Глава 12

1–8. Disciples plucking ears of grain on Saturday. – 9–14. Healing the withered man on Saturday and denouncing the Pharisees. – 15–21. Fulfillment of the prophecy about Christ to Isaiah. – 22–37. Denunciation of the Pharisees regarding the accusation of having relations with Beelzebub. – 38–45. Answer to a request for a sign. – 46–50. Mother and brothers of Christ. Matthew 12:1. At that time Jesus passed through the sown fields on the Sabbath; His disciples became hungry and began to pick the ears of corn and eat. Essentially the story of the three evangelists is the same, but there is a noticeable difference in expression. The expression “at that time” here should be considered as vague as other expressions of the same kind already discussed (“then”, “in those days”, etc.). Here again they serve more to connect speech than to indicate time, and there is no need to assume that Matthew 12:1-8 was just “at the time” or immediately after the speeches of Christ set forth at the end of the 11th chapter. According to many interpreters, the events that Matthew talks about here took place either shortly before the second Passover of Christ’s ministry (the 2nd year of Christ’s ministry, according to our account the 28th), or shortly after it. If there was a barley harvest, then shortly before Easter; if wheat, then soon after Easter. This means that the Savior was not in Jerusalem this Easter. There was a whole year left before the Savior’s death. Based on the testimony of Luke (ἐν σαββάτῳ δευτεροπρώτῳ), some think that this was on the first Saturday after Easter in the 28th year. Jesus Christ walked with his disciples through the sown fields on Saturday. It is unlikely that this journey through the fields was made with the intention of showing that the Savior was violating (λύων) the laws of the fathers, and that the disciples would violate the law of the Sabbath by eating (Theophylact). In the same way, there is no need to assume that with Jesus Christ, in addition to the disciples, there were also many people. The plucking of the ears of grain by the disciples took place “on the Sabbath” (τοῖς σάββασιν), – plural in Greek. But, as Tsang shows, the term “Sabbath” and “Sabbaths” was used indifferently, as can be seen from Matthew 12:1, 5, 10–12, 28:1; Mark 1:21; Luke 13:10; Acts 17:2. Matthew 12:2. When the Pharisees saw this, they said to Him, Behold, Your disciples are doing what ought not to be done on the Sabbath. Picking ears of corn was not only not prohibited by law, like theft or theft of someone else's property, but was directly permitted (Deut. 23:25). The Pharisees, therefore, accused the disciples not of plucking ears of corn and eating, but of the fact that this happened on the Sabbath. This is clearly prohibited in the Talmud. Picking and grinding ears of grain to separate the grains from the husk was equated to threshing grains, which was one of the 39 ordinary works prohibited on the Sabbath (listed in Pereferkovich. Talmud. T. II. Tractate Shabbat, VII, 2, p. 44). The Pharisees obviously watched the Savior, although from the tone of the gospel story one can judge that the actual meeting was somewhat random in nature. The assumption that the plucking of ears of corn was prohibited until the first sheaf of the harvest was presented to the church is not based on anything. The disciples of Christ, as can be seen from His further words, were hungry and therefore began to pluck ears of corn. The word "do" does not refer to "to eat" (verse 1), but to the plucking of the grain. Matthew 12:3. He said to them: Have you not read what David did when he and those with him were hungry? Matthew 12:4. how did he enter the house of God and eat the showbread, which neither he nor those who were with him were to eat, but only the priests? (Cf. Mark 2:25–26; Luke 6:3–4). Mark and Luke report this in the same way with a slight difference in expression, which does not change the meaning of the speech at all. The Savior in His answer to the Pharisees (καὶ ἀποκριθείς - Luke) refers to the well-known story set out in 1 Samuel 21:2-6 about how David, fleeing from Saul, arrived at Nob, where there was then a tabernacle (Shenkel), and asked the priest Ahimelech (as in the Hebrew text, To the seventy - Abimelech, not Abiathar, as in Mark 2:26) to give him and those with him bread, because they were all hungry. It is remarkable that the priest Ahimelech, responding to David’s request, doubts its legality, but not because it was on the Sabbath (1 Samuel 21:4). However, some think that David's meeting with Ahimelech took place on the Sabbath and that the new baked showbread had just been placed on the table in the tabernacle. As evidence they cite 1 Samuel 21:6 (cf. Lev.24:8). Be that as it may, the violation of the law was not that the loaves were given to David on the Sabbath, but that they were sacred, they were not allowed to be eaten by the laity, but only by the priests. The Savior points out the illegality of David’s act more clearly than Ahimelech, namely: David was prohibited by law from eating the showbread because only priests could eat them, to which neither David himself nor his people belonged. David's action was not a violation of the Sabbath law, but of the law of the church and the tabernacle. But the Savior resonates here from equal to equal, or according to the principle of equivalents. The Church and the Sabbath were the same or equal in holiness. Based on the generally accepted interpretation of Luke 6:1 of the expression σαββάτῳ δευτεροπρώτῳ, it is thought that on the day when the disciples passed through the sown fields, the 21st chapter of the First Book of Kings was the day's conception. But, says Alford, it cannot be proven that the Jewish calendar began to exist then in the form in which we now have it. Matthew 12:5. Or have you not read in the law that on the Sabbath the priests in the church break the Sabbath, but are innocent? This speech of Christ has no parallels in other evangelists. It is argued that the actions of the disciples were in no sense parallel to the actions of the priests in the church, and the fact that the priests, in obedience to the law, worked in the church could not justify the disciples in violating the bookish interpretations of the law prohibiting work on the Sabbath. But such reasoning is generally superficial. The expression ἢ οὐκ ἀνέγνωτε ἐν τῷ νόμῳ is significant against it. The Savior, explaining the erroneous opinion of the Pharisees, points out to them the contradiction in the law itself, which, on the one hand, prohibited work on the Sabbath; and on the other hand, he installed them. The reference here is to Numbers 28:9–10. This contradiction was not essentially such, because two types of activity - for God and for people - required a different attitude towards themselves. But the legal contradiction was incomprehensible and insoluble for the Pharisees and scribes of that time, and therefore the argumentation of Jesus Christ had full weight for them, was irrefutable, although it aroused in them a secret feeling of enmity, like all irrefutable evidence when it does not agree with someone’s interests. The contradiction is resolved by the fact that the Sabbath was dedicated to God and it required not inaction, but activity. Revealing the logical error of the Pharisees, the Savior adheres to his own Pharisaic term (Acts 24:6), using the word βεβηλοῦσιν - they defile, profane the Sabbath, slaughtering sacrificial animals, taking out the entrails, tearing off the skin, cutting them into pieces and washing them, adding firewood, lighting a fire. The Jews had a proverb: “There is no Sabbath in the church.” The Savior's answer here is detailed: He points to the place (church), the persons (priests), the time (Sabbath) and the deed itself (the desecration of the Sabbath). John Chrysostom also thinks so. The purpose of this speech was to explain that the Pharisees should be careful in their accusations of breaking and desecrating the Sabbath. To the possible objection on the part of the Pharisees that one is the priests, and the other is the disciples, the answer is the following verse. Matthew 12:6. But I tell you that here is He who is greater than the church; According to Meyer, if earlier the Savior followed in His argumentation from greater to lesser (from the act of David to the act of the hungry disciples), then from verse 5 He argues from lesser to greater - from the church, whose priestly regulations violated the Sabbath, to His own, superior to the holiness of the church, authority. But this is hardly the case; it is unlikely that the Savior has such artificial proof as the goal. The meaning of His words, apparently, is simply that service is performed in the church, and here, outside the church, there is also service to God, but much greater and higher. This greater and higher service does not consist in making sacrifices and various other ritual actions, for the sake of which the Sabbath is abolished, but in works of mercy and love, which should be (and were considered) higher than ritual actions. The apostles, together with Christ Himself, took part in this ministry of love, and therefore petty observance of the Sabbath was not necessary for them. Matthew 12:7. if you knew what it means: I want mercy, not sacrifice, you would not condemn the innocent, Further and independent proof of the correctness of Christ’s behavior, who did not forbid the disciples to pluck ears of grain, and the erroneous opinion of the Pharisees, which has a close connection with the previous speech and clarifies it by pointing to Old Testament prophecy. Even in the Old Testament law, given in accordance with the hardness of the hearts of the Jews, mercy was placed above sacrifice. Moreover, it should be placed above them now that “more” has arrived in comparison with the Old Testament law. The condemnation of the innocent by the Pharisees did not occur due to their ignorance of the Scriptures (Matthew 12:3,5 – οὐκ ἀνέγνωτε), but from a lack of heartfelt love. Matthew 12:8. for the Son of Man is Lord even of the Sabbath. This verse in Mark (Mark 2:27) is prefaced by the addition that (literally translated) the Sabbath was (occurred, established) for man, and not man for the Sabbath. The words "Son of Man" are explained above (see comments on Matthew 8:20). The Savior always called only Himself this way in the Gospels, so it is wrong to think that this verse has no connection with the previous ones - this connection is clear. If there can be a question here, it is only about why the Savior called Himself the Son of Man before His enemies, i.e. used an expression they might not understand. The answer to this can be, first of all, that He spoke this way more than once (see Matthew 26:64; Mark 14:62; Luke 22:69). This expression always had a hidden meaning for the enemies of Christ, because they did not want to understand the words of Jesus Christ as the Messiah. In fact, Christ here indicated His messianic dignity, and therefore the meaning of verse 8 is clear to us and, of course, was clear to the apostles, evangelists and the then believers in Christ. But the Pharisees, to whom Christ now spoke, could simply connect the expression “Son of Man” with τὸν ἄνθρωπον and ὁ ἄνθρωπος (Mark 2:28), as is clearly stated in Mark. However, Christ’s enemies could also deduce from His words that the authority of the Messiah is higher than the legal regulations regarding the Sabbath. An explanation and dissemination of this teaching of the Savior is found in Rom. 14:5-6, 17 and Col. 2:16-17. Thus, the meaning of the verse being analyzed is as follows. The Son of Man can dispose of the Sabbath, i.e. Sabbath activity, can command it or stop it, just as an owner allows his workers to rest or forces them to work. No matter how simple all this is, an ordinary person before Christ could not have naturally come up with the truths expressed here by Christ. Even today, these truths are not always clear and are not always applied to practice. Matthew 12:9. And He departed from there and entered their synagogue. The first impression from the story is that immediately after the conversation about the disciples plucking ears of grain on the Sabbath, the Savior left the place where he was talking and entered the Jewish synagogue. It was on the Sabbath (verse 10). From this one could conclude that the journey through the sown fields was the “Sabbath way”, and, moreover, to the synagogue. With such an assumption, only one thing would remain incomprehensible: why, as noted above, the disciples were already hungry at such an early time (the service probably took place in the morning). But, comparing this verse with the testimony of Luke 6:6, we find that the Savior entered the synagogue on another Saturday. Mark also has a hint of this circumstance in the word “again” (πάλιν), although it is not clear enough. If “again,” it means that the Savior entered the synagogue earlier, but Mark does not indicate when. This is how Augustine and other interpreters explain the matter. On this Sabbath day a new miracle was performed. If earlier the act of the disciples did not have a clear goal of causing the Jews to be tempted, here Jesus Christ, on the contrary, acts with the clear intention of refute the opinions of the Pharisees. The word “them” should refer, as in other places (Matthew 9:35, 10:17, 11:1), in general to the inhabitants of the area where Jesus Christ was (Galileans). The opinion that since what follows (verse 10) refers to the Pharisees who asked Christ, then “them” refers to the Pharisees is incorrect. The Galilean site where the healing took place is not named. On the grounds that strong accusers are speaking out against Christ here, which is especially clear from Mark 2:6; Luke 6:7–8, they think that the event took place in one of the significant cities where the party of the Pharisees and scribes existed and was powerful, and they call either Tiberias or Capernaum. But this is not clear from the words of the evangelists, and the question of the place of the event must remain unresolved. Matthew 12:10. And behold, there was a man who had a withered hand. And they asked Jesus to accuse Him: is it possible to heal on the Sabbath? (Cf. Mark 3:1–2; Luke 6:6–7). There is no need to speculate about the nature of this person’s illness. Suffice it to say that this was a man who did not control his right (Luke 6:6) hand, for whatever reason this happened - perhaps from paralysis, or so-called atrophy, or for another reason. This account is found in Mark and Luke, but only with considerable variation in detail from our text. Mark and Luke agree more with each other than with Matthew. From the stories of Matthew (verse 14) and Mark (Mark 2:6) it is clear that the Pharisees opposed Christ, who later united with the Herodians (Mark), but, according to Luke (Luke 6:7), these were Pharisees and scribes. The Pharisees asked (Matthew) Jesus Christ if it was possible to heal on the Sabbath, according to Mark and Luke - they watched Him to see if He would heal a withered hand on the Sabbath. He (knowing their thoughts - Luke 6:8) ordered the man to stand in the middle and asked them the question given in the Gospel. There is no further question about the animal in Mark, but in Luke (Luke 14:5) the same question is repeated, only in another similar case. Of course, there is no contradiction in the testimony of the evangelists, because in the crowd surrounding Christ, it was possible that both were possible, with one evangelist reporting one thing, and the others reporting another. This is often the case in the stories of eyewitnesses and other writers, which do not contradict, but complement one another. The more important question is about the legal side of the matter. The question was given by the Pharisees in order to catch Christ. If He had healed the withered man on the Sabbath, He would have been guilty of breaking the Sabbath. If he had not healed, then he would have been powerless and incapable of performing miracles, and perhaps even inhuman. The use of εἰ in a question is alien to classical Greek, but is found in the Seventy Gen. 17:17 etc.; Wed Matthew 19:3; Luke 13:23, 22:49; Acts 1:6 and often; This form of the question indicates uncertainty and hesitation, and at the same time its tempting nature. Matthew 12:11. He said to them: Which of you, having one sheep, if it falls into a pit on the Sabbath, will not take it and pull it out? Matthew 12:12. How much better is a man than a sheep! So you can do good on Saturdays. Matthew 12:13. Then he says to the man, “Stretch out your hand.” And he held out, and she became healthy, like anyone else. (Cf. verse 11 and Luke 14:5). In Luke, a similar speech of Christ is placed in the story of the healing of a man with watery sickness, but in the story of the healing of a withered arm it is omitted. In general, in Luke 6:8–9 the details of the story are completely different from those in Matthew. Luke says: “But He, knowing their thoughts, said to the man who had a withered hand: Arise, and step into the midst. And he stood up and spoke. Then Jesus said to them: I ask you: what should you do on the Sabbath? good or evil? save your soul or destroy it? They were silent." Judging by the construction of Matthew’s speech, it suggests two questions, literally: “1) Which of you is a man who will have one sheep? 2) and if she falls into a hole on Saturday, will he not take her and pull her out? But some accept that there is only one question here, and the last three sentences are made dependent on ὅς (which). Meaning: What man is there among you who will have one sheep, and who, if it falls into a pit on the Sabbath, will not take it and pull it out? The latest translation (literal) is closer to the original. The Savior resonates not on the basis of any special opinions then accepted by the Pharisees and scribes, but on the basis of universal custom. Not a single person who has a sheep will say that they need to behave differently. Matthew 12:14. The Pharisees went out and had a council against Him, how to destroy Him. But Jesus, having learned, withdrew from there. (Cf. Mark 2:6, 3:6–7; Luke 6:11, 17). In foreign editions of the New Testament text and foreign translations, the second half of the verse (but Jesus, having learned...) refers to the next 15th verse. In Slavic it is the same as in Russian. According to Mark, the Pharisees had a conference with the Herodians, and, moreover, immediately (εὐθύς) after the event, and, according to Luke, the scribes and Pharisees became furious and talked among themselves about what Christ should do. Here is the first mention of the agreement of the Pharisees with the Herodians (omitted by Matthew and Luke) - to put the Savior to death. The punishment specified in the law for violating the Sabbath (Exod. 31:14; Num. 15:32–36) is death by stoning. Matthew does not say where Jesus Christ went. But Mark says that “He withdrew to the sea,” and perhaps Luke’s testimony also applies here (Luke 6:17; cf. Matt. 4:25) that He stood out of the blue and delivered the Sermon on the Mount. Since Matthew presented the Sermon on the Mount earlier, he now skips these details. Matthew 12:15. And a great crowd followed Him, and He healed them all (Cf. Mark 3:7–8; Luke 6:17). Christ was now looked upon as the Great Teacher, and it was natural that large crowds of people followed Him everywhere. Matthew 12:16. and forbade them to announce Him, (Cf. Mark 3:12; Luke 4:41). Here the difference is in the reading. According to some codes - as in Russian; according to others - “and all whom he healed, he rebuked them...”. In the last reading, there is an incorrectness of grammatical construction (πάντας δὲ, οὓς ἐθεράπευσεν ἐπιτίμησεν αὐτοῖς), the reading is less confirmed and is therefore considered “less probable”. According to Mark (Mark 3:11-12) and Luke (Luke 4:41), unless this latter passage is indeed parallel to those in Matthew and Mark (some consider it parallel to Matthew 8:16-17 and Mark 1:34), the matter seems clearer. Christ forbade making Him known and saying that He is the Christ, not to all the people, but only to the unclean spirits, which He cast out from people. If so, then the reasons for the ban are clearer. Christ did not want to be declared the Son of God by demons; in other words, He did not want confirmation of His sonship in relation to God from such a source. Matthew 12:17. that what was spoken through the prophet Isaiah might be fulfilled, saying: A definite indication of who the messianic prophecy stated below belongs to. Matthew 12:18. Behold, My Servant, whom I have chosen, My Beloved, in whom My soul delights. I will put My spirit on Him, and He will proclaim judgment to the nations; This passage is taken from Isaiah 42:1–4. From the Hebrew literally: “Behold, My Servant, whom I hold upright, My chosen one, in whom My soul delights. I will put My Spirit on Him; He will spread righteousness among the nations; He will not cry out, nor lift up His voice, nor let it be heard in the streets; He will not break a bruised reed, and he will not quench smoking flax; in truth He will spread judgment; He will not weaken or faint until he establishes righteousness on earth, and the islands will trust in His law.” Without going into a detailed analysis of the Hebrew text, we will say that the Russian translation is approximately similar to it. As for the translation of the Seventy, there are some deviations from the Hebrew text. According to the literal translation: “Jacob my servant, I will help him; Israel, My chosen one, My soul has accepted him. I have given My Spirit upon him; he will bring judgment upon the nations. He will not cry out and will not forsake (ἀνήσει), and His voice will not be heard outside. He will not break a bruised reed, and he will not quench the smoking flax, but he will bring out judgment in truth. He will shine and will not be crushed until He establishes judgment on the earth, and the nations will trust in His name.” The expression “will not leave” is translated by some as “will not raise” (voices). Such a translation would correspond to the Hebrew original, but is hardly possible, because ἀνίημι never has such a meaning. If we now compare the translation of the Seventy and the Hebrew text with the Greek of Matthew, it turns out that Matthew deviates greatly from both the Hebrew text and the translation of the Seventy. They think, however, that Matthew had a translation of the Seventy, and this is indicated by the expression: “and in His name the nations will trust” (verse 21; in the Seventy: καὶ ἐπὶ τῷ ὀνόματι αὐτοῦ ἔθνη ἐλπιοῦσιν, in the Hebrew text - “islands”). The use of the translation of the Seventy is also indicated by Matthew’s change from the Hebrew “vetorato” (and on the law) to the Greek τῷ ὀνόματι (in the Seventy: ἐπὶ τῷ ὀνόματι), a change for which there was no need, and it had no basis. In the Seventy the words of the prophet obviously refer to Israel. But the fact that Matthew refers them to the Messiah serves as a corrective here, as do the actual words of Isaiah. Isaiah depicts the future Messiah, although not according to His deity, but according to His humanity. From what has been said, we can conclude that this passage is given by the evangelist partly from his own translation, and partly from the translation of the Seventy. The evangelist's application of prophecy to Christ does not present any particular difficulties. But there is no doubt that with the help of prophecy, a new feature has been added here to the characterization of Christ who appeared on earth as a historical figure - a feature that we would only have to guess about if the evangelist had not given this quote, which is completely consistent with what we know about Christ from the Gospels. He was meek and lowly in heart and did many things in such a way that the Old Testament prophecy would be fully fulfilled in Him. It was difficult, but He fulfilled the prophecy. This is the view of the evangelist. The words: “he will proclaim judgment to the nations” (κρίσιν) are difficult. Many have interpreted the word "judgment" to mean the gospel, the law, the laws, what is right, right doctrine, right worship, right behavior. But all these interpretations are incorrect, because the word κρίσις does not express all these concepts, just like the Hebrew “mishpat” in Isaiah. The proper meaning of κρίσις is, of course, “judgment.” But in some places of the New Testament it has a different meaning, as in Matthew 23:23; Luke 11:42; Acts 8:33 (from Is.53:8), - here κρίσις is put in connection with ἔλεος (mercy), πίστις (faith) and ἀγάπη (love). Therefore, to understand the word, one must keep in mind that the main goal of the court is to give the oppressed the right, which is why κρίνειν in some cases is synonymous with δικαιοῦν (to justify) and in parallel with σώζειν (to save), λυτροῦν (to cleanse, whitewash), etc. ( Ps.139:13 ; Isa.1:17, 28:17, 33:5 ; Jer.5:28, 22:16 ). Taking all this into consideration, we can interpret the prophecy in question as follows: “he will proclaim truth to the peoples” or “justice.” Matthew 12:19. He will not contradict, He will not cry, and no one will hear His voice in the streets; Neither the Hebrew nor the Seventy have the expression “will not contradict.” This verse is again interpreted in many ways. One interpretation, due to Jerome, is purely external, mechanical. Christ spoke about the narrow gates and the narrow path (Matthew 7:14) leading to the Kingdom of Heaven, He Himself walked along this path, and therefore it is natural if His voice was not heard on the big streets. Since “wide is the gate and broad is the way that leads to destruction, and many go therein” (Matthew 7:13), it is natural if these many do not hear the voice of the Savior, because they are not on the narrow path, but on the wide one. According to another interpretation, the words of the prophet applied to the Messiah simply depict the meekness of the Savior, who, walking along the wide streets, does not shout or make noise. All these expressions in the mouth of the evangelist are obviously figurative. Matthew 12:20. he will not break a bruised reed, nor quench the smoking flax, until he brings victory to the court; This verse contains an indication of the Savior's ideal meekness and love towards all people, and not just towards the Jews. This is exactly how the prophet portrays the future Deliverer. A broken reed is every contrite, torn heart, smoking flax - traces in it of the desire for good, God, the repentant feeling of a sinner, which is accepted, no matter how small it is. It is quite clear that by bruised reeds and smoking flax we mean people. No one can say that this does not depict, so to speak, the highest relations towards them on the part of the Savior, which are not similar to ordinary human relations in the field of “hardness of heart.” Matthew 12:21. and in His name the nations will trust. Instead of “nations” in the Hebrew text, “islands”, i.e. the most distant peoples living on the islands - they will place all their hopes on Christ the Savior. Matthew 12:22. Then they brought to Him a man possessed by a demon, blind and dumb; and he healed him, so that the blind and dumb man began to speak and see. Luke 11:14 literally translated: “And he cast out a demon, and he was dumb. And it came to pass, when the demon came out, that the dumb man spoke.” Thus, there is a difference in the testimony: according to Matthew, the demoniac was blind and dumb, but according to Luke, he was only dumb. This has led some commentators to think that Matthew and Luke are talking about two different healings. But this opinion is refuted by Augustine, who says that if Luke is silent about something, then one cannot think that he is talking about something else, and his order of events is the same as in Matthew. The fact that the sick man was dumb and blind is also evident from Matthew’s further words, that after the healing he began to speak and see. To show that the healed person was deaf and dumb, some codes added “to hear” (ἀκούειν). The opinion that this event is identical with that told in Matthew 9:32 and that Matthew, wanting to talk more about it, adds blindness here, is untenable. Mark (Mark 3:20–22) does not speak about the healing of a demoniac, but adds further speech here in a special way. According to Theophylact, the demon imprisoned the demoniac on the path to faith - eyes, hearing and tongue. Matthew 12:23. And all the people marveled and said, Is this not the Christ, the son of David? The form of the question proposed by the people indicates their savagery and slowness to recognize the great Wonderworker in Jesus Christ; this slowness tended towards a negative answer to the question. The idea that the Wonderworker was the Messiah, the Son of David, was imposed on the people's mind, but the people were not yet able to fully assimilate it. No matter how amazing the Wonderworker was, He was not a king. He was not born in royal palaces. All this is expressed through the negative particle μήτι, placed at the beginning of the question, which presupposes a negative answer: “Isn’t this Christ the son of David?” Suggested answer: no, not that. It is quite curious that the old translators tried to smooth out this negative answer and presented the question in such a way that the answer should have been affirmative. So in our Russian. Closer to the original it would be possible to translate: “is this really Christ, the Son of David?” In the Slavic translation the meaning of the question is expressed somewhat better. But in general it is difficult to express Greek properly in other languages. When an affirmative answer is expected, μή is not used (cf. Matthew 7:16, 26:22, 25; Mark 4:21; Luke 6:39, etc.). On the foregoing grounds, it can be assumed that both the event itself and the question among the people were introduced here in order to more strongly express the contrast with the previous expressions of the evangelist. He wants to say the following. All the activity of Christ, His teaching and miracles tended to ensure that everyone would recognize in Him the chosen and beloved Child (Servant), about whom Isaiah prophesied. But, despite such obvious evidence of the Savior’s supreme dignity, even the most fanatical ὄχλοι (people) who followed Him hesitated. And the Pharisees went even further and began to attribute the miracles of Jesus Christ to demonic power. This is the evangelist’s transition to further speech. Seeing the miracles of Christ, the people were only inclined to think that Christ was the Son of David, but they hesitated to accept it completely. But the Pharisees were alien to even such hesitations. Matthew 12:24. The Pharisees, having heard this, said: He does not cast out demons except by the power of Beelzebub, the prince of demons. (Cf. Mark 3:22; Luke 11:15–16). According to Mark, this was not said by the Pharisees, but by scribes who came from Jerusalem. Since many scribes belonged to the society of the Pharisees, there is no disagreement between the evangelists here. According to Luke, not all the Pharisees accused Christ, but only “some of them.” Further speech according to the translation: He does not cast out demons, except in Beelzebub, the prince of demons (cf. Matt. 9:34). Thus, the expression “not through” and “not by force” (as underlined in the Russian translation) of Beelzebub, but “in Beelzebub”, i.e. together with Beelzebub. The circumstance that it is mentioned not just Beelzebub, but with the addition “prince of demons”, shows quite clearly that what is meant here is, if perhaps not the most important, then at least one of the main demons, who, according to the concepts of the Pharisees, had other demons subordinate to him. Beelzebub, in any case, was considered the most evil and at the same time the dirtiest of the demonic leaders. Therefore, the accusation of Christ in connection with him was dirty and, as it seems, in the eyes of the Pharisees and scribes, especially caustic. It was intended to distract the people from Christ and arouse in them hostility towards His activities, teachings and miracles. Matthew 12:25. But Jesus, knowing their thoughts, said to them: Every kingdom divided against itself will be desolate; and every city or house divided against itself cannot stand. (Cf. Mark 3:23–25; Luke 11:17). Mark has a detailed speech about the same thing, but Luke is even shorter than Matthew, with a slight difference in expression. John Chrysostom explains this speech of Christ as follows: “If I, having a demon in Me, through him cast out other demons, then it means that there is disagreement and strife between the demons and they rebel against one another; if they rebel against each other, then their strength is lost and destroyed.” Matthew 12:26. And if Satan casts out Satan, then he is divided with himself: how can his kingdom stand? (Cf. Mark 3:26; Luke 11:18). Luke omitted: “Satan casts out Satan”, and replaced: “if Satan is divided (divided?) in himself.” Mark's expressions are completely different from those of the other evangelists. In the second case, the name of Satan is used either instead of a reflexive pronoun, i.e. instead of the words “Satan casts out himself,” it is said: “Satan Satan”; or this expression should be understood as follows: one Satan drives out another Satan. They claim that according to Jewish concepts, Satan was one and was considered the main leader of demons. If so, then it would be necessary to understand the expression in the first sense. It is objected to that in general Jewish demonology was not an “ordered system.” On the other hand, Christ Himself does not call only an individual person Satan (cf. Matt. 4:10, 16:23), but from the nature of the accusation and defense of Christ it can be concluded that He Himself was called Satan, and precisely because He cast out another Satan. But the word “Satan” in the Holy Scriptures is always used only in the singular. Thus, if we accept the first interpretation, that Satan casts out himself, then there will not be much difference in meaning, and the argumentation is equally strong in both cases. The first interpretation, however, is more consistent with the testimony of Mark and Luke, where “Satan” (in the second case in Matthew) is replaced by the expressions ἑφ´ ἑαυτόν, i.e. “Satan rose up against himself” (Mark 3:26) and “divided against himself” (Luke 11:18). In this sense, we must interpret the expressions of Matthew (cf. (Ex. 16:8; Lev. 14:15, 26) - Seventy and Heb., where in the first case the personal pronoun is repeated in a similar way, and in the last two ἱερεύς or “kohen”). Matthew 12:27. And if I cast out demons by the power of Beelzebub, by whose power do your sons cast them out? Therefore they will be your judges. (Compare Luke 11:19 – almost literally). The meaning of this verse has long been the subject of great debate. Hilary, Chrysostom, Theophylact and Euthymius Zigavinus accepted that “your sons” meant the apostles, who, of course, were the sons of the Jews. Chrysostom discusses this in detail. “Look with what meekness He speaks to them here too. He did not say: My disciples, or apostles; but: your sons, so that if the Pharisees want to think as nobly as His disciples, give them an opportunity, and if they continue in their former ingratitude and do not abandon their shamelessness, deprive them of all justification. The meaning of His words is as follows: by whose power do the apostles cast out demons? The apostles had already cast out demons, having received authority to do so from the Savior, but the Pharisees did not accuse them. They armed themselves not against deeds, but against persons. Therefore, Christ, wanting to show that envy alone is the reason for their accusation, points to the apostles.” But Jerome hesitates in his interpretation of the passage in question. According to him, the expression “sons of the Jews” means either exorcists or apostles who were Jews. If the Savior speaks of exorcists who, calling on the name of the Lord, cast out demons, then he denounces the Pharisees with prudent questions, seeking recognition on their part that this is the work of the Holy Spirit. If he speaks about the apostles, which is more likely, then they will be judges of the Pharisees, because they will sit on twelve thrones to judge the twelve tribes of Israel. In the interpretations of later exegetes, the idea expressed by Chrysostom and others is completely abandoned. This is because the Gospels, firstly, say nothing about the apostles, and secondly, because the Pharisees would not have found it at all difficult to attribute the miracles of the apostles casting out demons to the devil, just as they attributed the miracles of Christ to him. Thus, there is only one thing left to do - admit that we are talking about spellcasters here. There is no doubt that there were a lot of them at that time. Here is what Schürer says about this (III, 408 et seq.): “Magic was of great importance among the Jews in the age of Christ and later. The expulsion of demons by the sons of the Pharisees, as discussed in Matthew 12:27, judging by everything that we know from other sources, was not accomplished without magical formulas. Simon the Magus (Acts 8:9) and Barijesus (Acts 13:6) are well known. In Ephesus, Paul dealt with Jewish exorcists who used the name of Jesus for their own purposes (Acts 19:13 ff.)... Justin suggests spells as something common among the Jews (Dialogus cum Tryphone, 85). Among the various remedies used against gout, Lucian mentions a spell by one Jew, and in another case speaks of the famous “Syrian from Palestine” who cast out demons with spells. Irenaeus also speaks of the expulsion of demons through the invocation of the divine name, as a matter common among the Jews (Adversus haereses, II, 6, 2).” We cannot here enter into a detailed exposition of this subject, which is very extensive, and we believe that the above excerpt from Schürer is sufficient. Thus, by “your sons” we can understand the Jewish exorcists, who are called the sons of the Pharisees (according to the context) not because they descended from them by carnal birth, but in the same sense as “the sons of the prophets” (1 Kings 20:35). The meaning of the Savior’s words, therefore, is this: if your disciples cast out demons, then you do not attribute this to Beelzebub, therefore they can be your judges and judge you for the fact that you, out of enmity, say this about Me. It remains for us to say a few words on the question of whether these spellcasters, to whom Christ points, were real or imaginary. His argument, of course, did not lose its force in either case, because in neither case did the Pharisees, of course, attribute the activities of their exorcists to the power of the devil. But the question of the validity of spells is interesting in itself. Alford believes that it is of the highest importance to examine the reality of these spells, because otherwise an unfavorable impression will be left on the soul of the reader of the Gospels if we allow that the Lord, in solemnly comparing the Jewish spells with his own miracles, argued on the basis of Jewish deceptions, which the Pharisees knew were deceptions. Alford thinks that the sons of the Pharisees actually cast out demons. This view is supported by the words of the crowd in Matthew 9:33. When the mute from whom the demon had been expelled spoke, the crowd exclaimed: “Never has such a phenomenon happened in Israel,” making it clear that a more complete healing had taken place here than had been seen before. The difficulty, says Alford, arose only from forgetting the fact that miracles as such do not serve in themselves as confirmation of the truth, but were performed in false religions and by false teachers, and they prophesied about them (see Ex. 7:22, 8:7; Matt. 24:24; Deut. 13: 1-5). Matthew 12:28. If I cast out demons by the Spirit of God, then of course the Kingdom of God has come to you. The meaning of the verse is this: if you are obliged to admit that I cast out demons by the power not of Beelzebub, but of God, then you must make the further conclusion that an extraordinary Person has appeared among you, Who acts by the power of God, and that, therefore, My deeds serve as a sign of God’s visit to you and the advent of the Kingdom of God among you. In Luke: “if I cast out demons with the finger of God,” etc. By “Kingdom of God” John Chrysostom here understands “My (Christ’s) presence” (ἡ παρουσία ἡ ἐμή). Matthew 12:29. Or how can anyone enter the house of a strong man and plunder his things, unless he first binds the strong man? and then he will plunder his house. (Cf. Mark 3:27; Luke 11:21–22). In verse 28 the first conclusion was drawn from the evidence presented by Christ. Both the evidence and the conclusion were sufficient in themselves. But considering the subject from the other side, the Savior presents further evidence. In Luke 11:21–22 the speech, while almost identical in meaning, differs in expression. Matthew is closer to Mark here than to Luke. The word “or” is translated differently: “otherwise”, “and”, “for”, “whether”; in Arabic translation - “and”. We cannot agree with the opinion that the article before ἰσχυροῦ here denotes a special force. He simply refers to the previous one, to Satan or Beelzebub, because it is clear that it is he who is to be understood by “the strong,” although the speech has a somewhat more general meaning. This figurative speech is reminiscent of Is.49:24 ff. The images are taken from real life. The meaning of the speech is clear. When applied to the activity of Christ, it is distinguished by great persuasiveness. If someone is strong, it is not easy to attack him and plunder his property. Likewise, Christ could not have resisted the devil if he had been strong enough to prevent the expulsion of the demons subordinate to him. Matthew 12:30. He who is not with Me is against Me; and whoever does not gather with Me scatters. (Compare Luke 11:23 – literally). This verse has also been the subject of much debate. John Chrysostom, Theophylact, Euthymius Zigavin, Jerome and others attributed him to the devil; others to the Jewish exorcists mentioned above. Still others understood the words of Christ in the sense of a general proverb and meant “whoever it may be.” Finally, some thought that this depicts a complete and complete separation of the two kingdoms - the kingdom of Satan and God. This last opinion is better than the others. There can be no middle ground between the two kingdoms (cf. Rom. 8:7). There are no exceptions to the application of the principle given by Christ. A neutral attitude towards Him is impossible. He who is not with Him is against Him... The reason is this: in the moral field, a person must be either right or wrong. There is no middle position... Christ is always absolutely right... This speech of the Savior is expressed negatively in Mark 9:40: “for whoever is not against you is for you.” In συνάγων there is a hint of the idea of ​​​​gathering the harvest (see Matt. 3:12, 6:26, 13:30; John 4:36, etc.). Σκορπίζει scatters, scatters (cf. John 10:12, 16:32; 2 Cor.9:9). Thus, gathering without Christ does not bring any benefit to the gatherer; it even amounts to waste, scattering, and can only bring loss and anxiety to the gatherer. Matthew 12:31. Therefore I say to you: every sin and blasphemy will be forgiven to men, but blasphemy against the Spirit will not be forgiven to men; The last word “to people” is not found in the best codes; in some, instead of “to people,” “to them” is added. Already in ancient times, it was believed that the meaning of the expression is as follows: “if other deeds and actions are mercifully forgiven (liberali venia), then mercy does not exist when God is denied in Christ” (Hilary). John Chrysostom considered this verse very unclear, “but if,” he said, “we delve into it, we will easily understand it. What do these words mean? That sin against the Holy Spirit is predominantly unforgivable. Why? Because they did not know Christ, who He was, but they had already received sufficient knowledge about the Spirit... So, I forgive you that with which you slandered Me before the cross, even the fact that you want to crucify Me on the cross, and your very unbelief will not be held against you... But what you said about the Spirit will not be forgiven you... Why? Because the Holy Spirit is known to you, and you are not ashamed to reject the obvious truth.” The Holy Spirit is God and God is Spirit. The Pharisees who listened to Christ’s speech hardly imagined the Holy Spirit as the third Person of the Holy Trinity, and for them the expression “Holy Spirit” was equivalent to the word “God” or at least “Spirit of God”. Thus, the expression “blasphemy against the Holy Spirit” was equivalent to the words “blasphemy against God” in the ears of the Pharisees. If so, then it becomes clear why every other sin and blasphemy will be forgiven to people, but blasphemy against the Holy Spirit will not be forgiven. Because the latter is an act against God Himself and at the same time the approach of the human spirit to πνεμα ἀκάθαρτον - to an evil spirit, the guilt of which, according to the concepts of the Jews of that time and according to ours, will never be forgiven. This, so to speak, is fundamental blasphemy, the greatest slander, characteristic only of rejected spirits of evil, who have never been invited to repentance and can never repent. In this greatest blasphemy, God Himself is denied as an All-Good, All-righteous, Almighty Being, with all His properties, and at the same time, all religion, all morality is denied at the very root. Here the deepest fall of man is assumed, from which the grace of God itself cannot lead him out, because it is denied in such blasphemy. The human spirit that utters such blasphemy becomes on the same level as an unclean spirit. “Your father is the devil; and you want to do the lusts of your father” (John 8:44). You tell lies, just like him, because “he is a liar, and the father of lies.” The rapprochement of the Pharisees with the unclean spirits of malice, apparently, gives the Savior a reason to speak not about God, but about the Holy Spirit. Matthew 12:32. if anyone speaks a word against the Son of Man, it will be forgiven him; if anyone speaks against the Holy Spirit, it will not be forgiven him either in this age or in the future. (Cf. Mark 3:29–30; Luke 12:10). If the interpretation of the previous verse can be accepted, then it is clear why a “word” spoken “against the Son of Man” can be forgiven, but a word “against the Holy Spirit will not be forgiven” either in this age or in the next. In the eyes of the Pharisees, the Son of Man was neither God (cf. Mark 2:7; Luke 5:21) nor the Son of God. And not only the Pharisees, but even the disciples of Christ were able to grasp this idea with difficulty and only gradually. This came from ignorance, and therefore could be forgiven. But the “word” against the Holy Spirit or God is not only a mistake arising from ignorance, and therefore is not forgiven. Some of the arguments of various exegetes regarding this saying are quite interesting, although sometimes they have little to do with the very essence of the matter. So Augustine thinks, on the basis of this verse, that the forgiveness of sins is possible not only in this age, but also in the future, because it would be impossible to say about some people that their sins will not be forgiven, either in this age or in the future, if there were no forgiveness at all in the future. Origen speaks of universal forgiveness that will come at the end of the “great age” that Plato spoke about, and even claims that Judas and Lucifer himself with the demons condemned along with him will one day be saved. Catholic theologians derive their teachings about purgatory from the verse in question. According to some of them, it would be vain and idle to say: “it will not be forgiven him either in this age or in the future,” if no sin were forgiven in the future. “This is as if someone were to say in vain and irrelevantly: I will not marry either in this age or in the future, when in the future it is absolutely impossible to marry.” Leaving aside all these interpretations, we will only say that the expression “neither in this age nor in the next” is the most difficult to explain in this entire speech of Christ. Morison considers this expression simply an extension of the word "never". We can agree with this last interpretation. The Savior, obviously, does not speak here about whether there will or will not be forgiveness of sins in the afterlife. He points only to the sin of blasphemy against the Holy Spirit and argues that this sin will never be forgiven. The expression αἰὼν μέλλων occurs here in Matthew only once (cf. Eph. 1:21; 1 Tim. 4:8; Heb. 2:5, 6:5, etc.). Matthew 12:33. Or recognize the tree as good and its fruit as good; or recognize the tree as bad and its fruit as bad, for a tree is known by its fruit. According to Jerome, in Christ’s speech there is a syllogism here, called by the Greeks ἄφυκτον (inevitable, cunning, from which one cannot get out). If, says the Savior, the devil is evil, then he cannot do good. If you consider what I did to be good, then it follows that the devil does not do this. And it cannot be that good comes from evil or evil from good. Just as a good person cannot do evil and a bad person cannot do good, so Christ cannot do evil, and the devil cannot do good deeds. A similar thought is expressed by Augustine, according to which a person must first change in order for his deeds to change, because if a person remains evil, he cannot have good deeds, and if he is good, then he cannot have bad deeds. It can be noted that the thoughts expressed by the Savior here and in subsequent verses are very similar to what He said in the Sermon on the Mount (Matthew 7:16-20). Matthew 12:34. Spawn of vipers! how can you say good things when you are evil? For out of the abundance of the heart the mouth speaks. The connection of speech in this verse in the Russian translation is not clearly expressed. This can be easily seen if you expand the speech a little. “How can you say good things when you are evil?” You cannot speak anything good, because “out of the abundance of the heart the mouth speaks.” But if you insert a sentence here: you cannot say anything good, because your heart is filled with malice, and “from the abundance of the heart,” i.e. from the fact that it overflows, “the mouth speaks,” then the Savior’s speech will become clearer. However, the Russian translation is accurate; in Greek there is the same omission of intermediate thoughts and sentences as in Russian. In a few manuscripts, however, the desire is expressed, with the help of corrections, to express this idea somewhat differently, namely through the addition after “the mouth speaks” of the words either “good” (ἀγαθά) or “bad” (mala). Thus: “For out of the abundance of the heart the mouth speaks good” (evil). The Savior calls the Pharisees “a generation of vipers,” like John the Baptist (Matthew 3:7) and “for the reasons indicated there.” Evfimy Zigavin rephrases this speech as follows: it is not surprising if you blaspheme this (My actions), because you, being evil, cannot speak good. Christ then shows “physiologically” why they cannot do this. Matthew 12:35. A good man brings good things out of a good treasure, and an evil man brings evil things out of an evil treasure. Those. when there is a lot of good in the heart, then good is brought out, and when there is a lot of evil, then evil. Matthew 12:36. I tell you that for every idle word that people speak, they will give an answer on the day of judgment: The connection of speech is clear. The Pharisees spoke idle words, blaspheming the Holy Spirit. Not only for such idle words, but for any idle word in general, people will have to give an account on the day of judgment. Sublime and highly moral teaching. Literally, the verse should be translated as follows: “I tell you that every idle word that people speak will give account for it on the day of judgment.” Matthew 12:37. For by your words you will be justified, and by your words you will be condemned. The immediate meaning of this expression is that a person is justified or condemned by his own words in an ordinary human court. But this idea is elevated to a principle, and it is generally said that a person’s words justify or accuse him. Judgment and acquittal here mean accusation or acquittal primarily at the Last Judgment. Matthew 12:38. Then some of the scribes and Pharisees said: Teacher! We would like to see a sign from You. The word “then” cannot be taken here as an exact indication of time. It is very possible that what was said in this and the following verses was at another time and for another, albeit unknown, reason. In any case, we must admit that now other people spoke to Christ, and not those who accused Him of having a relationship with the devil (verse 24). This is also evident from Luke 11:16, which speaks of “other” people who “tempted” Him and asked for a sign. Regarding this request of the scribes and Pharisees, Chrysostom notes: “When they rudely (τραχέως) asked Him questions and reviled Him, He answered them meekly, and when they began to flatter Him, He addresses them with all severity and utters defamatory words against them, showing that He is above both passions and that just as then they could not anger Him, so now they cannot soften Him with their flattery. Him." Matthew 12:39. But He answered and said to them, “An evil and adulterous generation seeks a sign; and no sign will be given to him except the sign of the prophet Jonah; “Evil generation” would be better translated “evil, full of evil.” This race is called adulterous by the Savior because in general in the Old Testament, deviation from true religion and true worship of God was considered adultery (Jer. 3:8–9, 5:7, 13:27; Ezek.16). But, on the other hand, this expression can, it seems, be connected with other expressions of the Savior about Sodom and Gomorrah (Matthew 11:22–24) and understand what was said in such a way that the generation contemporary with Christ was depraved. Both phenomena, idolatry and sexual debauchery, are often put in connection with one another and are understandable from our information about pagan life. No sign will be given to this generation now. Morison thinks that this is an extremely condensed expression, in which an element of uncertainty and mystery is deliberately introduced. The full content of this speech of the Savior can be stated as follows: “No sign, for the sake of satisfying curiosity, will be given to this generation. The sign will not bring him or anyone else any benefit. The hatred of the evil generation towards Me will not cease. It will reject Me. However, it will not make My mission in vain. When it puts Me to death, I will give it a sign much more amazing than the curious things it expects from Me. I will give him the sign of the prophet Jonah." The Savior wants to give the Jews a sign not from heaven, but from earth, and, moreover, a sign in the heart of the earth. This, however, did not mean that Christ would not perform any miracles or signs before performing this sign. They did not seem like signs to the Jews who did not believe in Him. The indicated sign will be given specifically to them and in general to all unbelievers. Matthew 12:40. for as Jonah was in the belly of the whale three days and three nights, so the Son of Man will be in the heart of the earth three days and three nights. The speech here is obviously figurative. The only question that can arise is why the Savior here spoke in images and did not simply express it: The Son of Man will be buried and will remain in the earth for three days and three nights. But similar images are used in other places (see John 2:19, 3:14, etc.). Matthew 12:41. The Ninevites will rise up in judgment with this generation and condemn it, for they repented from the preaching of Jonah; and behold, there is more Jonah here. In Luke (Luke 11:31–32), the verses are presented in the reverse order compared to Matthew, i.e. first it speaks of the queen of the south, and then of the Ninevites. The latter are described in the same book of the prophet Jonah. Christ's speech can be called a very brief and condensed summary of this entire book. The meaning is clear. The Ninevites repented after Jonah's preaching, but the scribes and Pharisees did not, although Christ Himself and His preaching were higher than Jonah and his preaching. This last, it seems, is expressed somewhat covertly in the words: “and behold, here is more than Jonah.” Πλεῖον fully corresponds to the Latin plus quam, and, like the latter, is used in the neuter gender. The repentant Ninevites will “rise” (here we can translate “resurrect”, although in the New Testament ἀνιστάναι does not always indicate resurrection), all the same physically or spiritually, and, as if as a reward for their repentance, they will become judges of the contemporary generation of Christ, who did not bring repentance. Matthew 12:42. The queen of the south will rise up in judgment with this generation and condemn it, for she came from the ends of the earth to listen to the wisdom of Solomon; and behold, there is more Solomon here. Instead of “to judgment with this generation” - in Luke “with the men of this generation” (in the Russian Bible - with people); and then instead of “his” the corresponding “their”. Otherwise, Matthew's speech is literally similar to Luke's. In the Savior's words there is an obvious reference to the story told in 1 Kings 10:1-13; 2 Chronicles 9:1–12. Solomon's "wisdom" is mentioned in both stories. The brevity of the evangelists’ story does not allow us to judge whether the Savior is referring here to the book of Kings or Chronicles, or to both of these books. Talking about the same thing reported in the books of Kings and Chronicles, Josephus ("Antiquities of the Jews", VIII, 6, 5), calls this southern queen queen τότε βασιλεύουσαν γυναῖκα, i.e. Meroe (whose queens were usually called Candace (Plinius, Historia naturalis, VI, 29). The Abyssinian tradition, according to this story, calls her Makeda and suggests that she accepted the Jewish faith in Jerusalem. The Arabs, for their part, also make claims on her, calling her Valkis (Koran, sura 27 [this sura, among other things, talks about Solomon and the Queen of Sheba, but the latter is not called by name. - Ed. ]). This latter view is probably closer to the truth. Saba was a highway in happy Arabia, not far from the Red Sea and from the present Aden (see Plinius, Historia naturalis, VI, 23), abounding in aromas, gold and precious stones. Wellhausen notes that this is the first time the name Yemen (= south = νότος) has been applied to southwestern Arabia. Matthew 12:43. When the unclean spirit leaves a person, it walks through dry places, looking for rest, and does not find it; Matthew 12:44. Then he says: I will return to my house from where I came. And, having arrived, he finds it unoccupied, swept and put away; Matthew 12:45. then he goes and takes with him seven other spirits more evil than himself, and entering they live there; and for that person the last thing is worse than the first. So it will be with this evil generation. In Luke, this section is almost literally similar to Matthew's speech, with the exception of a few words. One must think that Christ, by saying this, figuratively adapts to the concepts of time, according to which unclean spirits were the personification of various evils, spiritual and material. Matthew 12:46. While He was still speaking to the people, His Mother and brothers stood outside the house, wanting to speak with Him. (Cf. Mark 3:31; Luke 8:19). Since Christ’s relatives according to the flesh did not have the opportunity to personally approach Him, they announced this to Him through a messenger (whom is unknown) to call Him. So according to Mark and Luke. In Matthew and Mark, the story follows a diatribe against the blasphemy of the Holy Spirit. The connection of this verse is different among different evangelists, but Matthew’s note ἔτι αὐτοῦ λαλοῦντος can be considered here as an exact indication of the time, corresponding to the testimony of Mark. Matthew 12:47. And someone said to Him: Behold, Your Mother and Your brothers are standing outside, wanting to speak with You. Matthew 12:48. He answered and said to the one who spoke: Who is My Mother? and who are my brothers? The Savior here expressed the idea that spiritual kinship with people listening and perceiving His teaching was higher in His eyes than carnal kinship (cf. Luke 2:49). Matthew 12:49. And pointing His hand at His disciples, He said: Here are My mother and My brothers; (Cf. Mark 3:34; Luke 8:21). Mark says that Jesus Christ looked around at those sitting around and at that time said, etc. The Savior’s words here serve as some clarification and confirmation of the words of the previous verse, and their meaning is the same. Matthew 12:50. for whoever does the will of My Father in Heaven is My brother, and sister, and mother. (Compare Mark 3:35 – almost the same). Although the Savior here introduces the additional term ἀδελφ into His answer, he does not mention the (earthly) father, about whom He does not speak anywhere in His speeches. This is in accordance with the testimony of the evangelists Matthew and Luke about His unmarried birth. It can hardly be concluded from this that the mention of a mother and next to her a brother and sister confirms the opinion that the Savior’s brothers were His own brothers. All three terms - "brother", "sister" and "mother" - are used here, obviously, in a spiritual sense. You might be interested in: