Richard Watson
Verse 41. The men of Nineveh, &c. — The mention of Jonah gave occasion to our Lord to contrast the obduracy of the Jews with the repentance of the men of Nineveh. — They believed the prophet’s testimony, though a stranger and alone; and though he wrought no miracle, they repented; while the body of the Jewish people, greatly perverted in their judgment, and hardened against the evidence of truth, no doubt by the active opposition and influence of the Pharisees, repented not, although the Messenger sent was greater than Jonas, both in person and office; and the most stupendous miracles had been wrought in their sight; and, finally, though the message was at once a gracious offer of salvation, and a warning against severer judgments than those denounced against Nineveh. The Ninevites, though sinners, were, it seems, conscious that they were so; and the denunciation of Divine vengeance, therefore, made at once an effectual appeal to their fears: the Jews too were sinners; but “they trusted within themselves that they were righteous.”
Rise up in judgment, &c. — This alludes to the custom of witnesses rising up from their seats, and standing in court to give their testimony: the men of Nineveh should condemn that generation of Jews at the general judgment, not as judges, but as witnesses; their obedience to the call of God under inferior religious privileges serving the more strongly to mark the aggravated guilt of a people among whom the Son of God himself had appeared.
The queen of the south shall rise up in the judgment with this generation, and shall condemn it: for she came from the uttermost parts of the earth to hear the wisdom of Solomon; and, behold, a greater than Solomon is here.
John Wesley
V. 42. She came from the uttermost parts of the earth-That part of Arabia from which she came was the uttermost part of the earth that way, being bounded by the sea. 1 Kings 10:1.
Adam Clarke
Verse 42. The queen of the south] In 1 Kings 10:1, this queen is said to be of Saba, which was a city and province of Arabia Felix, to the south, or south-east, of Judea.
Uttermost parts of the earth] peratwn thv ghv-a form of speech which merely signifies, a great distance. See Deuteronomy 28:49.
Joseph Benson
Verse 42. The queen of the south, &c. — Of this queen, see note on 1 Kings 10:1. She came from the uttermost parts of the earth — That part of Arabia from which she came was the uttermost part of the earth that way, being bounded by the sea. A greater than Solomon is here — “Our Lord speaks of himself in this sublime language with the utmost reason, and with perfect modesty and decorum. The humble form of his appearance, and his necessary reserve in declaring himself the Messiah in so many words, made it yet more expedient, that by such phrases as these he should sometimes intimate it: and indeed his saying he was greater than Solomon, that most illustrious of all the descendants of David, was as plain an intimation as could well be given.” — Doddridge.
Daniel Whedon
42. Queen of the south — Of Sheba. Alford says: “Josephus calls her ‘queen of Egypt and Ethiopia,’ that is, Meroe, whose queens were usually called Candace. Abyssinian tradition, agreeing with this account, calls her Maqueda, and supposes her to have embraced the Jewish religion in Jerusalem. The Arabians, on the other hand, also claim her, calling her Balkis, which latter is probably nearer the truth, as Sheba is a tract in Arabia Felix, near the Red Sea, near the present Aden, abounding in spice, and gold, and precious stones.”
Richard Watson
Verse 42. The queen of the south, &c. — She is called the queen of Sheba, 1 Kings 10:1. Sheba is placed by some in Arabia, by others in Ethiopia. Josephus says that Sheba was the name of the city of Meroe, and that it was thence that the queen here mentioned came. The Abyssinians have for ages, both before and after the Christian era, maintained that this princess was of their country, and that her posterity long reigned there; and many circumstances serve to give a strong probability to their claim, and especially the existence in that country, in ancient times, of a form of Judaism, which was in all probability introduced under the authority of some person of rank and influence; and none is more likely than the celebrated queen, who, travelling to so great a distance to hear the wisdom of Solomon, showed herself to be a woman of wisdom and literary taste, and would probably take back with her copies of the sacred books. She is here commended by our Lord for her love of wisdom, of moral wisdom, for in that the philosophy of those ancient times chiefly consisted; and her example condemned the Jews, both because they not only had no desire after true wisdom, but were utterly averse to it; and because she received with docility instruction from the lips of a mere man, who, though great and wise, was inferior to Him whose ministry they proudly and malignantly slighted. That our Lord intimates under the modest phrase, pleion Solomwntov, that he was superior in nature to Solomon, as to the dignity of his person, cannot be reasonably doubted; for though the neuter gender be used, there can be no question, but the comparison is of persons, not of things.
When the unclean spirit is gone out of a man, he walketh through dry places, seeking rest, and findeth none.
John Wesley
V. 43. But how dreadful will be the consequence of their rejecting me? When the unclean spirit goeth out-Not willingly, but being compelled by one that is stronger than he.
He walketh-Wanders up and down;
through dry places-Barren, dreary, desolate; or places not yet watered with the Gospel:
Seeking rest, and findeth none-How can he, while he carries with him his own hell? And is it not the case of his children too? Reader, is it thy case? Luke 11:24.
Adam Clarke
Verse 43. When the unclean spirit] If there had been no reality in demoniacal possessions, our Lord would have scarcely appealed to a case of this kind here, to point out the real state of the Jewish people, and the desolation which was coming upon them. Had this been only a vulgar error, of the nonsense of which the learned scribes and the wise Pharisees must have been convinced, the case not being one in point, because not true, must have been treated by that very people with contempt for whose conviction it was alone designed.
He walketh through dry places] di~ anudrwn topwn. There seems to be a reference here to the Orphic demonology, in which evil spirits were divided into various classes, according to the different regions of their abode, or places in which they delighted. These classes were five: 1. daimonev ouranioi, Celestial demons. 2. daimonev herioi, Aerial. 3. daimonev enudrioi, Aquatic. 4. daimonev cqonioi, Terrestrial. 5. kai daimonev upocqonioi, And subterranean demons. See Orph. ad Mus. ap. Schott. The Platonists, the followers of Zoroaster, and the primitive Jews, made nearly the same distinctions.
Seeking rest] Or refreshment. Strange! a fallen corrupt spirit can have no rest but in the polluted human heart: the corruption of the one is suited to the pollution of the other, and thus like cleaves to like.
Joseph Benson
Verses 43-45. When the unclean spirit, &c. — In these verses, with a view to show how dreadful the state of the Jewish people would be, if they continued to reject him and his gospel, our Lord introduces a parable, borrowed from the late subject of his dispute with the Pharisees. He compares their condition to that of a man, who, after having had an evil spirit expelled out of him, is again, through God’s permission, as a punishment of his continuing in sin, taken possession of by that spirit, with seven others still more wicked, and is thereby brought into a worse condition than ever. The parable evidently supposes the existence of demoniacal possessions, for if there had been no reality in them, the comparison would have meant nothing; and it supposes, also, that the Pharisees allowed their existence, otherwise our Lord’s words, instead of convincing or instructing them, must have been treated by them with contempt. When the unclean spirit is gone out of a man — Not of his own accord, or willingly, but compelled by one that is stronger than he; he walketh — Wanders up and down, through dry places — Barren, dreary, desolate; or places not yet watered with the gospel. The words contain a plain allusion to the common notion, that evil demons had their haunts in deserts and desolate places. Compare Isaiah 13:21; where, instead of satyrs, the LXX. read daimonia, demons. See also Revelation 18:2. Seeking rest — To his own malignant nature, in observing barren wastes and desolations, rather than such agreeable scenes as might present to his view the memorials of God’s goodness to the human race: and findeth none — How should he find any, while he carries with him his own hell? And is it not the case of his children, too? Reader, is it thy case? Then he saith, I will return into my house — He resolves to make another attack on the person out of whom he had been expelled: whence I came out — He speaks as if he had come out of his own accord: see his pride! And when he is come, he findeth it empty — Of truth and grace; of wisdom and piety; of God, and Christ, and the Holy Spirit: swept and garnished — That is, prepared to receive him: swept, from love, lowliness, meekness, and all the fruits of the Spirit, and adorned with levity and folly, vanity and sin. In other words, he finds the miserable sinner unaffected with his late affliction and deliverance, and still a slave to those vices which render him an agreeable dwelling for Satan. Then goeth he and taketh seven other spirits — That is, a great many, the number seven denoting perfection, whether of good or bad things; more wicked than himself — Whence it appears that there are degrees of wickedness among the devils themselves. And they enter in, finding easy access, and dwell there — Namely, for ever, in him that is forsaken of God. And the last state, &c., is worse than the first — The devils having taken a sevenfold stronger possession of him than they had before. So shall it be also unto this wicked generation — Who resist the convictions which my doctrine and miracles have raised in them. Instead of growing wiser and better, they will become seven times more foolish, sinful, and miserable, “as both the natural and judicial consequence of their rejecting the methods used by divine grace for their recovery; till, as if they were possessed by a multitude of devils, they are madly hurried on to their irrecoverable ruin in this world and the next. They who have read the sad account, given by Josephus, of the temper and conduct of the Jews after the ascension of Christ, and just before their final destruction by the Romans, must acknowledge that no emblem could have been more proper to describe them. Their characters were the vilest that can be conceived, and they pressed on to their own ruin, as if they had been possessed by legions of devils, and wrought up to the last degrees of madness.” — Doddridge. But this parable is also designed to teach men, in every age, the danger and awful consequences of resisting the convictions produced in their minds by the truth and grace of God; or of grieving, quenching, and doing despite to the Holy Ghost, by breaking through their resolutions, and relapsing into their former sins; the effect being commonly to render them more obdurate and abandoned than before.
Joseph Sutcliffe
Ver. 43. When the unclean spirit is gone out — he walketh through dry places. Because of necromancy, and because of idolatry many were tormented with devils. Hence our Saviour cautioned one not to sin again in a certain way, lest a worse thing should come upon him. The air or region through which the expelled demon roved is compared to a droughty desert; but the man miraculously freed from diabolical domination, not seeking the regenerating influence of grace, left his heart open for the demon to return. And the unclean spirit, wishful to strengthen his influence against a second expulsion, associated with himself seven, or many other unclean spirits, and reëntered the wicked man’s heart, and made his last state worse than the first. So it was with the generation who saw the works, and heard the words of Christ. For a time they bowed under the influence of grace; but after rejecting the gospel, the pen of Josephus fails to describe their depravity and consequent misery. So it is to this day with those who have been under the influence of religious impressions in youth, but having given the reins to passion, they work all manner of uncleanness with greediness, and are led captive by Satan at his will. 2 Timothy 2:26.
Daniel Whedon
43. When the unclean spirit — Our Lord draws a picture of the present apostate generation, (including the blaspheming Pharisees,) from the demoniac whom he had dispossessed before the commencement of this discourse, and whose case had given rise to it, (verse 22.) That generation had melted, and been transiently converted, under the preaching of John. They were precisely like the man he had just dispossessed. But how had the devil again possessed them! Dry places — Waterless, and therefore uninhabited deserts. Walketh through dry places — The demon, driven by divine power from the hearts of men, is pictured by our Lord as not going to hell directly, but as lingering in the unpeopled regions of the dry desert. Seeking rest, and findeth none — Because he pants for a residence in a human being.
Richard Watson
Verses 43-45. When the unclean spirit, &c. — This parable, founded upon the fact of demoniacal possessions, has been variously interpreted, and, for want of attention to the context, often either misunderstood or allegorized beyond all bounds of sobriety. — As it relates to the mysterious influence and habits of a class of supernatural beings, it partakes of the obscurity of the subject; but is, nevertheless, sufficiently obvious, in its general import to convey the most solemn instruction. That some unhappy demoniacs were possessed with one evil spirit, others with more, as Mary Magdalene, who had seven, and the man near Gadara, of whom a legion had taken possession, are facts which appear in the Gospel history: and that it was not an uncommon case that a man who had been delivered from one demon, might after be possessed by many, is probable; because this is the basis, and constitutes the point, of the parable. This parable, separate, from its application to the Jews, which shall presently be noticed, teaches us,
1. That these evil spirits are necessarily wretched: they “seek rest and find none,” but carry with them their own hell.
2. “That the only alleviation they know is the occupation of their attention by projects of mischief, which yet, as it heightens their guilt, must ultimately increase their misery. This is strongly represented, by the clause, “he walketh through dry places,” di’ anudrwn topwn, meaning deserts and parts of the wilderness which, as being without water, were not inhabited. Such solitudes afforded no opportunities for tempting men, and left the wandering, wretched spirit wholly to his own tormenting thoughts; he therefore is pictured as hastening back to the habitations of human society, in quest of objects on which to exercise his malignant power. His first effort is made upon the individual from whom he had been dispossessed; and the heart of this man being fitly compared to a house, empty, swept, and garnished, and thus fitted to receive inhabitants, he taketh others with him, who enter and dwell there. “This indicates,
3. That though in some cases possession might be a mere calamity independent of any particular turpitude in the unfortunate subject; yet that such repossessions at least were occasioned by a relapse into sin, a submission to the dominion of bad principles and passions, which had vexed the Holy Spirit and obliged him to depart, and had left the man in a state as prepared to fall again under the power of Satan, as a house empty of an inhabitant, yet swept and garnished or furnished, was fitted to receive occupiers; so that the devil, as one quaintly observes, “takes possession only of ready furnished lodgings.”
4. That the consequence of such a moral relapse was, that the former evil was increased sevenfold, and the last state of that man made worse than the first. Thus, in that day God sometimes punished sin by surrendering the offender more fully to the visible power of Satan.
The application of this parable, for such it is, though founded on what appears occasionally, in that age, to have occurred to the Jewish people, is now to be considered. Even so shall it be also unto this wicked generation. The parable, as supposing a previous better state, represented by the first ejection of the demon, can scarcely be confined to the scribes and Pharisees, though they might and probably did grow rapidly worse. Still they never appear before us but as the enemies of our Lord; and even as early as when they went to John’s baptism they were called by him “a generation of vipers;” the very term just used respecting them by our Lord. It is, therefore probable that the condition of the man in the parable, when the devil was dispossessed for a time, refers to that hopeful state of mind to which great multitudes of the Jews had been brought by the awakening preaching of John the Baptist, and the powerful early ministrations of our Lord; and from such beginnings, how different a result might have been expected! But the opposition and slanders of their teachers, operating upon the worldliness of the body of the people who were looking still for a secular Messiah, and upon their prejudices, had caused them generally to relapse into a state of enmity and opposition to truth; and they were thus prepared for a still deeper corruption of principles and passions, and were indeed rapidly sinking into it; — a moral state of obduracy, malignity, and wickedness, which might well be compared with that of a man possessed with seven evil spirits; and the history of the body of the Jewish people, who from this time went on increasing in wickedness, down to the destruction of Jerusalem, before which indeed “they filled up the measure of their iniquities,” is an awful but most legible comment upon the prediction of our Lord, So shall it be also unto this generation. This is the primary sense of the parable; but there are great general truths contained in it applicable far beyond the first design. It is a solemn admonition to all who relapse into sin after the turning of their hearts to God. Those evils from which they have been wholly or at least partially saved, if suffered to resume their influence and dominion, through unwatchfulness, worldliness, the neglect of duty, and the alienation of the heart from communion with God, come back with sevenfold force, and take possession of a heart thus empty of God, swept and garnished to receive evil, like a legion of evil spirits. Thus often every thing within “increases to more ungodliness:” blindness, insensibility, sensuality, pride, unbelief, fierce and fiery tempers, and all other evils — some of the old residents of the heart, and others new and introduced ones — assert their polluted and uncontrolled empire; the Holy Spirit is withdrawn; and the man, now under the full spiritual power of Satan, proves that his last state is worse than the first. “Watch and pray,” says our Lord, even to his disciples, “lest YE fall into temptation.”
Then he saith, I will return into my house from whence I came out; and when he is come, he findeth it empty, swept, and garnished.
John Wesley
V. 44. Whence he came out-He speaks as if he had come out of his own accord: See his pride!
He findeth it empty-of God, of Christ, of his Spirit:
Swept-from love, lowliness, meekness, and all the fruits of the Spirit: And garnished-With levity and security: so that there is nothing to keep him out, and much to invite him in.
Adam Clarke
Verse 44. Into my house] The soul of that person from whom he had been expelled by the power of Christ, and out of which he was to have been kept by continual prayer, faith, and watchfulness.
He findeth it empty] Unoccupied, scolazonta, empty of the former inhabitant, and ready to receive a new one: denoting a soul that has lost the life and power of godliness, and the testimony of the Holy Spirit. Swept and garnished.] As scolazw signifies to be idle, or unemployed, it may refer here to the person, as well as to his state. His affections and desires are no longer busied with the things of God, but gad about, like an idle person, among the vanities of a perishing world. Swept, from love, meekness, and all the fruits of the Spirit; and garnished, or adorned, kekosmhmenon, decorated, with the vain showy trifles of folly and fashion. This may comprise also smart speeches, cunning repartees, &c., for which many who have lost the life of God are very remarkable.
Joseph Benson
Verses 43-45. When the unclean spirit, &c. — In these verses, with a view to show how dreadful the state of the Jewish people would be, if they continued to reject him and his gospel, our Lord introduces a parable, borrowed from the late subject of his dispute with the Pharisees. He compares their condition to that of a man, who, after having had an evil spirit expelled out of him, is again, through God’s permission, as a punishment of his continuing in sin, taken possession of by that spirit, with seven others still more wicked, and is thereby brought into a worse condition than ever. The parable evidently supposes the existence of demoniacal possessions, for if there had been no reality in them, the comparison would have meant nothing; and it supposes, also, that the Pharisees allowed their existence, otherwise our Lord’s words, instead of convincing or instructing them, must have been treated by them with contempt. When the unclean spirit is gone out of a man — Not of his own accord, or willingly, but compelled by one that is stronger than he; he walketh — Wanders up and down, through dry places — Barren, dreary, desolate; or places not yet watered with the gospel. The words contain a plain allusion to the common notion, that evil demons had their haunts in deserts and desolate places. Compare Isaiah 13:21; where, instead of satyrs, the LXX. read daimonia, demons. See also Revelation 18:2. Seeking rest — To his own malignant nature, in observing barren wastes and desolations, rather than such agreeable scenes as might present to his view the memorials of God’s goodness to the human race: and findeth none — How should he find any, while he carries with him his own hell? And is it not the case of his children, too? Reader, is it thy case? Then he saith, I will return into my house — He resolves to make another attack on the person out of whom he had been expelled: whence I came out — He speaks as if he had come out of his own accord: see his pride! And when he is come, he findeth it empty — Of truth and grace; of wisdom and piety; of God, and Christ, and the Holy Spirit: swept and garnished — That is, prepared to receive him: swept, from love, lowliness, meekness, and all the fruits of the Spirit, and adorned with levity and folly, vanity and sin. In other words, he finds the miserable sinner unaffected with his late affliction and deliverance, and still a slave to those vices which render him an agreeable dwelling for Satan. Then goeth he and taketh seven other spirits — That is, a great many, the number seven denoting perfection, whether of good or bad things; more wicked than himself — Whence it appears that there are degrees of wickedness among the devils themselves. And they enter in, finding easy access, and dwell there — Namely, for ever, in him that is forsaken of God. And the last state, &c., is worse than the first — The devils having taken a sevenfold stronger possession of him than they had before. So shall it be also unto this wicked generation — Who resist the convictions which my doctrine and miracles have raised in them. Instead of growing wiser and better, they will become seven times more foolish, sinful, and miserable, “as both the natural and judicial consequence of their rejecting the methods used by divine grace for their recovery; till, as if they were possessed by a multitude of devils, they are madly hurried on to their irrecoverable ruin in this world and the next. They who have read the sad account, given by Josephus, of the temper and conduct of the Jews after the ascension of Christ, and just before their final destruction by the Romans, must acknowledge that no emblem could have been more proper to describe them. Their characters were the vilest that can be conceived, and they pressed on to their own ruin, as if they had been possessed by legions of devils, and wrought up to the last degrees of madness.” — Doddridge. But this parable is also designed to teach men, in every age, the danger and awful consequences of resisting the convictions produced in their minds by the truth and grace of God; or of grieving, quenching, and doing despite to the Holy Ghost, by breaking through their resolutions, and relapsing into their former sins; the effect being commonly to render them more obdurate and abandoned than before.
Daniel Whedon
44. Return into my house — The living human frame. Empty, swept — The terms still describe the man under the figure of a house ready for the demon to enter. He is empty of the blessed Spirit now grieved away; swept of all past holy influences and impressions. Garnished — Furnished; fitted up for his devilish tenant. The old word garnish, garniture, applies properly to all ornamental furnishing of a house or other object.
Richard Watson
Verses 43-45. When the unclean spirit, &c. — This parable, founded upon the fact of demoniacal possessions, has been variously interpreted, and, for want of attention to the context, often either misunderstood or allegorized beyond all bounds of sobriety. — As it relates to the mysterious influence and habits of a class of supernatural beings, it partakes of the obscurity of the subject; but is, nevertheless, sufficiently obvious, in its general import to convey the most solemn instruction. That some unhappy demoniacs were possessed with one evil spirit, others with more, as Mary Magdalene, who had seven, and the man near Gadara, of whom a legion had taken possession, are facts which appear in the Gospel history: and that it was not an uncommon case that a man who had been delivered from one demon, might after be possessed by many, is probable; because this is the basis, and constitutes the point, of the parable. This parable, separate, from its application to the Jews, which shall presently be noticed, teaches us,
1. That these evil spirits are necessarily wretched: they “seek rest and find none,” but carry with them their own hell.
2. “That the only alleviation they know is the occupation of their attention by projects of mischief, which yet, as it heightens their guilt, must ultimately increase their misery. This is strongly represented, by the clause, “he walketh through dry places,” di’ anudrwn topwn, meaning deserts and parts of the wilderness which, as being without water, were not inhabited. Such solitudes afforded no opportunities for tempting men, and left the wandering, wretched spirit wholly to his own tormenting thoughts; he therefore is pictured as hastening back to the habitations of human society, in quest of objects on which to exercise his malignant power. His first effort is made upon the individual from whom he had been dispossessed; and the heart of this man being fitly compared to a house, empty, swept, and garnished, and thus fitted to receive inhabitants, he taketh others with him, who enter and dwell there. “This indicates,
3. That though in some cases possession might be a mere calamity independent of any particular turpitude in the unfortunate subject; yet that such repossessions at least were occasioned by a relapse into sin, a submission to the dominion of bad principles and passions, which had vexed the Holy Spirit and obliged him to depart, and had left the man in a state as prepared to fall again under the power of Satan, as a house empty of an inhabitant, yet swept and garnished or furnished, was fitted to receive occupiers; so that the devil, as one quaintly observes, “takes possession only of ready furnished lodgings.”
4. That the consequence of such a moral relapse was, that the former evil was increased sevenfold, and the last state of that man made worse than the first. Thus, in that day God sometimes punished sin by surrendering the offender more fully to the visible power of Satan.
The application of this parable, for such it is, though founded on what appears occasionally, in that age, to have occurred to the Jewish people, is now to be considered. Even so shall it be also unto this wicked generation. The parable, as supposing a previous better state, represented by the first ejection of the demon, can scarcely be confined to the scribes and Pharisees, though they might and probably did grow rapidly worse. Still they never appear before us but as the enemies of our Lord; and even as early as when they went to John’s baptism they were called by him “a generation of vipers;” the very term just used respecting them by our Lord. It is, therefore probable that the condition of the man in the parable, when the devil was dispossessed for a time, refers to that hopeful state of mind to which great multitudes of the Jews had been brought by the awakening preaching of John the Baptist, and the powerful early ministrations of our Lord; and from such beginnings, how different a result might have been expected! But the opposition and slanders of their teachers, operating upon the worldliness of the body of the people who were looking still for a secular Messiah, and upon their prejudices, had caused them generally to relapse into a state of enmity and opposition to truth; and they were thus prepared for a still deeper corruption of principles and passions, and were indeed rapidly sinking into it; — a moral state of obduracy, malignity, and wickedness, which might well be compared with that of a man possessed with seven evil spirits; and the history of the body of the Jewish people, who from this time went on increasing in wickedness, down to the destruction of Jerusalem, before which indeed “they filled up the measure of their iniquities,” is an awful but most legible comment upon the prediction of our Lord, So shall it be also unto this generation. This is the primary sense of the parable; but there are great general truths contained in it applicable far beyond the first design. It is a solemn admonition to all who relapse into sin after the turning of their hearts to God. Those evils from which they have been wholly or at least partially saved, if suffered to resume their influence and dominion, through unwatchfulness, worldliness, the neglect of duty, and the alienation of the heart from communion with God, come back with sevenfold force, and take possession of a heart thus empty of God, swept and garnished to receive evil, like a legion of evil spirits. Thus often every thing within “increases to more ungodliness:” blindness, insensibility, sensuality, pride, unbelief, fierce and fiery tempers, and all other evils — some of the old residents of the heart, and others new and introduced ones — assert their polluted and uncontrolled empire; the Holy Spirit is withdrawn; and the man, now under the full spiritual power of Satan, proves that his last state is worse than the first. “Watch and pray,” says our Lord, even to his disciples, “lest YE fall into temptation.”
Then goeth he, and taketh with himself seven other spirits more wicked than himself, and they enter in and dwell there: and the last state of that man is worse than the first. Even so shall it be also unto this wicked generation.
John Wesley
V. 45. Seven other spirits-That is, a great many; a certain number being put for an uncertain:
More wicked than himself-Whence it appears, that there are degrees of wickedness among the devils themselves:
They enter in and dwell-For ever in him who is forsaken of God. So shall it be to this wicked generation-Yea, and to apostates in all ages.
Adam Clarke
Verse 45. Seven other spirits more wicked] Seven was a favourite number with the Jews, implying frequently, with them, something perfect, completed, filled up, for such is the proper import of the Hebrew word [wv sheva or shevang: nearly allied in sound to our seven. And perhaps this meaning of it refers to the seventh day, when God rested from his work, having filled up, or completed the whole of his creative design. Seven demons-as many as could occupy his soul, harassing it with pride, anger, self-will, lust, &c., and torturing the body with disease. The last state of that man is worse than the first.] His soul, before influenced by the Spirit of God, dilated and expanded under its heavenly influences, becomes more capable of refinement in iniquity, as its powers are more capacious than formerly. Evil habits are formed and strengthened by relapses; and relapses are multiplied, and become more incurable, through new habits.
So shall it be also unto this wicked generation.] And so it was: for they grew worse and worse, as if totally abandoned to diabolic influence; till at last the besom of destruction swept them and their privileges, national and religious, utterly away. What a terrible description of a state of apostasy is contained in these verses! May he who readeth understand!
Joseph Benson
Verses 43-45. When the unclean spirit, &c. — In these verses, with a view to show how dreadful the state of the Jewish people would be, if they continued to reject him and his gospel, our Lord introduces a parable, borrowed from the late subject of his dispute with the Pharisees. He compares their condition to that of a man, who, after having had an evil spirit expelled out of him, is again, through God’s permission, as a punishment of his continuing in sin, taken possession of by that spirit, with seven others still more wicked, and is thereby brought into a worse condition than ever. The parable evidently supposes the existence of demoniacal possessions, for if there had been no reality in them, the comparison would have meant nothing; and it supposes, also, that the Pharisees allowed their existence, otherwise our Lord’s words, instead of convincing or instructing them, must have been treated by them with contempt. When the unclean spirit is gone out of a man — Not of his own accord, or willingly, but compelled by one that is stronger than he; he walketh — Wanders up and down, through dry places — Barren, dreary, desolate; or places not yet watered with the gospel. The words contain a plain allusion to the common notion, that evil demons had their haunts in deserts and desolate places. Compare Isaiah 13:21; where, instead of satyrs, the LXX. read daimonia, demons. See also Revelation 18:2. Seeking rest — To his own malignant nature, in observing barren wastes and desolations, rather than such agreeable scenes as might present to his view the memorials of God’s goodness to the human race: and findeth none — How should he find any, while he carries with him his own hell? And is it not the case of his children, too? Reader, is it thy case? Then he saith, I will return into my house — He resolves to make another attack on the person out of whom he had been expelled: whence I came out — He speaks as if he had come out of his own accord: see his pride! And when he is come, he findeth it empty — Of truth and grace; of wisdom and piety; of God, and Christ, and the Holy Spirit: swept and garnished — That is, prepared to receive him: swept, from love, lowliness, meekness, and all the fruits of the Spirit, and adorned with levity and folly, vanity and sin. In other words, he finds the miserable sinner unaffected with his late affliction and deliverance, and still a slave to those vices which render him an agreeable dwelling for Satan. Then goeth he and taketh seven other spirits — That is, a great many, the number seven denoting perfection, whether of good or bad things; more wicked than himself — Whence it appears that there are degrees of wickedness among the devils themselves. And they enter in, finding easy access, and dwell there — Namely, for ever, in him that is forsaken of God. And the last state, &c., is worse than the first — The devils having taken a sevenfold stronger possession of him than they had before. So shall it be also unto this wicked generation — Who resist the convictions which my doctrine and miracles have raised in them. Instead of growing wiser and better, they will become seven times more foolish, sinful, and miserable, “as both the natural and judicial consequence of their rejecting the methods used by divine grace for their recovery; till, as if they were possessed by a multitude of devils, they are madly hurried on to their irrecoverable ruin in this world and the next. They who have read the sad account, given by Josephus, of the temper and conduct of the Jews after the ascension of Christ, and just before their final destruction by the Romans, must acknowledge that no emblem could have been more proper to describe them. Their characters were the vilest that can be conceived, and they pressed on to their own ruin, as if they had been possessed by legions of devils, and wrought up to the last degrees of madness.” — Doddridge. But this parable is also designed to teach men, in every age, the danger and awful consequences of resisting the convictions produced in their minds by the truth and grace of God; or of grieving, quenching, and doing despite to the Holy Ghost, by breaking through their resolutions, and relapsing into their former sins; the effect being commonly to render them more obdurate and abandoned than before.
Joseph Sutcliffe
Ver. 45. So shall it be also to this wicked generation. A prediction of the growing impenitence and unbelief of that age, to fill up the measure of their iniquity before their destruction came. Micah 3:12.
Daniel Whedon
45. Goeth… taketh… seven — He will not re-enter weak and alone. He will take with him a strong reinforcement, so as not again to be ejected. Worse than the first — At least seven times worse. This wicked generation — From whom John’s preaching briefly expelled the devil, but to whom eight devils have now returned.
Richard Watson
Verses 43-45. When the unclean spirit, &c. — This parable, founded upon the fact of demoniacal possessions, has been variously interpreted, and, for want of attention to the context, often either misunderstood or allegorized beyond all bounds of sobriety. — As it relates to the mysterious influence and habits of a class of supernatural beings, it partakes of the obscurity of the subject; but is, nevertheless, sufficiently obvious, in its general import to convey the most solemn instruction. That some unhappy demoniacs were possessed with one evil spirit, others with more, as Mary Magdalene, who had seven, and the man near Gadara, of whom a legion had taken possession, are facts which appear in the Gospel history: and that it was not an uncommon case that a man who had been delivered from one demon, might after be possessed by many, is probable; because this is the basis, and constitutes the point, of the parable. This parable, separate, from its application to the Jews, which shall presently be noticed, teaches us,
1. That these evil spirits are necessarily wretched: they “seek rest and find none,” but carry with them their own hell.
2. “That the only alleviation they know is the occupation of their attention by projects of mischief, which yet, as it heightens their guilt, must ultimately increase their misery. This is strongly represented, by the clause, “he walketh through dry places,” di’ anudrwn topwn, meaning deserts and parts of the wilderness which, as being without water, were not inhabited. Such solitudes afforded no opportunities for tempting men, and left the wandering, wretched spirit wholly to his own tormenting thoughts; he therefore is pictured as hastening back to the habitations of human society, in quest of objects on which to exercise his malignant power. His first effort is made upon the individual from whom he had been dispossessed; and the heart of this man being fitly compared to a house, empty, swept, and garnished, and thus fitted to receive inhabitants, he taketh others with him, who enter and dwell there. “This indicates,
3. That though in some cases possession might be a mere calamity independent of any particular turpitude in the unfortunate subject; yet that such repossessions at least were occasioned by a relapse into sin, a submission to the dominion of bad principles and passions, which had vexed the Holy Spirit and obliged him to depart, and had left the man in a state as prepared to fall again under the power of Satan, as a house empty of an inhabitant, yet swept and garnished or furnished, was fitted to receive occupiers; so that the devil, as one quaintly observes, “takes possession only of ready furnished lodgings.”
4. That the consequence of such a moral relapse was, that the former evil was increased sevenfold, and the last state of that man made worse than the first. Thus, in that day God sometimes punished sin by surrendering the offender more fully to the visible power of Satan.
The application of this parable, for such it is, though founded on what appears occasionally, in that age, to have occurred to the Jewish people, is now to be considered. Even so shall it be also unto this wicked generation. The parable, as supposing a previous better state, represented by the first ejection of the demon, can scarcely be confined to the scribes and Pharisees, though they might and probably did grow rapidly worse. Still they never appear before us but as the enemies of our Lord; and even as early as when they went to John’s baptism they were called by him “a generation of vipers;” the very term just used respecting them by our Lord. It is, therefore probable that the condition of the man in the parable, when the devil was dispossessed for a time, refers to that hopeful state of mind to which great multitudes of the Jews had been brought by the awakening preaching of John the Baptist, and the powerful early ministrations of our Lord; and from such beginnings, how different a result might have been expected! But the opposition and slanders of their teachers, operating upon the worldliness of the body of the people who were looking still for a secular Messiah, and upon their prejudices, had caused them generally to relapse into a state of enmity and opposition to truth; and they were thus prepared for a still deeper corruption of principles and passions, and were indeed rapidly sinking into it; — a moral state of obduracy, malignity, and wickedness, which might well be compared with that of a man possessed with seven evil spirits; and the history of the body of the Jewish people, who from this time went on increasing in wickedness, down to the destruction of Jerusalem, before which indeed “they filled up the measure of their iniquities,” is an awful but most legible comment upon the prediction of our Lord, So shall it be also unto this generation. This is the primary sense of the parable; but there are great general truths contained in it applicable far beyond the first design. It is a solemn admonition to all who relapse into sin after the turning of their hearts to God. Those evils from which they have been wholly or at least partially saved, if suffered to resume their influence and dominion, through unwatchfulness, worldliness, the neglect of duty, and the alienation of the heart from communion with God, come back with sevenfold force, and take possession of a heart thus empty of God, swept and garnished to receive evil, like a legion of evil spirits. Thus often every thing within “increases to more ungodliness:” blindness, insensibility, sensuality, pride, unbelief, fierce and fiery tempers, and all other evils — some of the old residents of the heart, and others new and introduced ones — assert their polluted and uncontrolled empire; the Holy Spirit is withdrawn; and the man, now under the full spiritual power of Satan, proves that his last state is worse than the first. “Watch and pray,” says our Lord, even to his disciples, “lest YE fall into temptation.”
While he yet talked to the people, behold, his mother and his brethren stood without, desiring to speak with him.
John Wesley
V. 46. His brethren-His kinsmen: they were the sons of Mary, the wife of Cleopas, or Alpheus, his mother's sister; and came now seeking to take him, as one beside himself, Mark 3:21. Mark 3:31; Luke 8:19.
Adam Clarke
Verse 46. His mother and his brethren] These are supposed to have been the cousins of our Lord, as the word brother is frequently used among the Hebrews in this sense. But there are others who believe Mary had other children beside our Lord and that these were literally his brothers, who are spoken of here. And, although it be possible that these were the sons of Mary, the wife of Cleopas or Alpheus, his mother’s sister, called his relations, Mark 3:31; yet it is as likely that they were the children of Joseph and Mary, and brethren of our Lord, in the strictest sense of the word. See on Matthew 13:55.
Joseph Benson
Verses 46-50. While he yet talked with the people — While he was uttering these solemn truths, and giving these awful warnings, in the audience of the vast multitudes that were gathered around him: behold, his mother and his brethren — Or near kinsmen, (namely, the sons of Mary the wife of Cleopas, or Alpheus, his mother’s sister,) stood without, not being able to come near him because of the multitude that sat about him: But he said, Who is my mother? &c. — We must not suppose that our Lord meant to put any slight on them, especially on his mother. He only took this opportunity of expressing his affection to his obedient disciples in a peculiarly endearing manner; which could not but be a great comfort to them, and a rich equivalent for all the fatigue and expense which their zeal for him and his heavenly doctrine occasioned. Stretching forth his hand toward his disciples, he said, Behold my mother, &c. — “This short speech, related by the evangelists with great simplicity, is, without their seeming to have designed it, one of the finest encomiums imaginable. Could the most elaborate panegyric have done Jesus Christ and his religion half the honour which this divine sentiment hath done them? Whosoever shall do the will of my Father, &c., the same is my brother, and sister, and mother! — A saying, this, which will never be forgotten while there are memories in the world to retain it, or tongues to repeat it.” As if he had said, “I regard obedience to God so highly, that I prefer the relation it constitutes, and the union it begets, to the strongest ties of blood. They who do the will of my Father, have a much greater share of my esteem than my kinsmen, as such. I love them with an affection tender and steady, like that which subsists between the nearest relations; nay, I reckon them, and them only, my brethren, my sisters, and my mother. A high commendation this, and not a reflection upon our Lord’s mother, who, without doubt, was among the chief of those who did the will of God. What veneration should live in the hearts of men for Jesus and his religion, which exhibits such perfection in goodness!” — Macknight.
Daniel Whedon
ATTEMPT OF THE MOTHER AND BROTHERS OF JESUS TO SEE HIM, 46-50.
46. Mother… brethren — Concerning the brothers of our Lord, see on chap. 13:55, also Matthew 1:25. Stood without — This was in Galilee, but in what house is not said. He was doubtless surrounded within doors by a dense congregation, probably in a synagogue. The purpose for which the mother and brothers of Jesus came to obtain an interview with him, is explained in the parallel passage of Mark 3:31. The family are anxious for his safety or his health, and come to induce him to retire from his ministry to their home at Nazareth.
It seems that our Lord’s disciples were within the house on this occasion, and his brothers were without. They could not then have been the same persons. James the Less, therefore, could not have been one of his brothers, for he was one of the apostles. Nor could James’s brother Jude, otherwise called Thaddeus and Lebbeus. Nor could their brother Matthew, if he was a son of the same Alpheus or Cleophas. Hence the James and Judas, or Jude, among the disciples, who were sons of Cleophas, and cousins of Jesus, were not the same as the James and Judas mentioned Matthew 13:55, who were literally brothers of Jesus. Jesus then had half-brothers, the sons of Mary, and the perpetual virginity of Mary is not to be believed.
Our Lord had brothers, (half brothers,) whose names were James, Joses, Simon, and Judas, and also sisters, He had cousins, whose names were James, Joses, Judas, and Matthew. See note on Matthew 13:55.
Richard Watson
Verse 46. His mother and his brethren. — Some think that the persons here called brethren were the sons of Joseph by a former wife; others, that they were the sons of Mary, the wife of Cleophas, and sister of the mother of Christ; for cousins and other relatives were often, by the Jews, called brethren: but there is no sufficient reason for not considering them as the younger sons of Joseph and Mary; for the doctrine of the perpetual virginity of Mary is a figment. Who they were, is not a point of any importance: they were near relatives; and upon this the observation of our Lord turns. None are so near to him, none have so great a share in his kind affections, as those who do the will of his Father. Their intimate relationship to him he acknowledges now, and will finally proclaim it before an assembled world.
Then one said unto him, Behold, thy mother and thy brethren stand without, desiring to speak with thee.
Joseph Benson
Verses 46-50. While he yet talked with the people — While he was uttering these solemn truths, and giving these awful warnings, in the audience of the vast multitudes that were gathered around him: behold, his mother and his brethren — Or near kinsmen, (namely, the sons of Mary the wife of Cleopas, or Alpheus, his mother’s sister,) stood without, not being able to come near him because of the multitude that sat about him: But he said, Who is my mother? &c. — We must not suppose that our Lord meant to put any slight on them, especially on his mother. He only took this opportunity of expressing his affection to his obedient disciples in a peculiarly endearing manner; which could not but be a great comfort to them, and a rich equivalent for all the fatigue and expense which their zeal for him and his heavenly doctrine occasioned. Stretching forth his hand toward his disciples, he said, Behold my mother, &c. — “This short speech, related by the evangelists with great simplicity, is, without their seeming to have designed it, one of the finest encomiums imaginable. Could the most elaborate panegyric have done Jesus Christ and his religion half the honour which this divine sentiment hath done them? Whosoever shall do the will of my Father, &c., the same is my brother, and sister, and mother! — A saying, this, which will never be forgotten while there are memories in the world to retain it, or tongues to repeat it.” As if he had said, “I regard obedience to God so highly, that I prefer the relation it constitutes, and the union it begets, to the strongest ties of blood. They who do the will of my Father, have a much greater share of my esteem than my kinsmen, as such. I love them with an affection tender and steady, like that which subsists between the nearest relations; nay, I reckon them, and them only, my brethren, my sisters, and my mother. A high commendation this, and not a reflection upon our Lord’s mother, who, without doubt, was among the chief of those who did the will of God. What veneration should live in the hearts of men for Jesus and his religion, which exhibits such perfection in goodness!” — Macknight.
Daniel Whedon
ATTEMPT OF THE MOTHER AND BROTHERS OF JESUS TO SEE HIM, 46-50.
46. Mother… brethren — Concerning the brothers of our Lord, see on chap. 13:55, also Matthew 1:25. Stood without — This was in Galilee, but in what house is not said. He was doubtless surrounded within doors by a dense congregation, probably in a synagogue. The purpose for which the mother and brothers of Jesus came to obtain an interview with him, is explained in the parallel passage of Mark 3:31. The family are anxious for his safety or his health, and come to induce him to retire from his ministry to their home at Nazareth.
It seems that our Lord’s disciples were within the house on this occasion, and his brothers were without. They could not then have been the same persons. James the Less, therefore, could not have been one of his brothers, for he was one of the apostles. Nor could James’s brother Jude, otherwise called Thaddeus and Lebbeus. Nor could their brother Matthew, if he was a son of the same Alpheus or Cleophas. Hence the James and Judas, or Jude, among the disciples, who were sons of Cleophas, and cousins of Jesus, were not the same as the James and Judas mentioned Matthew 13:55, who were literally brothers of Jesus. Jesus then had half-brothers, the sons of Mary, and the perpetual virginity of Mary is not to be believed.
Our Lord had brothers, (half brothers,) whose names were James, Joses, Simon, and Judas, and also sisters, He had cousins, whose names were James, Joses, Judas, and Matthew. See note on Matthew 13:55.
But he answered and said unto him that told him, Who is my mother? and who are my brethren?
John Wesley
V. 48. And he answering, said-Our Lord's knowing why they came, sufficiently justifies his seeming disregard of them.
Adam Clarke
Verse 48. Who is my mother? and who are my brethren?] The reason of this seeming disregard of his relatives was this: they came to seize upon him, for they thought he was distracted. See Mark 3:33.
Joseph Benson
Verses 46-50. While he yet talked with the people — While he was uttering these solemn truths, and giving these awful warnings, in the audience of the vast multitudes that were gathered around him: behold, his mother and his brethren — Or near kinsmen, (namely, the sons of Mary the wife of Cleopas, or Alpheus, his mother’s sister,) stood without, not being able to come near him because of the multitude that sat about him: But he said, Who is my mother? &c. — We must not suppose that our Lord meant to put any slight on them, especially on his mother. He only took this opportunity of expressing his affection to his obedient disciples in a peculiarly endearing manner; which could not but be a great comfort to them, and a rich equivalent for all the fatigue and expense which their zeal for him and his heavenly doctrine occasioned. Stretching forth his hand toward his disciples, he said, Behold my mother, &c. — “This short speech, related by the evangelists with great simplicity, is, without their seeming to have designed it, one of the finest encomiums imaginable. Could the most elaborate panegyric have done Jesus Christ and his religion half the honour which this divine sentiment hath done them? Whosoever shall do the will of my Father, &c., the same is my brother, and sister, and mother! — A saying, this, which will never be forgotten while there are memories in the world to retain it, or tongues to repeat it.” As if he had said, “I regard obedience to God so highly, that I prefer the relation it constitutes, and the union it begets, to the strongest ties of blood. They who do the will of my Father, have a much greater share of my esteem than my kinsmen, as such. I love them with an affection tender and steady, like that which subsists between the nearest relations; nay, I reckon them, and them only, my brethren, my sisters, and my mother. A high commendation this, and not a reflection upon our Lord’s mother, who, without doubt, was among the chief of those who did the will of God. What veneration should live in the hearts of men for Jesus and his religion, which exhibits such perfection in goodness!” — Macknight.
Daniel Whedon
ATTEMPT OF THE MOTHER AND BROTHERS OF JESUS TO SEE HIM, 46-50.
46. Mother… brethren — Concerning the brothers of our Lord, see on chap. 13:55, also Matthew 1:25. Stood without — This was in Galilee, but in what house is not said. He was doubtless surrounded within doors by a dense congregation, probably in a synagogue. The purpose for which the mother and brothers of Jesus came to obtain an interview with him, is explained in the parallel passage of Mark 3:31. The family are anxious for his safety or his health, and come to induce him to retire from his ministry to their home at Nazareth.
It seems that our Lord’s disciples were within the house on this occasion, and his brothers were without. They could not then have been the same persons. James the Less, therefore, could not have been one of his brothers, for he was one of the apostles. Nor could James’s brother Jude, otherwise called Thaddeus and Lebbeus. Nor could their brother Matthew, if he was a son of the same Alpheus or Cleophas. Hence the James and Judas, or Jude, among the disciples, who were sons of Cleophas, and cousins of Jesus, were not the same as the James and Judas mentioned Matthew 13:55, who were literally brothers of Jesus. Jesus then had half-brothers, the sons of Mary, and the perpetual virginity of Mary is not to be believed.
Our Lord had brothers, (half brothers,) whose names were James, Joses, Simon, and Judas, and also sisters, He had cousins, whose names were James, Joses, Judas, and Matthew. See note on Matthew 13:55.
And he stretched forth his hand toward his disciples, and said, Behold my mother and my brethren!
John Wesley
V. 49, 50. See the highest severity, and the highest goodness! Severity to his natural, goodness to his spiritual relations! In a manner disclaiming the former, who opposed the will of his heavenly Father, and owning the latter, who obeyed it.
Joseph Benson
Verses 46-50. While he yet talked with the people — While he was uttering these solemn truths, and giving these awful warnings, in the audience of the vast multitudes that were gathered around him: behold, his mother and his brethren — Or near kinsmen, (namely, the sons of Mary the wife of Cleopas, or Alpheus, his mother’s sister,) stood without, not being able to come near him because of the multitude that sat about him: But he said, Who is my mother? &c. — We must not suppose that our Lord meant to put any slight on them, especially on his mother. He only took this opportunity of expressing his affection to his obedient disciples in a peculiarly endearing manner; which could not but be a great comfort to them, and a rich equivalent for all the fatigue and expense which their zeal for him and his heavenly doctrine occasioned. Stretching forth his hand toward his disciples, he said, Behold my mother, &c. — “This short speech, related by the evangelists with great simplicity, is, without their seeming to have designed it, one of the finest encomiums imaginable. Could the most elaborate panegyric have done Jesus Christ and his religion half the honour which this divine sentiment hath done them? Whosoever shall do the will of my Father, &c., the same is my brother, and sister, and mother! — A saying, this, which will never be forgotten while there are memories in the world to retain it, or tongues to repeat it.” As if he had said, “I regard obedience to God so highly, that I prefer the relation it constitutes, and the union it begets, to the strongest ties of blood. They who do the will of my Father, have a much greater share of my esteem than my kinsmen, as such. I love them with an affection tender and steady, like that which subsists between the nearest relations; nay, I reckon them, and them only, my brethren, my sisters, and my mother. A high commendation this, and not a reflection upon our Lord’s mother, who, without doubt, was among the chief of those who did the will of God. What veneration should live in the hearts of men for Jesus and his religion, which exhibits such perfection in goodness!” — Macknight.
Daniel Whedon
49. Disciples… my mother — Our Lord here refused, or at least delayed to see his relatives, to teach an important lesson. Nothing more close than the connection of Christ and his believers. The tie of human relationship is physical and temporal; the tie to Christ is spiritual and eternal. And we see from this passage how absurd is the idea that Mary is our intercessor with Christ or God. The connection of any saint with Jesus by faith is greater than this tie of blood in itself is.
Our Lord speaks of mother, brother, and sister; but never of any human father.
For whosoever shall do the will of my Father which is in heaven, the same is my brother, and sister, and mother.
John Wesley
V. 49, 50. See the highest severity, and the highest goodness! Severity to his natural, goodness to his spiritual relations! In a manner disclaiming the former, who opposed the will of his heavenly Father, and owning the latter, who obeyed it.
Adam Clarke
Verse 50. Whosoever shall do the will of my Father, &c.] Those are the best acknowledged relatives of Christ who are united to him by spiritual ties, and who are become one with him by the indwelling of his Spirit. We generally suppose that Christ’s relatives must have shared much of his affectionate attention; and doubtless they did: but here we find that whosoever does the will of God is equally esteemed by Christ, as his brother, sister, or even his virgin mother. What an encouragement for fervent attachment to God!
1. From various facts related in this chapter, we see the nature and design of the revelation of God, and of all the ordinances and precepts contained in it-they are all calculated to do man good: to improve his understanding, to soften and change his nature, that he may love his neighbour as himself. That religion that does not inculcate and produce humanity never came from heaven.
2. We have already seen what the sin against the Holy Ghost is: no soul that fears God can commit it: perhaps it would be impossible for any but Jews to be guilty of it, and they only in the circumstances mentioned in the text; and in such circumstances, it is impossible that any person should now be found.
ST. MATTHEW
Joseph Benson
Verses 46-50. While he yet talked with the people — While he was uttering these solemn truths, and giving these awful warnings, in the audience of the vast multitudes that were gathered around him: behold, his mother and his brethren — Or near kinsmen, (namely, the sons of Mary the wife of Cleopas, or Alpheus, his mother’s sister,) stood without, not being able to come near him because of the multitude that sat about him: But he said, Who is my mother? &c. — We must not suppose that our Lord meant to put any slight on them, especially on his mother. He only took this opportunity of expressing his affection to his obedient disciples in a peculiarly endearing manner; which could not but be a great comfort to them, and a rich equivalent for all the fatigue and expense which their zeal for him and his heavenly doctrine occasioned. Stretching forth his hand toward his disciples, he said, Behold my mother, &c. — “This short speech, related by the evangelists with great simplicity, is, without their seeming to have designed it, one of the finest encomiums imaginable. Could the most elaborate panegyric have done Jesus Christ and his religion half the honour which this divine sentiment hath done them? Whosoever shall do the will of my Father, &c., the same is my brother, and sister, and mother! — A saying, this, which will never be forgotten while there are memories in the world to retain it, or tongues to repeat it.” As if he had said, “I regard obedience to God so highly, that I prefer the relation it constitutes, and the union it begets, to the strongest ties of blood. They who do the will of my Father, have a much greater share of my esteem than my kinsmen, as such. I love them with an affection tender and steady, like that which subsists between the nearest relations; nay, I reckon them, and them only, my brethren, my sisters, and my mother. A high commendation this, and not a reflection upon our Lord’s mother, who, without doubt, was among the chief of those who did the will of God. What veneration should live in the hearts of men for Jesus and his religion, which exhibits such perfection in goodness!” — Macknight.
Joseph Sutcliffe
Ver. 50. Whosoever shall do the will of my Father — the same is my brother, and sister, and mother. Such are adopted into the great family of heaven. When Levi acted as a minister of justice against the worshippers of the golden calf, he knew not his father, nor his mother. So the Lord here puts his mother in the crowd of other worshippers. Formerly, our fathers ran to worship our Lady of Walsingham. In Europe they flocked to Loretto; and armies of pilgrims went to the shrine of James, the Lord’s brother, at Compostella in Spain. Alas, alas, they had all to go home again, making crusades against heretics. Will-worship leads to destruction, but he that doeth the will of God abideth for ever.
Daniel Whedon
ATTEMPT OF THE MOTHER AND BROTHERS OF JESUS TO SEE HIM, 46-50.
46. Mother… brethren — Concerning the brothers of our Lord, see on chap. 13:55, also Matthew 1:25. Stood without — This was in Galilee, but in what house is not said. He was doubtless surrounded within doors by a dense congregation, probably in a synagogue. The purpose for which the mother and brothers of Jesus came to obtain an interview with him, is explained in the parallel passage of Mark 3:31. The family are anxious for his safety or his health, and come to induce him to retire from his ministry to their home at Nazareth.
It seems that our Lord’s disciples were within the house on this occasion, and his brothers were without. They could not then have been the same persons. James the Less, therefore, could not have been one of his brothers, for he was one of the apostles. Nor could James’s brother Jude, otherwise called Thaddeus and Lebbeus. Nor could their brother Matthew, if he was a son of the same Alpheus or Cleophas. Hence the James and Judas, or Jude, among the disciples, who were sons of Cleophas, and cousins of Jesus, were not the same as the James and Judas mentioned Matthew 13:55, who were literally brothers of Jesus. Jesus then had half-brothers, the sons of Mary, and the perpetual virginity of Mary is not to be believed.
Our Lord had brothers, (half brothers,) whose names were James, Joses, Simon, and Judas, and also sisters, He had cousins, whose names were James, Joses, Judas, and Matthew. See note on Matthew 13:55.
John Wesley
V. 1. His disciples plucked the ears of corn, and ate-Just what sufficed for present necessity: dried corn was a common food among the Jews. Mark 2:23; Luke 6:1.
Adam Clarke
Verse 1. At that time Jesus went on the Sabbath-day through the corn] “The time is determined by Luke in these words, en sabbatw deuteroprwtw, that is, on the Sabbath from the second-first. “1. Provision was made by the Divine law that the sheaf of first-fruits should be offered on the second day of the pass-over week, Leviticus 23:10, 11. On the morrow after the Sabbath, the priest shall shake (or wave) it. Not on the morrow after the ordinary Sabbath of the week, but the morrow after the first of the pass-over week, which was a Sabbatic day, Exodus 12:16; Leviticus 23:7. Hence the seventy, epaurion thv prwthv, the morrow of the first day; the Chaldee, the morrow after the holy day. The rabbins, Solomon and Menachen, have it, On the morrow after the first day of the pass-over feast; of which mention had been made in the verses foregoing.
“But now, from the second day of the pass-over solemnity, wherein the sheaf was offered, were numbered seven weeks to pentecost: for the day of the sheaf, and the day of pentecost did mutually respect each other; for on this second day of the pass-over, the offering of the sheaf was supplicatory, and by way of prayer, beseeching a blessing upon the new corn, and leave to eat it, and to pot in the sickle into the standing corn. Now, the offering of the first-fruit loaves on the day of pentecost, (Leviticus 23:15-17,) did respect the giving of thanks for the finishing and housing of the barley-harvest. Therefore, in regard of this relation, these two solemnities were linked together, that both might respect the harvest; that, the harvest beginning; this, the harvest ended: this depended on that, and was numbered seven weeks after it. Therefore, the computation of the time coming between could not but carry with it the memory of that second day of the pass-over week; and hence pentecost is called the feast of weeks, Deuteronomy 16:10. The true calculation of the time between could not otherwise be retained, as to Sabbaths, but by numbering thus: this is sabbatwn deuteroprwton, the first Sabbath after the second day of the pass-over. This is deuterodeureron, the second Sabbath after that second day. And so of the rest. In the Jerusalem Talmud, the word ayymgwcwrp tbv shebeth
protogamiya, the Sabbath, protogamiav, of the first marriage, is a composition not very unlike.” Lightfoot.
His disciples were an hungered] Were hungry. The former is a mode of expression totally obsolete. How near does the translation of this verse come to our ancient mother-tongue, the Anglo-Saxon!-[Anglo-Saxon]-The Healer went on rest-day over acres: truly his learning knights hungred, and they began to pluck the ear and eaten. We may well wonder at the extreme poverty of Christ and his disciples. He was himself present with them, and yet permitted them to lack bread! A man, therefore, is not forsaken of God because he is in want. It is more honourable to suffer the want of all temporal things in fellowship with Christ and his followers, than to have all things in abundance in connection with the world.
Joseph Benson
Verse 1. Jesus went on the sabbath day through the corn — The cornfields near Jerusalem, attended by his disciples and some of the Pharisees, whose curiosity, it is probable, prompted them to mix with the crowd on this occasion, in expectation of seeing more miracles. His disciples began to pluck [and rub in their hands, Luke 6:1] the ears of corn, and to eat — Just what sufficed for present necessity. The word stacuav, here used, may indifferently signify ears of any kind of grain; but probably barley is here intended, that being first ripe in those parts. Dried corn was a common food among the Jews.
Daniel Whedon
§ 33. — PLUCKING THE CORN UPON THE SABBATH, 1-8.
Of this chapter the part 1-45 has a considerable completeness in itself. It is not inserted precisely in its chronological place; but the facts, though distant in time, stand in their chronological order, and are grouped together in order to show the deepening hostility which Jesus encountered from the Jewish religious leaders. The first two (§ 33 and § 34) occurred soon after the first assault upon Jesus at the passover, and were the proper prelude to the later instance of blasphemy in § 42, with its fearful denunciation, and the cavil of § 43, with its terrible parable. There is a marked increase in the intensity of the Pharisaic hostility.
Matthew places together these two miracles, not because occurring at the same time, but because they touched upon the same point, namely, our Lord’s teaching as to the Sabbath.
Mr. Trench remarks:
“The cures on the Sabbath actually recorded are seven in number, and are the following: That of the demoniac in the synagogue of Capernaum, (Mark 1:21;) that of Simon’s wife’s mother, (Mark 1:29;) of the impotent man of Bethesda, (John 5:9;) of the man with the withered hand; of the man born blind, (John 9:14;) of the woman with a spirit of infirmity, (Luke 13:14;) of the man who had the dropsy, (Luke 14:2.) We have a general intimation of many more, as at Mark 1:34, and have already observed that the ‘one work’ to which our Lord alludes at John 7:21-23, is perhaps not any of the miracles which he has recorded at length, but one to which we have no other allusion than that contained in these verses.”
Our Lord’s defence of himself for these miracles of mercy on the Sabbath brings from him the enunciation of the great principle, that positive and ceremonial institutions were really established for the highest good of man, and must give way whenever they come in collision with it.
1. At that time — Just after the second passover of Jesus’s ministry. Commentators consider the time of this miracle as being fixed by the parallel passage in Luke 6:1. Luke says it was on the second Sabbath after the first. This peculiar phrase literally interpreted would be “the second-first Sabbath,” which is thus explained: From passover to Pentecost was seven weeks. The customary reckoning of these seven weeks was from the second day after the passover, and the first Sabbath after this second day was called the second-first Sabbath. The passover was in April; a time not too early for the ripening of the barley fields in the better parts of Palestine. The corn — The word corn suggests to an American reader incorrectly the idea of what is called Indian corn, or maize. The word in the text is used in the purely English sense of grain — including wheat, rye, or barley.
Dr. Thomson remarks:
“I have often seen my muleteers, as we passed along the wheat fields, pluck off ears, rub them in their hands, and eat the grains, unroasted, just as the apostles are said to have done. This is allowable. The Pharisees did not object to the thing itself, only to the time when it was done.”
It was lawful to pluck the ears, but not to apply the sickle in the standing corn of one’s neighbour. Deuteronomy 23:25.
Richard Watson
1 Christ reproveth the blindness of the Pharisees concerning the breach of the Sabbath, 3 by Scriptures, 9 by reason, 13 and by a miracle. 22 He healeth the man possessed that was blind and dumb. 31 Blasphemy against the Holy Ghost shall never be forgiven. 36 Account shall be made of idle words. 38 He rebuketh the unfaithful, who seek after a sign: 49 and showeth who is his brother, sister, and mother.
CHAPTER 12. Verses 1, 2. — On the Sabbath day through the corn, &c. — The plural sabbasi is used for the singular; so in the LXX. tbv is rendered both sabbaton, and sabbata. Through the corn, dia twn sporimwn, through the corn fields, which often had public paths along or through them. The action itself of plucking the ears of corn was lawful, as appears from Deuteronomy 23:25: “When thou comest into the standing corn of thy neighbour, then thou mayest pluck the ears with thine hand; but thou shalt not move a sickle unto thy neighhour’s standing corn.” The question then simply was, whether this action of the disciples was lawful on the Sabbath, which the Pharisees denied. They regarded plucking, as it would appear from Maimonides, as a kind of reaping, which, being servile work, was utterly prohibited on the Sabbath. — Very numerous and oppressive indeed were the regulations as to the observance of the Sabbath which the Jewish teachers had superstitiously grafted upon the original law; and our Saviour takes frequent occasion to show his disregard of them, in order to place the duty of observing the Sabbath upon its true ground, and thus the more forcibly to commend it to the convictions of reason and the regards of a true piety. As it stood in the decalogue, he came “not to destroy but to fulfil it;” but the other regulations respecting it, which the political laws of Moses contained, passed away with the Jewish polity itself; and as to those additions which were founded on mere human traditions, Christ by his own example has taught us that the Sabbath of the Lord, which is “a delight and honourable,” is not to be converted into “a yoke of superstitious bondage.” But, on the other hand, it is to be remarked, that the example of Christ guards with equal care the true limit of Christian liberty. It is not liberty to apply the Sabbath to secular purposes, or to spend it. in sloth or pleasure. He himself devoted it to religion by teaching in the synagogues on the Sabbath, and was probably on this occasion travelling from synagogue to synagogue with his disciples, when they, from mere hunger, plucked the ears of corn. Thus he has taught us to apply the leisure of the Sabbath to its sacred end, the worship of God, and attendance upon public instruction. Nor is there any instance of his giving the slightest sanction to worldly labour or listless recreation on that sacred day. — Works of NECESSITY, such as supplying the demand of hunger, and drawing a beast out of a pit, are the only examples of exception to which he refers for the justification of his own conduct; and works of MERCY, such as healing the sick, when actually present before him, are the only instances in which he suffered his own example to be pleaded for any seeming departure from its strict observance, — instances which only confirm the sanction of its hallowed character and universal obligation.