XLVIII.
BLASPHEMOUS ACCUSATIONS OF THE JEWS.
(Galilee.)
aMATT. XII. 22-37; bMARK
III. 19-30; cLUKE XI. 14-23.
b19 And he cometh into
a house. [Whose house is not stated.]
20 And the multitude cometh together again [as on a previous occasion--Mark
ii. 1], so that they could not so much as eat bread. [They
could not sit down to a regular meal. A wonderful picture of the intense
importunity of people and the corresponding eagerness of Jesus, who was
as willing to do as they were to have done.]
21 And when his friends heard it, they went out to lay hold on him: for
they said, He is beside himself. [These friends were his brothers and
his mother, as appears from Mark iii. 31, 32. They probably came from Nazareth.
To understand their feelings, we must bear in mind their want of [298] faith.
See John vii. 3-9. They regarded Jesus as carried away by his religious
enthusiasm (Acts xxvi. 24; II. Cor. v. 13), and thought that he acted with
reckless regard for his personal safety. They foresaw the conflict with
the military authorities and the religious leaders into which the present
course of Jesus was leading, and were satisfied that the case called for
their interference. Despite her knowledge as to Jesus, Mary sympathized
with her sons in this movement, and feared for the safety of Jesus.]
a22 Then was brought unto him one possessed with a demon, blind
and dumb: {c14 And he was casting out a demon that was
dumb.} aand he healed him, insomuch that cit came
to pass, when the demon was gone out, athe dumb man spake and
saw. [The man was brought because he could not come alone. While Luke
does not mention the blindness, the similarity of the narratives makes
it most likely that he is describing the same circumstances as Matthew
and Mark, so we have combined the three accounts.]
23 And all the multitudes cmarvelled. awere amazed,
and said, Can this be the son of David? [It was a time for amazement,
for Jesus had performed a triple if not a quadruple miracle, restoring
liberty, hearing and sight, and granting the power of speech. It wakened
the hope that Jesus might be the Messiah, the son of David, but their hope
is expressed in the most cautious manner, not only being stated as a question,
but as a question which expects a negative answer. The question, however,
was well calculated to arouse the envious opposition of the Pharisees.]
c15 But some of them said [that is, some of the multitude.
Who these "some" were is revealed by Matthew and Mark, thus:],
a24 But when the Pharisees heard it, they
b22 and the scribes that came down from Jerusalem said, aThis
man doth not cast out demons, but by Beelzebub the prince of the demons.
bHe hath Beelzebub, and, By the prince of the demons casteth
he out the demons. [Beelzebub is a corruption of Baalzebub, the
god of the fly. There was a tendency among the heathen to name [299] their
gods after the pests which they were supposed to avert. Thus Zeus was called
Apomuios (Averter of flies), and Apollo Ipuktonos (Slayer
of vermin). How Beelzebub became identified with Satan in the Jewish mind
is not known. In opposing the influence of Jesus and corrupting the public
mind, these Pharisees showed a cunning worthy of the cultivated atmosphere,
the seat of learning whence they came. Being unable to deny that a miracle
was wrought (for Celsus in the second century is the first recorded person
who had the temerity to do such a thing), they sought to so explain it
as to reverse its potency, making it an evidence of diabolical rather than
divine power. Their explanation was cleverly plausible, for there were
at least two powers by which demons might be cast out, as both were invisible,
it might appear impossible to decide whether it was done in this instance
by the power of God or of Satan. It was an explanation very difficult to
disprove, and Jesus himself considered it worthy of the very thorough reply
which follows.] c16 And
others, trying him, sought of him a sign from heaven. [These
probably felt that the criticisms of the Pharisees were unjust, and wished
that Jesus might put them to silence by showing some great sign, such as
the pillar of cloud which sanctioned the guidance of Moses, or the descending
fire which vindicated Elijah.] b23
And he called them unto him [thus singling out his accusers],
a25 And {c17 But} aknowing their thoughts
he said unto them, bin parables [We shall find that Jesus
later replied to those who sought a sign. He here answers his accusers
in a fourfold argument. First argument:], How can Satan cast
out Satan? aEvery kingdom divided against itself is brought
to desolation; and every city or house [family] divided against
itself shall not stand: b24
And if a kingdom be divided against itself, that kingdom cannot stand.
cA house divided against a house falleth. {b25
And if a house be divided against itself, that house will not be able to
stand.} a26 And if Satan cast
out Satan, he is divided against himself;
c18 And if Satan also is [300] divided
against himself, ahow then shall his kingdom stand?
b26 And if Satan hath risen up against himself, and is divided,
he cannot stand, but hath an end. cbecause ye say that I cast
out demons by Beelzebub. [The explanation given by the Pharisees represented
Satan as divided against himself; robbing himself of his greatest achievement;
namely, his triumph over the souls and bodies of men. Jesus argues, not
that Satan could not do this, but that he would not, and
that therefore the explanation which supposes him to do it is absurd. We
should note that Jesus here definitely recognizes two important truths:
1. That the powers of evil are organized into a kingdom with a head (Matt.
xiii. 29; xxv. 41; Mark iv. 15; Luke xxii. 31). 2. That division tends
to destruction. His argument therefore, "constitutes an incidental but
strong argument against sectarianism. See I. Cor. i. 13" (Abbott).
Second argument:]
19 And if I by Beelzebub cast out demons, by whom do your sons cast them
out? Therefore shall they be your judges. [The sons of the Pharisees
were not their children, but their disciples (II. Kings ii. 3; Acts xix.
13, 14). Josephus mentions these exorcists (Ant. viii. 2, 5, and Wars vii.
6, 3), and there is abundant mention of them in later rabbinical books.
Our Lord's reference to them was merely for the purpose of presenting an
argumentum ad hominem, and in no way implies that they exercised
any real power over the demons; nor could they have done so in any
marked degree, else the similar work of Christ would not have created such
an astonishment. The argument therefore is this, I have already shown you
that it is against reason that Satan cast out Satan; I now show
you that it is against experience. The only instances of dispossession
which you can cite are those of your own disciples. Do they act by the
power of Satan? They therefore shall be your judges as to whether you have
spoken rightly in saying that Satan casts out Satan. Third argument:]
20 But if I with the finger {aby the Spirit} of God cast out
demons, then is the kingdom of God come upon you. [The finger of God
signifies the power of God [301] (Ex. viii.
19; xxxi. 18; Ps. viii. 3). [Jesus exercised this power in unison with
the Spirit of God. Jesus here draws a conclusion from the two arguments
presented. Since he does not cast out by Satan, he must cast out by the
power of God, and therefore his actions demonstrated the potential arrival
of the kingdom of God. The occasional accidental deliverance of exorcists
might be evidence of the flow and ebb of a spiritual battle, but the steady,
daily conquests of Christ over the powers of evil presented to the people
the triumphant progress of an invading kingdom. It is an argument against
the idea that there was a collusion between Christ and Satan. Fourth argument:]
c21 When the strong man fully armed guardeth his own
court, his goods are in peace: 22 but
when a stronger than he shall come upon him, and overcome him, he taketh
from him his whole armor wherein he trusted, and divided his spoils.
b27 But no one can {a29
Or how can one} enter into the house of the strong man, and spoil
his goods, except he first bind the strong man? and then will he
spoil his house. [Satan is the strong man, his house the body of the
demoniac, and his goods the evil spirit within the man. Jesus had entered
his house, and robbed him of his goods; and this proved that, instead of
being in league with Satan, he had overpowered Satan. Thus Jesus put to
shame the Pharisees, and caused the divinity of his miracle to stand out
in clearer light than ever. The power of Jesus to dispossess the demon
was one of his most convincing credentials, and its meaning now stood forth
in its true light.]
30 He that is not with me is against me; and he that gathereth not with
me scattereth abroad. [Jesus here addresses the bystanders. In the
spiritual conflict between Jesus and Satan, neutrality is impossible. There
are only two kingdoms, and every soul is either in one or the other, for
there is no third. Hence one who fought Satan in the name of Christ was
for Christ (Luke ix. 50). In the figure of gathering and scattering, the
people are compared to a flock of sheep which Jesus would gather into the
fold, but which Satan and all who aid him (such as the Pharisees) would
[302] scatter and destroy.]
b28 Verily a31 Therefore
I say unto you, Every sins and blasphemy {ball their sins} shall
be forgiven unto the sons of men, and their blasphemies wherewith soever
they shall blaspheme [Jesus here explains to the Pharisees the awful
meaning of their enmity. Blasphemy is any kind of injurious speech. It
is the worst form of sin, as we see by this passage. This does not declare
that every man shall be forgiven all his sins, but that all kinds of sin
committed by various men shall be forgiven. The forgiveness is universal
as to the sin, not as to the men]: abut the blasphemy
against the Spirit shall not be forgiven.
32 And whosoever shall speak a word against the Son of man, it shall be
forgiven him; but whosoever shall speak {bblaspheme} against
the Holy Spirit hath never forgiveness, but is guilty of an eternal sin:
ait shall not be forgiven him, neither in this world, nor in
that which is to come. b30
because they said, He hath an unclean spirit. [Blasphemy against the
Son may be a temporary sin, for the one who commits it may be subsequently
convinced of his error by the testimony of the Holy Spirit and become a
believer (I. Tim. i. 13). But blasphemy against the Holy Spirit is in its
nature an eternal sin, for if one rejects the evidence given by the Holy
Spirit and ascribes it to Satan, he rejects the only evidence upon which
faith can be based; and without faith there is no forgiveness. The difference
in the two sins is therefore in no way due to any difference in the Son
and Spirit as to their degrees of sanctity or holiness. The punishment
is naturally eternal because the sin is perpetual. The mention of the two
worlds is, "just an extended way of saying 'never'" (Morison). Some
assert that the Jews would not know what Jesus meant by the Holy Spirit,
but the point is not so well taken. See Ex. xxxi. 3; Num. xi. 26; I. Sam.
x. 10; xix. 20; Ps. cxxxix. 7; cxliii. 10; Isa. xlviii. 16; Ezek. xi. 24.
We see by Mark's statement that blasphemy against the Spirit consisted
in saying that Jesus had an unclean spirit, that his works were due to
Satanic influence, and hence wrought to [303] accomplish
Satanic ends. We can not call God Satan, nor the Holy Spirit a demon, until
our state of sin has passed beyond all hope of reform. One can not confound
the two kingdoms of good and evil unless he does so maliciously and willfully.]
a33 Either make the tree good, and its fruit good, or make the
tree corrupt, and its fruit corrupt: for the tree is known by its fruit.
[The meaning and connection are: "Be honest for once; represent the tree
as good, and its fruit as good, or the tree as evil, and its fruit as evil;
either say that I am evil, and that my works are evil, or, if you admit
that my works are good, admit that I am good also and not in league with
Beelzebub"--Carr.] 34 Ye offspring
of vipers, how can ye, being evil, speak good things? for out of the abundance
of the heart the mouth speaketh. [Realizing the hopelessness of this
attempt to get an honest judgment out of dishonest hearts, Jesus plainly
informs them as to the condition of their hearts. Their very souls were
full of poison like vipers. Their sin lay not in their words, but in a
condition of heart which made such words possible. The heart being as it
was, the words could not be otherwise. "What is in the well will be in
the bucket"--Trapp.] 35 The
good man out of his good treasure bringeth forth good things: and an evil
man out of the evil treasure bringeth forth evil things. [We have here
a summary of the contrast given in the two preceding verses. The good heart
of Jesus brought forth its goodness, as the evil hearts of the Pharisees
brought forth their evil.] 36 And
I say unto you, That every idle word that men shall speak, they shall give
account thereof in the day of judgment.
37 For by thy words thou shalt be justified, and by thy words thou shalt
be condemned. [It may have seemed to some that Jesus denounced too
severely a saying which the Pharisees had hastily and lightly uttered.
But it is the word inconsiderately spoken which betrays the true state
of the heart. The hypocrite can talk like an angel if he be put on notice
that his words are heard. Jesus here makes words the basis of the
judgment of God. Elsewhere [304] we find it
is works (Rom. ii. 6; II. Cor. v. 10), and again we find it is faith
(Rom. iii. 28). There is no confusion here. The judgment in its finality
must be based upon our character. Our faith forms our character,
and our words and works are indices by which we may determine what manner
of character it is.]
[FFG 298-305]
