Matthew 12

All of the evidence had been presented. John the Baptist had introduced the King to the nation.

Jesus had revealed His person, principles, and power. It was now up to the leaders of the nation to make their decision. Instead of receiving their King, they began to rebel against Him. In these two chapters four areas of rebellion are presented.

Jesus deliberately violated the Sabbath traditions on several occasions. He had taught the people that mere external laws could never save them or make them holy; true righteousness had to come from the heart. The Hebrew word sabat means “repose or rest,” which explains why Matthew introduced these Sabbath conflicts at this point. Jesus offers rest to all who will come to Him; there is no rest in mere religious observances.

It was lawful to satisfy your hunger from your neighbor’s field (Deut. 23:24–25). But to do it on the Sabbath was a breach of the law according to the traditions of the scribes and Pharisees, for it meant doing work. Jesus gave a threefold reply to their accusation.

He appealed to a king (vv. 3–4). The consecrated bread was to be eaten only by the priests, yet David and his soldiers ate it. Certainly the Son of David had a right to eat His Father’s grain from the field! And if David broke the law and was not condemned, surely Jesus could break man’s traditions and be guiltless (see 1 Sam. 21:1ff.).

He appealed to the priests (vv. 5–6). The priests had to offer a given number of sacrifices on the Sabbath (Num. 28:9–10) and yet were not condemned. In fact, their service was in obedience to the law given by God. This suggests that man’s traditions about the Sabbath were wrong, for they contradicted God’s own law.

He appealed to a prophet (v. 7). The quotation is from Hosea 6:6, one that Jesus had already quoted (Matt. 9:13). The Sabbath law was given to Israel as a mark of her relationship to God (Ex. 20:9–11; 31:13–17; Neh. 9:12–15). But it was also an act of mercy for both man and beast, to give them needed rest each week. Any religious law that is contrary to mercy and the care of nature should be looked on with suspicion. God wants mercy, not religious sacrifice. He wants love, not legalism. The Pharisees who sacrificed to obey their Sabbath laws thought they were serving God. When they accused Christ and His disciples, they thought they were defending God. How like religious legalists today!

Note that Jesus appealed to prophet, priest, and king, for He is Prophet, Priest, and King. Note too the three “greater” statements that He made: as the Priest, He is “greater than the temple” (Matt. 12:6); as Prophet, He is “greater than Jonah” (Matt. 12:41); and as King, He is “greater than Solomon” (Matt. 12:42).

In declaring Himself “Lord of the Sabbath,” Jesus was actually affirming equality with God, for God had established the Sabbath (Gen. 2:1–3). He then proved this claim by healing the man with the paralyzed hand. It is sad that the religious leaders used this man and his handicap as a weapon to fight against Jesus. But the Lord was not afraid of their threats. Not doing good on the Sabbath day (or any other day) is the same as doing evil. Jesus argued that if a farmer could care for his animals on the Sabbath, shouldn’t we care for man, made in the image of God?

They responded to this deliberate challenge by plotting to kill Him. They had accused Him of blasphemy when He healed the paralytic (Matt. 9:1–8), and of lack of separation when He ate with Matthew’s friends (Matt. 9:11–13). But this deed was even worse. He had deliberately violated the law of God! He had worked on the Sabbath by harvesting grain and healing a man.

Our Lord’s response to their hatred was withdrawal. He did not openly fight His enemies, but fulfilled the prophecy in Isaiah 42:1–4. His enemies were but broken reeds and smoking flax. Note the double mention of the Gentiles, another hint from Matthew that Israel would reject her King and the kingdom would go to the Gentiles.

The Lord’s withdrawal at this point is an anticipation of His “retirement” described in Matthew 14—20. During that time, Jesus avoided direct conflict with His enemies that He might stay on the “divine timetable” and be crucified on schedule. Also, during that time, He taught His disciples and prepared them for His crucifixion.

The accusation (vv. 22–24). The man who was brought to Jesus was certainly in a sad state, for he was blind, unable to speak, and possessed with a demon. Jesus delivered the man, something the Pharisees could not do. Their accusation was that He worked by the power of Satan and not by the power of God. They did not agree with Nicodemus’s evaluation of His miracles (John 3:2).

The answer (vv. 25–30). Jesus pointed out that their statement was illogical and impractical. Why would Satan fight against himself? Jesus affirmed that Satan had a kingdom, for he is the god of this age (Matt. 4:8–9; John 12:31). He also stated that Satan had a “house,” which seems to refer to the body of the man who was possessed (Matt. 12:43–44). If Satan casts out his own demonic helpers, then he is opposing himself, dividing his kingdom, and destroying his house.

Their accusation was also illogical from their own point of view, though they did not see it. There were Jewish exorcists (see Acts 19:13–16) who apparently were successful. By whose power did they cast out demons? If it was by Satan’s power, they were in league with the devil! Of course, no Pharisee was about to draw that conclusion.

Jesus was able to cast out demons because He had first defeated Satan, the prince of the demons. Jesus entered Satan’s kingdom, overcame his power, and claimed his spoils. His victory was through the Spirit of God (“the finger of God,” Luke 11:20) and not in the power of the evil one. This means that God is Victor over Satan, and that men must decide on whose side they will stand. There can be no compromise. We are either with God or against God.

The admonition (vv. 31–37). Jesus warned them that their words gave evidence of the evil in their hearts. The sin against the Holy Spirit is not a matter of speech; the words spoken are only “fruit” from the sinful heart. If the heart is a treasury of good, that good will overflow through the lips and do good to others. But if the heart is a treasury of evil, that evil will spill over through the lips and do harm to the person speaking and those listening.

But what is this terrible “sin against the Holy Spirit”? Can it be committed today, and, if so, how? Our Lord said that God will forgive evil words spoken against the Son, but not against the Spirit. Does this mean that the Holy Spirit is more important than Jesus Christ, God’s Son? Surely not. We often hear the name of God or Jesus Christ used in blasphemy, but rarely if ever the name of the Holy Spirit. How can God forgive words spoken against His Son, and yet not forgive words spoken against the Spirit?

It appears that this situation existed only while Christ was ministering on earth. Jesus did not appear to be different from any other Jewish man (Isa. 53:2). To speak against Christ could be forgiven while He was on earth. But when the Spirit of God came at Pentecost as proof that Jesus was the Christ, and was alive, to reject the witness of the Spirit was final. The only consequence would be judgment.

When the leaders rejected John the Baptist, they were rejecting the Father who sent him. When they rejected Jesus, they were rejecting the Son. But when they rejected the ministry of the apostles, they rejected the Holy Spirit—and that is the end. There is no more witness. Such rejection cannot be forgiven.

The phrase “idle word” in Matthew 12: means “words that accomplish nothing.” If God is going to judge our “small talk,” how much more will He judge our deliberate words? It is by our conversation at unguarded moments that we reveal our true character.

Is there an “unpardonable sin” today? Yes, the final rejection of Jesus Christ. Jesus made it clear that all sins can be forgiven (Matt. 12:31). Adultery, murder, blasphemy, and other sins can all be forgiven; they are not unpardonable. But God cannot forgive the rejection of His Son. It is the Spirit who bears witness to Christ (John 15:26) and who convicts the lost sinner (John 16:7–11).

“The Jews require a sign” (1 Cor. 1:22). To ask for a sign was evidence of unbelief: They wanted Him to prove that He was the Messiah. We wonder what further proof could have been given! Had they searched their own Scriptures, and sincerely examined His life, they would have concluded, “This is the Son of God!” But for Jesus to have given them a sign would have been wrong. He would have catered to their unbelief and allowed them to set the standards for faith. No matter what miracle He performed, it would not have pleased them.

Jesus gave three responses to their challenge.

He reviewed their history (vv. 39–42). The prophet Jonah was a Jew sent to the Gentiles, and the Queen of Sheba was a Gentile who came to visit Solomon, a Jew (2 Chron. 9:1–12). Because of the bitterness between the Jews and the Gentiles, this reference to the Gentiles must have irritated the Pharisees. But we have noted other occasions when either Jesus or Matthew mentioned the Gentiles.

Jonah was a sign to the people of Nineveh because he had experienced (in the great fish) “death,” burial, and resurrection. The only sign Jesus would give to His nation was death, burial, and resurrection. The messages in the first seven chapters of Acts center on the resurrection of Christ, not on His death on the cross. The Jews of that day believed that He had died, for this was the chief topic of conversation (Luke 24:18). But they did not believe that He was alive (Matt. 28:11–15). In Acts 2—7, the Holy Spirit gave to the nation of Israel abundant witness that Jesus was alive. This was the only sign they needed.

Jesus is greater than Jonah in many ways. He is greater in His person, for Jonah was a mere man. He was greater in His obedience, for Jonah disobeyed God and was chastened. Jesus actually died, while Jonah’s “grave” was in the belly of the great fish. Jesus arose from the dead under His own power. Jonah ministered only to one city, while Jesus gave His life for the whole world. Certainly Jesus was greater in His love, for Jonah did not love the people of Nineveh—he wanted them to die. Jonah’s message saved Nineveh from judgment; he was a messenger of the wrath of God. Jesus’ message was that of grace and salvation. When we trust Christ, we are not only saved from judgment, but we receive eternal, abundant life.

Jesus is also greater than Solomon in His wisdom, wealth, and works. The Queen of Sheba was amazed at what she saw in Solomon’s kingdom, but what we have in the kingdom of God through Christ far surpasses Solomon’s glories. To sit at Christ’s table and hear His words, and to share His blessings, is much more satisfying than to visit and admire the most spectacular kingdom, even that of Solomon.

The main lesson behind this history lesson is this: The citizens of Nineveh will witness against the rulers of Israel, for they repented at Jonah’s preaching. The Queen of Sheba will also witness against them. She traveled a long distance to hear Solomon’s wisdom, yet the Jewish leaders rejected the wisdom of Christ, who was in their very midst! The greater the opportunity, the greater the judgment. It is a tragic feature in the history of Israel that the nation rejected their deliverers the first time, but accepted them the second time. This was true with Joseph, Moses, David, the prophets (Matt. 23:29), and Jesus Christ.

He revealed their hearts (vv. 43–45). We must connect these verses with Matthew 12:24–29. Satan’s “house” is the body of the person who is possessed by the demon. It appears that the demons are restless and seek bodies in which to reside (Matt. 8:28–31). When the demon left, this man’s life was changed for the better, but his life was still empty. When the demon returned, he brought others with him, and the man’s life ended in tragedy.

The primary application is to the nation of Israel, especially that generation present when Jesus ministered on earth. The nation had been purged of the demon of idolatry, which had plagued them in the Old Testament. But reformation was not enough. Reformation could cleanse, but it could not fill. The nation should have received the Savior and been filled with spiritual life. Instead, the people rejected Him, and the end was destruction.

There is a personal application. It is not enough to clean house; we must also invite in the right tenant. The Pharisees were proud of their “clean houses,” but their hearts were empty! Mere religion, or reformation, will not save. There must be regeneration, the receiving of Christ into the heart (see Rev. 3:20). We cannot be neutral about Jesus Christ.

He rejected their honor (vv. 46–50). Even our Lord’s earthly family did not fully understand Him or His ministry (John 7:1–5). Some of His friends thought He was mad (Mark 3:21). But Jesus did not want the honor that comes from people. While He was not disrespectful toward His physical family, He did emphasize the family of God.

Note His use of the word whosoever (Matt. 12:50). This paralleled His beautiful invitation in Matthew 11:28–30, where He encouraged all to trust Him. If the nation would not receive Him, at least individuals within the nation—and among the Gentiles—could trust Him. But what will happen to the promised kingdom?