BibleLAB
← A.T. Robertson

Mateus 12

A.T. Robertson · Citado em PreceptAustin

Mateus 12

Robertson comments - Mark alone has this profound saying which subordinates the Sabbath to man's real welfare (mankind, observe, generic article with anthrōpos, class from class). Man was not made for the Sabbath as the rabbis seemed to think with all their petty rules about eating an egg laid on the sabbath (!) or looking in the glass, etc. See 2 Macc. 5:19RSV and Mechilta on Ex 31:13: "The sabbath is delivered unto you and ye are not delivered unto the sabbath." Christianity has had to fight this same battle about institutionalism. The church itself is for man, not man for the church."

Mateus 12

Robertson comments on the addition of EVEN in Mark 2:28 (So the Son of Man is Lord even of the Sabbath.”) writing that "Mark, Matthew (Matthew 12:8), and Luke (Luke 6:5) all give this as a climax in the five reasons given by Christ on the occasion for the conduct of the disciples, but Mark has the little word "even" (kai) not in the others, showing that Jesus knew that He was making a great claim as the Son of Man, the Representative Man, the Messiah looked at from His human interest, to lordship (kurios) even of the Sabbath. He was not the slave of the Sabbath, but the Master of it. "Even of the Sabbath, so invaluable in your eyes. Lord, not to abolish, but to interpret and keep in its own place, and give it a new name" (Bruce). In summary, it would have been impossible for the Pharisees to miss Jesus' clear declaration of divinity and His declaration as the One having authority over the Sabbath! Why because He is Lord of the Sabbath! 🙏 THOUGHT: Rod Mattoon applies this truth to our lives - Christ is our Sabbath, He is our rest because He supplies everything that the Sabbath day was meant to give to men: peace, rest, restoration, renewal, regeneration, and communion with God. (Treasures from the Scriptures ) Why is Jesus making this statement which is found in each synoptic account? Remember He is still addressing the accusation of the Pharisees that His disciples broke the Sabbath law. Since Jesus is the Lord of the Sabbath, He alone has the authority to interpret the law. He is saying that He is Sovereign Ruler over the Sabbath day. He is the Master of this day for He as Creator made it (Ge 2:1-3). His Lordship trumps the man-made rules of the Jews! We do not have to guess whether the Pharisees "caught" Jesus' allusion to the fact that He was God! Their violent rage-filled response and desire to destroy Him (Lk 6:11+, cf Mt 12:14+, Mark 3:6+) made it clear that they understood what Jesus was teaching about Himself! Son of Man - this name is used of Jesus in Daniel 7:13+ and is used repeatedly by Matthew - Matt. 11:19; Matt. 12:8; Matt. 12:32; Matt. 12:40; Matt. 13:37; Matt. 13:41; Matt. 16:13; Matt. 16:27; Matt. 16:28; Matt. 17:9; Matt. 17:12; Matt. 17:22; Matt. 18:11; Matt. 19:28; Matt. 20:18; Matt. 20:28; Matt. 24:27; Matt. 24:30; Matt. 24:37; Matt. 24:39; Matt. 24:44; Matt. 25:31; Matt. 26:2; Matt. 26:24; Matt. 26:45; Matt. 26:64; (Related: What does it mean that Jesus is the Son of Man?, What does it mean that Jesus is the Lord of the Sabbath?) Lord (master, owner)(2962)(kurios from kuros = might or power, related to kuroo = to give authority) primarily means the possessor, owner, master, the supreme one, the one who is sovereign over the Sabbath, so revered by the religious Jews. The tragic irony is that the Jews venerated the Day and violated the "Day Star" (2 Pe 1:19KJV+) the very One Who at His return will be recognized even by those who pierced Him (Rev 1:7+) as the "bright and morning star" (Rev 2:28+; Rev 22:16+)! The Lord Of The Sabbath Allen Ross After the arrest of John the Baptist, the tide begins to turn against Jesus. The opposition, that is, the leaders of the Jews, step up their criticisms and their plans to destroy Him. And so in chapter 12 we discover first the accusation that Jesus and His disciples were violating the Sabbath (1-14), and then the accusation that Jesus did His miracles by the power of Satan (Mt 12:22-37), and then the demand for a sign from Jesus to prove who He was (Mt 12:38-45). In the first case Jesus refutes their accusation rather easily, but then withdraws to escape their plans to kill Him (Mt 12:15-21). In the second case Jesus powerfully destroys their argument and declares that they are condemning themselves. And then after they demand a sign, Jesus refuses, except for the sign of Jonah, which will be too late for what they want, for by then they will already be guilty of putting Him to death. The chapter ends with a strange episode in which Jesus appears to be rejecting His family (Mt 12:46-49); actually, He uses their visit to show that He is turning to people who believe in Him instead of the Jews who are His people. He came to His own, but His own did not receive Him; and so to those who would receive Him He gave power to become the children of God. You should read through chapter 12 to get the flow of where these episodes are going. But this study will focus on the first 14 verses of the chapter. Observations on the Text - Mt 12:1-14 First it will be helpful to lay out the structure of the material. We basically have two incidents, the grain field and the synagogue, Mt 12:1-8 and Mt 12:9-13 respectively. Mt 12:14 is the Pharisees’ response to both. In the first incident we have the report of the issue with the accusation (1,2), followed by Jesus’ lengthy answer (Mt 12:3-8). In the second incident we have the report of the issue and the challenging question (Mt 12:9,10), followed by Jesus’ answer and miracle (Mt 12:11-13). In both incidents the Pharisees were trying to catch Jesus in a violation of the Law in order to discredit Him. But in both cases Jesus demonstrated His superior knowledge of Scripture and His power. They could not argue with these, and so they sought to kill Him-legally of course. Second, we should note that again the speeches are central to the meaning of the passage. The Pharisees speak twice, first in verse 2 to accuse Jesus’ disciples of breaking the Law, and again in Mt 12:10 to challenge Jesus’ view of the Sabbath laws. They were put down by Jesus’ answer in the first case, and so they were cautious about confronting Him again and instead set Him up and asked what He would do. Jesus’ speeches are, of course, the heart of this passage’s revelation. His first reply to the accusation is with questions, designed to show their failure to understand the Law. He then rebukes them for not understanding what Scripture meant about showing mercy. And finally he claimed to be LORD of the Sabbath. The way these different sayings build on one another shows that as LORD of the Sabbath He alone understands the laws about the Sabbath. In Jesus’ second reply Jesus does not appeal to Scripture, but to their own customs which were written in their teachings. He uses a common Jewish way of reasoning, from the lesser to the greater-if it is true of the lesser, it is certainly true of the greater. The argument is worded with “How much more . . . .” We will look at this more, but for now it is worth noting that He uses their own “laws” against them. Jesus final speech is the simple command to the man to stretch out his hand. Here Jesus shows His authority as the Creator, and if the Creator, then the LORD of the Sabbath. Third, the contrasts in the use of the Law are interesting. In the first place the disciples are hungry and so eat from the wheat fields. The legalists want them condemned for violating a law. In the end of the passage Jesus restores full life to the man, and the legalists want to put Him to death. In both cases the enemies of Christ show that they do not desire mercy, and that they have missed the spirit of the Law which is life. They are spiritual frauds who seek power over the people-and over Christ. And fourth, we should not miss the fact that these events followed on the end of chapter 11 pretty closely. Jesus had just then called on people to abandon the teaching authority of the scribes and Pharisees and follow His teachings, because He alone could give them rest for their souls. His charge would continue to be that the Pharisees laid burdens on people that they could not handle. So in this chapter the Pharisees are challenging His authority as a teacher in Israel. If they can show that He violates the Law, then He is discredited. But in the process, they are discredited. But this chapter shows the disciples how they should learn of Christ, and not from the Pharisees. Background to the Text There are other things that may be observed as well, such as Jesus’ use of the Old Testament, and of their laws. But these we will discuss in the analysis of the text. The study of a passage like this also calls for a bit of study of the Sabbath day laws. You can read about this in a good Bible dictionary, or in a good biblical theology. The Law simply said that Israel was to remember the Sabbath Day to keep it holy (set apart to God and His service). They could do their ordinary labor for six days, but on the Sabbath they were to stop. In fact, the Hebrew word shabat means “to cease” more than it does “to rest.” The idea of “rest” is more like coming to rest, stopping. The observance was for Israel the sign of the covenant made at Sinai with the LORD the Creator. Since He worked for six days and “rested” the seventh, they were to pattern their life after that. Obviously, God did not “rest” in the sense of needing to restore His strength; it was a celebration of all His work of creation. As an aside, it is important for Christians to know that the Sabbath was the sign of the Old Covenant, not the New Covenant (or Testaments as we call them). The covenants are very different, and the signs indicate that. The Old Covenant was the Law, and it was based on the Creator. The sign looked back to creation’s Sabbath. The New Covenant is the fulfillment of the Old Covenant, and it looks forward to eternal redemption. Its sign is the cup of the New Covenant which Jesus institutionalized in the upper room. Because Jesus fulfilled the Law in His life and His death, all Old Testament laws have to be interpreted through His fulfillment. Sacrifices and ritual and holy days--all change with Christ. So believers today are not bound to keep the Sabbath Day because we have a New Covenant. The Sabbath for us is interpreted through the Christ event--when we believe in Jesus, we enter into the rest He promised (Matt. 11:28), which is the eternal Sabbath. Every day is to be sanctified to the Lord as a day of spiritual rest; the whole life is a Sabbath fulfillment. And in the age to come there will be a restoration of the whole Sabbath with the removal of the curse. Paul teaches that the Christian is not to observe holy days in a legalistic way. They are helpful for instruction and meditation, but not legally binding. But the Christian is to live out the spirit of the Law, what those regulations were intended to convey. And so a sanctified life given to the Lord and lived out in salvation’s rest from anxious toil and spiritual works is what should characterize the believer who has entered into the Sabbath rest (see Hebrews 3, 4). A simplistic and legalistic observance of a “Christian Sabbath” is not the way to sanctification. Analysis of the Text I. In response to legalistic criticism, Jesus declares that He is LORD of the Sabbath (Mt 12:1-8). This is the essence of the first incident in the chapter, and the main point of the whole section. First, there is the incident (Mt 12:1,2). The act that triggered the whole discussion was a simple one--they were walking through the field and the disciples snacked on some of the heads of grain because they were hungry. On the surface it would appear no more a work than sitting at a table and eating. But the legalistic Pharisees were bent on discrediting Jesus, and so they accused them of violating the Sabbath day. How was this a violation of the Sabbath Law? If you look at the Ten Commandments, this hardly seems like the labor they were to cease to set the day apart for God. Well, the only way it could be considered a violation is that the Jewish teachers had made lists of things that would be helpful in determining what the works were that should stop. Whenever the text of Scripture seems unclear, it may be for a purpose, that God expects people to act by faith and determine the application. But there are always religious teachers who cannot abide by that, and they make the detailed applications. That would be fine, except those applications often get elevated to the status of authoritative Scripture. For the Sabbath the religious teachers had come up with a list of things that should not be done on the holy days; they were later recorded in the Mishnah (tractate “Shabbath”) as thirty-eight forbidden works. One of them was reaping the harvest. So apparently taking the heads of the grain off the stocks was considered a work, and so a violation of the Law. But it was only a violation of the law as they interpreted it-not as God had written it. Jesus’ answer will get to the spirit of the Law, which they had completely missed in their effort to make legal clarifications. To be fair, not all religious leaders in Jesus’ day would have agreed with the interpretation of these Pharisees, but they held the leadership and so spoke for the group. Later, this particular activity was allowed on the Sabbath, but that was much later, and perhaps influenced by Christianity. So second, we have Jesus’ response (Mt 12:3-8). In this response there are several different arguments being used. The immediate one is the case of David’s eating the bread in the sanctuary. You will have to go back and read the story in all its details. The story is in 1 Samuel 21:1-6; and the references for the bread in the tabernacle are in Exodus 25:30 and Leviticus 24:5-9. The twelve loaves of bread were placed on the table inside the tent of the tabernacle, in the holy place, and were only to be eaten by the sanctified priests. But David and his men, running from Saul, stopped at the sanctuary when it was in Nob and ate the bread, perhaps reasoning that they were on a holy mission, or that it was a matter of life and death. In referring to this incident Jesus is not trying to argue the case for or against David by saying there were rules but David was permitted to break the rules. His point is that Scripture nowhere condemns David for doing this. If David could break the laws of holiness and eat from the holy food in the sanctuary and Scripture not condemn him, then why should His disciples not be allowed to eat from the grain on a Saturday? Jesus is not justifying the disciples’ act, for it is not obvious that they broke any law in the Law. Rather, Jesus is dealing with the Pharisees interpretation of the Law in general, showing that He is the more knowledgeable teacher and that people should come to Him. In the story in Samuel, the regulations of the Law were set aside for David and his companions. Jesus is building the case that He is greater than David, and so regulations (legitimate or not) can be set aside for Him and His companions too. Jesus’ second argument is from the Law in general (Num. 28:9-10); technically, the priests violated the Law every Sabbath by the work that they did. Of course the priests were not guilty, because the same Law that ruled on the Sabbath made them priests. Since the Law established their duties, the Law established the right of the priests to break the Law and to do some pretty hard work at the altar. Jesus uses this to argue from the lesser to the greater by analogy: if that was permitted for the priests, how much more for someone greater than the priests, or the temple itself. His analogy works only because He actually is greater than the temple and the priests. And the argument of the gospel is that Jesus and His kingdom are greater than the temple and all the priests and prophets and kings of the past. The point that Jesus makes then, is that in the Old Testament the laws of Sabbath were superseded by the duties of the priests, and so in His day the laws of the Sabbath were superseded by His duties as the Messiah and Redeemer. It shows there is a greater authority present than the ordinary leaders. Because the Son of Man was present, the Law would be superceded. He temple represented the presence of God with His people; but the presence of Jesus meant that God was with them in mortal flesh. And so Jesus rebukes the Pharisees for missing the point of the Law, which is mercy (see Hos. 6:6). The spirit of the Law was life and peace with God, and at the heart of that was mercy. But they were so worked up over the cultic ritual laws that they missed the spirit of the Law. They really did not understand the Law because they were so busy looking at details, mostly prohibitions in this case. But now as accusers they stood accused. And the accused, the disciples, were declared innocent because the one greater than the Temple was there. To refer to Himself as the LORD of the Sabbath means that He can handle the Sabbath laws any way that He wants, or can supercede them in the same way that the temple service of priests superseded Sabbath observance. As LORD of the Sabbath Jesus is the Son of Man, the divine Creator, the covenant God. And as LORD of the Sabbath Jesus the Messiah has authority over the temple too. II. In response to the challenge from the Pharisees, Jesus healed on the Sabbath and demonstrated the importance of mercy (Mt 12:9-13). The second part could be taken as a separate Bible study, but since it overlaps so much the two can be taken together. Luke 6:6-11 indicates it was on another Sabbath; but Matthew has combined the two to make his point. First, the incident (Mt 12:9, 10). Jesus went into the synagogue and there was a man there with a shriveled hand. Matthew says that the leaders were looking for a way to accuse Jesus, and so they asked Him if it was lawful to heal on the Sabbath. The focus now will be on Him and not the disciples; on something He would actually do, and in some detail on the enemies’ opposition. Second, we have Jesus’ answer (Mt 12:11-13) The early Jews discussed at great length the question that they asked Jesus now. In general, it was fine to cure on the Sabbath Day if it was not an emergency. Their question was whether it was lawful to heal on the Sabbath; and Jesus argued that it was lawful, not that it was required. According to Jewish teaching while healing was permitted in some cases on the Sabbath, the patient had to be dying, or the situation life threatening. And that does not seem to be the case here, unless one were to argue that it was a matter of life and death, and that by healing him Jesus was rescuing his soul as well. But Jesus makes the analogy that if they had a sheep that fell into a pit they would lift it out on a Sabbath day--how much more a human in trouble. Neither the man with the withered hand, nor the sheep in the pit, were in danger of losing their life. So it was a matter of doing a good deed on the holy day. He knew that in principle they practiced that, but now were simply trying to accuse Him of violating their law. Then Jesus healed the man. The healing comes after Jesus’ bold words about Himself and about His authority over the Sabbath day. But the miracle authenticates His powerful words, and in Matthew’s presentation of the order it also authenticates His prior claim of being LORD of the Sabbath. III. The Pharisees plot to kill Jesus (Mt 12:14). Finally, the outcome of the exchange is that the Pharisees wanted to put Jesus to death (Mt 12:14). A lot of scholars do not think the Pharisees would have done this over a different interpretation of legal teaching, and that instead of “kill” it meant banish from the synagogue. But the point, of course, is that it is not merely a dispute over interpretation, but over the identity and authority of who Jesus is. The text is clear that Jesus claimed to be the Messiah, and claimed to have authority, and demonstrated it by His powerful works. And in the process He showed that He cared not for the numerous, detailed rulings that the Jewish teachings put in place--they were an added burden to what the Law had originally had in place. The disagreement over the Sabbath did not cause them to plot His death; it was the occasion for it based on His claims to be the Lord of the Sabbath. They were opposed to Him personally. Central Theme The point that the passage is making is best expressed by Jesus’ own claim that He is the LORD of the Sabbath. That means that He is the one who instituted it and He is the one who rules over it. He of all people would then know what the intent of the Sabbath day was--mercy, and not simply a day to avoid work. He never intended it to be subjected to a myriad of legalistic rulings. It was a day for celebration and refreshment and communion with the LORD. But as LORD of the Sabbath Jesus had authority over all creation, including al people. He demonstrated that authority with His claims, and authenticated it with His mighty works, here the healing of the man with the withered hand. They understand His claim; they saw His mighty works. They either had to submit to His authority, or try to get rid of Him. Unfortunately for them they pursued the latter. Correlation with Scripture We have already noted the passages in Samuel, and Exodus and Hosea that were brought into the discussion. There are a number of other passages in the Gospels which record Jesus’ conflict with the Jewish leaders over the Sabbath day. It looks very much like He is pushing them on the matter, choosing to do things on the holy day that violated their rulings, but not the Law of God. These passages should be read and compared to get the whole picture of Christ is doing. Perhaps the best New Testament passage that captures this passage’s message, and those other conflicts as well, is the one that comes in Jesus’ rebuke of the hypocrisy of the Pharisees. In Matthew 23:23 he tells how legalistic they were in the way they tithed meticulously, but in so doing they had neglected the weightier matters of the Law--justice, mercy and faithfulness. It is one thing for people to try to live obediently to the word of God, but it is quite another if they pour all their energy into that and fail to do positive acts of justice, mercy and faithfulness. Jesus said that God desired mercy, and not sacrifice. Actually, He wants both, but the ritual without mercy misses the whole point. And if the Sabbath day was designed as a day of mercy from God, a time of rest and restoration, of celebration and service for God, then feeding the hungry, rescuing a sheep, healing a man would all be harmonious with that day. Applications There are probably a number of applications that have begun to form in your mind already. Here are a few major ones to consider: 1. Commitment to the authority of Christ. These passages are all designed to reveal the person and work of Jesus, here as Lord of Sabbath, i.e., the sovereign creator and sustainer of life. When studying these kinds of passages the believer should renew his or her own faith in Christ. It should be an inspiration to greater allegiance and greater faith, that is, to praise and adoration of Him, and to obedience and prayer to Him. 2. Avoidance of legalism. Legalism is not simply keeping laws, but is a self-righteous attitude. The legalist thinks he is righteous, and so anyone who does not conform with his idea of what righteousness is must be a guilty sinner. Legalism usually plays out with interpretations of Scripture, not actual Scripture. For example, some legalists today define what worldliness is, although they list things that the Bible does not mention; and whoever does not abide by their understanding is in sin. Now be careful here, because where the Bible is clear on a sin or particular sins the Christian is to try to avoid such things and is to warn others with love and concern. Obeying Scripture is not legalism. God demands it. But there will always be some libertarians who will call you a legalist if you remind them what Scripture says. But that is not what we mean here by self-righteous legalism (of course, that warning can be given with a self-righteous spirit, so be careful). Here the Pharisees had a whole list of “laws” they had made based generally on Scripture. And those became the test or righteousness. Paul deals with this in a lot of his epistles--judging others with respect to holy days, eating various foods, and other practices. Christians are to try to live obediently to Christ; if they find others who are doing the same but take a different application from some Scripture, they must be careful to acknowledge their faith and convictions (again, I am not talking about another interpretation of Scripture that seeks to do away with a passage or redefine it in order to license sin--that is not the same). 3. Doing acts of mercy. What a contrast: the Pharisees are there criticizing and challenging Jesus, and eventually plotting to kill Him. That is obviously a terrible religious state to be in, for it opposes what is good and merciful. The point that Jesus makes is that that attitude nullifies any sacrifice or ritual they had made. His instruction is from Hosea: God desires mercy. People should be looking for objects of mercy, not objects to criticize. If they were busy with that, the Church would be a much better place. And if there is a doubtful thing, and you are not sure if you should or should not do something (it is a matter of personal conviction), say, for example, like helping someone move on a Sunday (which would be offensive to a lot of Christians), the guideline here seems to say it would be better to “err” (if that is what it looks like) on the side of mercy, not self-righteous legalism. Matthew 12:9 Departing from there, He went into their synagogue. he went: Mk 3:1-5 Lu 6:6-11 Matthew 12 Resources - Multiple Sermons and Commentaries Parallel Passages: Mark 3:1-6, Matthew 12:9-14, Luke 6:6-11 Mark 3:1+ He entered again into a synagogue; and a man was there whose hand was withered. Luke 6:6+ On another Sabbath He entered the synagogue and was teaching; and there was a man there whose right hand was withered. SAVIOR IN THE SYNAGOGUE ON THE SABBATH Departing (metabaino) from there He went into their synagogue - This passage emphasizes the itinerant (traveling from place to place - cf Mt 4:23) nature of Jesus ministry The text says "He" with no mention of the disciples in any of the synoptic accounts. One has to surmise that they were following Him, because the word disciple means learner and the best way for them to learn was by His example. Luke adds that He was teaching (Lk 6:6+) which would support the premise that His "learners" were listening. As we see throughout the Gospels it was Jesus' custom to attend the synagogue service on the Sabbath. Was this the synagogue at Capernaum? We cannot be sure from the text (or comparing the other synoptic accounts). Synagogue (4864)(sunagoge from sunágo = lead together, assemble or bring together) refers to a group of people “going with one another” (sunago) literally describes a bringing together or congregating in one place. Matthew 12:10 And a man was there whose hand was withered. And they questioned Jesus, asking, “Is it lawful to heal on the Sabbath?”–so that they might accuse Him. NET Matthew 12:10 A man was there who had a withered hand. And they asked Jesus, "Is it lawful to heal on the Sabbath?" so that they could accuse him. GNT Matthew 12:10 καὶ ἰδοὺ ἄνθρωπος χεῖρα ἔχων ξηράν. καὶ ἐπηρώτησαν αὐτὸν λέγοντες, Εἰ ἔξεστιν τοῖς σάββασιν θεραπεῦσαι; ἵνα κατηγορήσωσιν αὐτοῦ. NLT Matthew 12:10 where he noticed a man with a deformed hand. The Pharisees asked Jesus, "Does the law permit a person to work by healing on the Sabbath?" (They were hoping he would say yes, so they could bring charges against him.) KJV Matthew 12:10 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. ESV Matthew 12:10 And a man was there with a withered hand. And they asked him, "Is it lawful to heal on the Sabbath?"-- so that they might accuse him. NIV Matthew 12:10 and a man with a shriveled hand was there. Looking for a reason to accuse Jesus, they asked him, "Is it lawful to heal on the Sabbath?" ASV Matthew 12:10 and behold, a man having a withered hand. And they asked him, saying, Is it lawful to heal on the sabbath day? that they might accuse him. CSB Matthew 12:10 There He saw a man who had a paralyzed hand. And in order to accuse Him they asked Him, "Is it lawful to heal on the Sabbath?" NKJ Matthew 12:10 And behold, there was a man who had a withered hand. And they asked Him, saying, "Is it lawful to heal on the Sabbath?"-- that they might accuse Him. NRS Matthew 12:10 a man was there with a withered hand, and they asked him, "Is it lawful to cure on the sabbath?" so that they might accuse him. YLT Matthew 12:10 and lo, there was a man having the hand withered, and they questioned him, saying, 'Is it lawful to heal on the sabbaths?' that they might accuse him. NAB Matthew 12:10 And behold, there was a man there who had a withered hand. They questioned him, "Is it lawful to cure on the sabbath?" so that they might accuse him. NJB Matthew 12:10 now a man was there with a withered hand. They asked him, 'Is it permitted to cure somebody on the Sabbath day?' hoping for something to charge him with. GWN Matthew 12:10 A man with a paralyzed hand was there. The people asked Jesus whether it was right to heal on a day of worship so that they could accuse him of doing something wrong. BBE Matthew 12:10 And there was a man with a dead hand. And they put a question to him, saying, Is it right to make a man well on the Sabbath day? so that they might have something against him. who: 1Ki 13:4-6 Zec 11:17 Joh 5:3 Is it: Mt 19:3 22:17,18 Lu 13:14 14:3-6 20:22 Joh 5:10 9:16 so that: Isa 32:6 59:4,13 Lu 6:6,7 11:54 23:2,14 Joh 8:6 Matthew 12 Resources - Multiple Sermons and Commentaries Parallel Passages: Mark 3:1-6, Matthew 12:9-14, Luke 6:6-11 Mark 3:1+ He entered again into a synagogue; and a man was there whose hand was withered. 2 They were watching Him to see if He would heal him on the Sabbath, so that they might accuse Him. Luke 6:6+ On another Sabbath He entered the synagogue and was teaching; and there was a man there whose right hand was withered. 7 The scribes and the Pharisees were watching Him closely to see if He healed on the Sabbath, so that they might find reason to accuse Him. ANOTHER SABBATH COLLISION BETWEEN JESUS AND JEWISH LEADERS KJV is more accurate - "And, behold (idou)." For some reason the NAS and other modern translations (ESV, NET, NIV, et al) often leave out this "attention getting" word. I think it should always be translated, for the Spirit intended it to convey some aspect of truth. The Greek demonstrative particle idou is used by the Biblical writers to (1) prompt or arouse the reader's attention (introducing something new or unusual), (2) to mark a strong emphasis ("Indeed!" Lk 13:16) and (3) to call the reader to pay close attention (very similar to #1) so that one will listen, remember or consider.

Mateus 12

Robertson - The Pharisees feel that the excited condition of the crowds and the manifest disposition to believe that Jesus is the Messiah (the Son of David) demand strenuous action on their part. They cannot deny the fact of the miracles for the blind and dumb men both saw and spoke (Mt 12:22). So in desperation they suggest that Jesus works by the power of Beelzebub the prince of the demons. (Word Pictures) Casts out (ekbállō) demons (daimonion) only by Beelzebul the ruler (archon) of the demons - NLT is a somewhat "free" paraphrase (I like the NLT but always check a more literal version like ESV, NAS, NET, KJV) "No wonder he can cast out demons. He gets his power from Satan, the prince of demons." We should not be surprised at their vitriolic, repulsive accusation for earlier we read "the Pharisees went out and conspired against Him, as to how they might destroy Him." (Mt 12:14+). Their statement is brimming with self-righteous confidence, for they are sure this is they only way such miracles could take place. By Beelzebul in the Greek is literally "in" (en) which conveys the thought "in connection with" or "in union with Beelzebul." Broadus adds in signifies "everywhere denoting intimate union." Imagine their hellish intent of their accusation that Jesus is in union with the spirit of evil! In Jesus' response to their accustion in Mark 3:23+ "How can Satan cast out Satan?" France comments that "The Pharisees’ accusation amounts to a charge of sorcery, one which continued to be leveled against Jesus in later Jewish polemic.” (NICNT-Mt) The religious leaders had made a similar false accusation against Jesus earlier in Mt 9:34+ where " the Pharisees were saying, “He casts out the demons by the ruler of the demons.” Then later in speaking with His disciples (Mt 10:5+) Jesus declared "It is enough for the disciple that he become like his teacher, and the slave like his master. If they have called the head of the house (JESUS) Beelzebul, how much more will they malign the members of his household! " (Mt 10:25+) Their accusation is now more vivid and offensive than that in Mt 9:34 as they use the name of the "ruler of the demons."

Mateus 12

Robertson - The Pharisees now find out what a powerful opponent Jesus is. By parables, by a series of conditions (first class), by sarcasm, by rhetorical question, by merciless logic, he lays bare their hollow insincerity and the futility of their arguments. Satan does not cast out Satan. (Ibid) Any kingdom divided (merizo) against itself is laid waste - Note Jesus' use of kingdom in essence affirms that Satan did in fact have a kingdom thus affirming the validity of Satan's claim as ruler of the kingdoms of the world (read Luke 4:5-6+, Mt 4:8-9+, cf Jn 12:31, 14:30, 16:11 = "the ruler of this world", 1 Jn 5:19+, 2 Cor 4:4+ = "the god of this world"; Col 1:13+). Their absurd accusation presupposes Satan on one hand would send out demons to possess men and then would turn around and send Jesus to dispossess the possessed person! Absurdity to the max! He would in effect be destroying His own kingdom! One is reminded of the popular saying "United we stand, divided we fall." A kingdom divided against itself is called a civil war and it will tear the kingdom apart, much as did the American Civil War, from which the nation in the providence of God was allowed to recover! Laid waste (2049)(eremoo from eremos = wasteland) means brought to ruin, be laid waste, become desolate, be devastated (Mt 12:25). Of a prosperous city meaning to be ruined or depopulated. Eremoo refers to the act which causes a place to become desolate or wasteful. It also expresses the idea of abandonment, desertion, or loneliness. Used 5x in the NT - Matt. 12:25; Lk. 11:17; Rev. 17:16; Rev. 18:17; Rev. 18:19. Over 70x in the Septuagint - Gen. 47:19; Lev. 26:22; Lev. 26:30; Lev. 26:43; Jdg. 16:7; Jdg. 16:8; Jdg. 16:24; 2 Ki. 19:17; Ezr. 4:15; Neh. 2:3; Job 14:11; Ps. 69:25; Ps. 79:7; Isa. 1:7; Isa. 6:11; Isa. 11:15; Isa. 23:13; Isa. 24:1; Isa. 24:10; Isa. 33:8; Isa. 34:10; Isa. 37:18; Isa. 37:25; Isa. 44:27; Isa. 49:17; Isa. 51:10; Isa. 54:3; Isa. 60:12; Jer. 3:2; Jer. 10:25; Jer. 26:9; Jer. 33:10; Jer. 51:36; Lam. 1:1; Ezek. 26:2; Ezek. 26:19; Ezek. 29:12; Ezek. 30:7; Ezek. 32:15; Ezek. 33:24; Ezek. 33:27; Ezek. 33:28; Ezek. 33:29; Ezek. 35:3; Ezek. 35:7; Ezek. 36:10; Ezek. 38:12; Dan. 8:11; Dan. 8:13; Dan. 11:24; Amos 3:11; And any city or house divided against itself will not stand - NLT = "A town or family splintered by feuding will fall apart." To what does house refer? Possibly a reference to the body of the man who was possessed (see Mt 12:43, 44+ = "I will return to my house from which I came.") Jesus reiterates His refutation of their charges that He was casting out demons by the ruler of the demons by emphasizing that this was illogical, impractical and self-destructive! How foolish would Satan be to fight against himself! Divided (3307)(merizo) means to divide, part, share, separate. Merizo - 13x in NT - Matt. 12:25; Matt. 12:26; Mk. 3:24; Mk. 3:25; Mk. 3:26; Mk. 6:41; Lk. 12:13; Rom. 12:3; 1 Co. 1:13; 1 Co. 7:17; 1 Co. 7:34; 2 Co. 10:13; Heb. 7:2 Matthew 12:26 “If Satan casts out Satan, he is divided against himself; how then will his kingdom stand? NET Matthew 12:26 So if Satan casts out Satan, he is divided against himself. How then will his kingdom stand? GNT Matthew 12:26 καὶ εἰ ὁ Σατανᾶς τὸν Σατανᾶν ἐκβάλλει, ἐφ᾽ ἑαυτὸν ἐμερίσθη· πῶς οὖν σταθήσεται ἡ βασιλεία αὐτοῦ; NLT Matthew 12:26 And if Satan is casting out Satan, he is divided and fighting against himself. His own kingdom will not survive. KJV Matthew 12:26 And if Satan cast out Satan, he is divided against himself; how shall then his kingdom stand? ESV Matthew 12:26 And if Satan casts out Satan, he is divided against himself. How then will his kingdom stand? NIV Matthew 12:26 If Satan drives out Satan, he is divided against himself. How then can his kingdom stand? ASV Matthew 12:26 and if Satan casteth out Satan, he is divided against himself; how then shall his kingdom stand? CSB Matthew 12:26 If Satan drives out Satan, he is divided against himself. How then will his kingdom stand? NKJ Matthew 12:26 "If Satan casts out Satan, he is divided against himself. How then will his kingdom stand? NRS Matthew 12:26 If Satan casts out Satan, he is divided against himself; how then will his kingdom stand? YLT Matthew 12:26 and if the Adversary doth cast out the Adversary, against himself he was divided, how then doth his kingdom stand? NAB Matthew 12:26 And if Satan drives out Satan, he is divided against himself; how, then, will his kingdom stand? NJB Matthew 12:26 Now if Satan drives out Satan, he is divided against himself; so how can his kingdom last? GWN Matthew 12:26 If Satan forces Satan out, he is divided against himself. How, then, can his kingdom last? BBE Matthew 12:26 And if Satan sends out Satan, he makes war against himself; how then will he keep his kingdom? his: Joh 12:31 14:30 16:11 2Co 4:4 Col 1:13 1Jn 5:19 Rev 9:11 Rev 12:9 16:10 20:2,3 Matthew 12 Resources - Multiple Sermons and Commentaries If Satan casts out Satan, he is divided against himself; how then will his kingdom stand? - This picks up on His previous statement about a divided Kingdom. The peerless logic leads to the obvious conclusion that Satan's kingdom could not stand if it were divided. Bruce says 'Satan may be wicked, He says in effect, but he is not a fool.”

Mateus 12

Robertson says the idea is that labor is an annoyance, bad, evil; Noun poneria derived from poneros) means evil including evil, malignant character, pernicious (see Webster 1828 definition below), that which is morally or socially worthless, wicked, base, bad, degenerate. Poneros denotes determined, aggressive, and fervent evil that actively opposes what is good. Poneros is not just bad in character (like kakos), but bad in effect (injurious)! Poneros describes evil in active opposition to good. It means not only evil in its nature but viciously evil in its influence and actively harmful. Poneros used to describe Satan (ho poneros = "Evil one"), the god of this age, who is corrupting man and dragging him to destruction. This denotes someone who is not content in being corrupt themselves. They seek to corrupt others and draw them into the same destruction! Fills (4051)(perisseuma from perisseuo = to abound) is a noun that describes a a condition of great plenty and thus a surplus, excess or abundance (figuratively of the heart in Mt 12:34; Lk 6:45). It speaks of a superabundance or an overflow. The hearts of the Pharisees are so full of evil, that the evil must come out of the "overflow valve" which is their mouth! In 2 Cor 8:14 it describes the character (and quantity) of the gifts of the saints. In Mk 8:8 it describes that which is remains above and beyond from feeding the four thousand. The only use in the Septuagint is Eccl 2:15. In a parallel use Luke writes "The good man out of the good treasure of his heart brings forth what is good; and the evil man out of the evil treasure brings forth what is evil; for his mouth speaks from that which fills his heart." (Lk 6:45+) PERISSEUMA - 4v - abundance(2), full of what was left over(1), which fills(2). Matt. 12:34; Mk. 8:8; Lk. 6:45; 2 Co. 8:14. Once in the Septuagint - Ecc 2:15 Heart (2588) kardia does not refer to the physical organ but is always used figuratively in Scripture to refer to the seat and center of human life. The heart is the center of the personality, and it controls the intellect, emotions, and will. No outward obedience is of the slightest value unless the heart turns to God. See 4 page article in Dictionary Of Biblical Imagery article on Heart - kardia See 5 page article in NT Dictionary Of New Testament Theology on Heart - Kardia Kardia as stated above refers not to the physical organ (over 800 mentions and none refer to the physical organ!), but is always used figuratively to center of our personality, to so to speak to our "control center" (to make a play on the "air traffic control center" at the airport which carefully guards and guides what flies in and what flies out. How applicable to our "hearts" which are so prone to wander!). In short kardia refers to the the affective center of our being wherein lies the capacity of moral preference and volitional desire. The kardia generates thoughts that make the decisions which the mind works out. In other words, our logic flows out of our heart-decisions and not vice versa. Gleason Archer called the kardia, the "desire-producer that makes us tick" for it is the place where our "desire-decisions" occur, and which establish who we really are. WHO ARE YOU? HAVE YOU HAD A HEART CHECK UP RECENTLY? We are assiduous to do this medically, but woefully lax in doing it spiritually (beloved, I speak from experience!). At regeneration God reverses the spiritual atherosclerosis of our old sinful heart by giving us a total heart transplant! Daily confession and repentance are thereafter necessary to avoid "spiritual atherosclerosis" and gradual, subtle hardening (and becoming cold to the things of God) of our heart! (Read and practice daily "preventative maintenance" = 1 Jn 1:9+, Pr 28:13+). QUESTION: Why Were Pharisees referred to as a brood of vipers? GOTQUESTIONS.ORG ANSWER: John the Baptist condemned the Pharisees and Sadducees as a “brood of vipers” in Matthew 3:7. A “brood of vipers” is a “family of snakes.” Because vipers are venomous, John was essentially calling the religious leaders “deadly sons of serpents.” It’s quite a bold denunciation—and one Jesus repeated to the Pharisees in Matthew 12:34. The Pharisees and Sadducees were the religious leaders in Israel during the time of John the Baptist and Jesus. The Pharisees were the Law-keepers and promoters of tradition, and the Sadducees comprised the wealthier ruling class. Over the centuries, these well-meaning groups had become corrupt, legalistic, and hypocritical and would eventually be responsible for crucifying the Son of God. They earned their label “brood of vipers,” a sobriquet with deeper meaning than is obvious at first glance. The viper was seen to be an evil creature. Its venom was deadly, and it was also devious—the viper that bit Paul was hiding in the firewood (Acts 28:3). The Hebrew Scriptures, which the Pharisees knew well, associate the serpent with Satan in Genesis 3. For John to call the Pharisees a “brood of vipers” implies that they bore satanic qualities. This idea is clearly stated by Jesus in John 8:44, where He says the unbelieving Jews “belong to [their] father, the devil.” When John and Jesus called the Pharisees a “brood of vipers,” they were pointing out that these men were deceitful, dangerous, and wicked—deceitful in that they were hypocrites (Matthew 23:15); dangerous in that they were blind leaders of the blind (Matthew 15:14); and wicked in that their hearts were full of murder (John 8:37). Another fascinating detail is found in Jesus’ use of the epithet “brood of vipers” to describe the Pharisees. In Matthew 23:33, He says, “You brood of vipers, how are you to escape being sentenced to hell?” Farmers, then as now, often burned the stubble of their fields to get the land ready for the next planting season. As the fires neared the vipers’ dens, the snakes would slither away from the flames, but they often did not escape being consumed. Snakes fleeing the fire was a common sight, and Jesus’ words to the Pharisees would likely have called it to their minds. How could they think they would escape the fire of God’s judgment by relying on their own works, which were not at all honest or good? John’s and Jesus’ calling them a brood of vipers was meant to make them aware of their own wickedness and call them to repent. Matthew 12:35 “The good man brings out of his good treasure what is good; and the evil man brings out of his evil treasure what is evil. NET The good person brings good things out of his good treasury, and the evil person brings evil things out of his evil treasury. GNT ὁ ἀγαθὸς ἄνθρωπος ἐκ τοῦ ἀγαθοῦ θησαυροῦ ἐκβάλλει ἀγαθά, καὶ ὁ πονηρὸς ἄνθρωπος ἐκ τοῦ πονηροῦ θησαυροῦ ἐκβάλλει πονηρά. NLT A good person produces good things from the treasury of a good heart, and an evil person produces evil things from the treasury of an evil heart. KJV 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. ESV The good person out of his good treasure brings forth good, and the evil person out of his evil treasure brings forth evil. NIV The good man brings good things out of the good stored up in him, and the evil man brings evil things out of the evil stored up in him. ASV The good man out of his good treasure bringeth forth good things: and the evil man out of his evil treasure bringeth forth evil things. CSB A good man produces good things from his storeroom of good, and an evil man produces evil things from his storeroom of evil. NKJ "A good man out of the good treasure of his heart brings forth good things, and an evil man out of the evil treasure brings forth evil things. NRS The good person brings good things out of a good treasure, and the evil person brings evil things out of an evil treasure. YLT The good man out of the good treasure of the heart doth put forth the good things, and the evil man out of the evil treasure doth put forth evil things. NAB A good person brings forth good out of a store of goodness, but an evil person brings forth evil out of a store of evil. NJB Good people draw good things from their store of goodness; bad people draw bad things from their store of badness. GWN Good people do the good things that are in them. But evil people do the evil things that are in them. BBE The good man out of his good store gives good things; and the evil man out of his evil store gives evil things. good man: Mt 13:52 Ps 37:30,31 Pr 10:20,21 12:6,17-19 15:4,23,28 Pr 16:21-23 25:11,12 Eph 4:29 Col 3:16 4:6 and an: Mt 12:34 Matthew 12 Resources - Multiple Sermons and Commentaries Parallel Passage: Luke 6:45+ "The good man out of the good treasure of his heart brings forth what is good; and the evil man out of the evil treasure brings forth what is evil; for his mouth speaks from that which fills his heart." OUR WORDS REVEAL OUR CHARACTER! This is a truth which should send a shiver down all of us! Think back to this past week and the words that flew out of your mouth! Jesus gives another axiomatic truth. What man is in life is what he is in his heart. The truth is that a man reveals his character by what he says. This is why Proverbs 4:23+ is one of the more important proverbs to memorize, mediate upon and practice in the power of the Spirit (notice watch is a command which calls for continual dependence on the Spirit to obey!). Watch (a command) over your heart with all diligence, For from it flow the springs of life. Glen Spencer explains "The metaphor used here pictures the heart as a well and our life as the streams that go forth from the well. The idea is that the actions and attitudes of life spring from our heart like water springs from a well. When you go to the well to get water, whatever is in the well comes up in the bucket. If the water is fresh and cool in the well, you get good water in the bucket. But if the water is stagnant and contaminated, such will be the quality of water you draw from it. What a vivid illustration! The same principle is true of life. Whatever is in the heart comes out in the life." (Expository Pulpit Series – Gospel According to Matthew) The good (agathos) man brings out (ekbállō) of his good treasure (thesauros) what is good (agathos - morally good, kind, beneficial, useful) - The simple point is that you can only bring out what you have inside! The parallel passage in Luke 6:45+ tells us the source of the good treasure is a man's heart, which is a good heart, for otherwise it could not bring out that which is good. The word for treasure (thesauros) in this passage speaks of our reservoir, our storehouse, our treasure chest, speaking figuratively. And so all men have a "treasure chest" in their chest! It is either a good "treasure chest" or a bad (evil) "treasure chest!" What Jesus is saying is that within our "chest" is a storehouse and the only thing that can come out of that storehouse is what is in it! For believers, we have been given a new heart and a new power (Ezekiel 36:26, 27+) and so can bring forth good from our treasure chest! What is in our treasure chest will spill out of our mouths. Jesus uses the word agathos for good, which describes that which is intrinsically good, inherently good in quality but with the idea of good which is also profitable, useful, benefiting others, benevolent (marked by or disposed to doing good). Good and doing good is the idea. Agathos describes that which is beneficial in addition to being good. Agathos is that which is good in its character, beneficial in its effects and/or useful in its action. And so agathos describes the wonderful potential for good words and good works to come forth from every believer! Zodhiates adds that "God alone is innately agathos, according to Mark 10:18, while Satan is frequently called ho poneros (Mt. 13:19, 38; Eph. 6:16; 1 John 2:13, 14; 3:12; 5:18)." (Exegetical Commentary on Matthew) (ED COMMENT: Therefore, it is little wonder that the Pharisees are evil [poneros] like their father the devil [Jn 8:44+], for "like father, like son!") Our tongue is the index of our heart. And the evil (poneros) man brings out (ekbállō) of his evil (poneros) treasure (thesauros) what is evil (poneros) - By implication the source of his evil treasure is his evil heart. Note again that Jesus uses the specific word for evil (poneros) which speaks of active evil, evil that has the effect of producing harm! The treasure (thesauros) chest of the unregenerate is filled with evil for it "was brought forth in iniquity" (Ps 51:5) and harbors the "sin virus" which "spread to all men" from Adam! (Ro 5:12+) As John