Then was brought to him one possessed by a demon, blind and dumb, and he healed him, so that the dumb [man] spake and saw.
A man is brought to Jesus who cannot see and cannot speak, and a demon is the cause of both. What happens next splits the crowd from its leaders, and raises the question the rest of the chapter answers: who is this man doing the healing?
The man does not find Jesus. Others carry him there — and one writer notes that this varies from case to case without changing anything about the outcome.
Sometimes demon-oppressed men met the Lord, as in Matthew 8:28. Sometimes, as here and in Matthew 9:32, someone brought one to Him. This made no difference to the Saviour's gracious power: He cast the demons out. In the earlier case the man was mute; now it is one blind and mute, who was healed all the same.
The timing matters. This healing comes as the leaders turn against Jesus, and the man's two disabilities mirror the nation's own state.
This was the condition Israel was about to be in — without an eye or a voice for Jesus. It is a fitting picture of the nation's condition: the Messiah unseen among them, and His praise unspoken… The man who submitted to Jesus was healed. But the Pharisees were plotting to kill the Son of David.
Another writer names what each symptom stood for.
Israel's moral condition was illustrated in the condition of the demon-oppressed man. Satan's power had produced blindness, so they could not perceive their Messiah, and muteness, so they could not respond to God in praise and thanksgiving.
The people's reaction was not a guess. The prophets had tied opened eyes to the coming King.
From the Old Testament Scriptures the godly Israelite had his hope centred on the coming of the Son of David… Isaiah 35:5 said that the eyes of the blind would be opened and the ears of the deaf unstopped. A crowd watched in great amazement as the Lord Jesus healed a blind and mute man who had a demon. They exclaimed, "Is this man the Son of David?" The evidence before their eyes answered their question.
Those who asked it had no training and no standing. One writer sees a pattern in that.
This was surely a most merciful deliverance, and every observer should have been deeply thankful to God for it. The ordinary people did show some appreciation, for they said, "Is not this the Son of David?" Again and again, simple people have been very true in their perception of the hand of God.
The Pharisees credited the same miracle to Satan. Their answer leaves only two ways to read them.
It is a question whether we should condemn their spiritual incompetence more, or their desperate wickedness. If they truly could not tell the hand of God from the hand of Satan, they were utterly unfit to teach God's people. But perhaps they saw God's power and chose to call it the work of hell, because it did not come through official channels. If so, the wickedness of it is almost too terrible to think about.
Commentators read the man's complete recovery as a preview, not only a rescue.
Though the Lord claimed no rights as the Messiah, the proof that He is the Messiah is clear in this verse. The man had three afflictions: a demon, blindness, and muteness. He is a picture of Israel's actual spiritual condition. His complete healing is a picture of her full recovery at the end of the tribulation period, through the grace and power of her Messiah.
The reach of it runs wider than one nation.
Severe as the illness was, it only gave the Lord Jesus a fuller occasion. Israel's growing rejection, above all by their leaders, made it clearer who He was and what they were. It is hard at first to learn that God's people on earth can be slaves of Satan. They can be as blind and mute in spirit as this demon-oppressed man brought to the Lord. That man's case was desperate, and the Lord healed him. He is even more willing, and just as able, to free people from the deeper and worse captivity of sin and Satan's power.
- Cause. A demon lay behind both the blindness and the silence; Jesus dealt with the root, and the symptoms went with it.
- Carried. Others carried the man to Jesus. Coming or being carried makes no difference to the power that meets him.
- Confirmed. The prophets said the Messiah would open blind eyes. So the healing answered the crowd's question about the Son of David.
- Contrasted. Untrained people read the sign correctly. The trained leaders credited it to Satan — either blind to God's hand, or slandering it on purpose.
- Coming. Commentators see in this man's total recovery a picture of the nation fully restored. The same power reaches the deeper captivity of sin.
And all the crowds were amazed and said, Is this [man] the Son of David?
Jesus heals a man who is blind and mute, and the crowd reacts with a question about David's promised heir. What they were half-ready to believe, the religious leaders standing beside them were about to call the work of Satan.
The man's two afflictions were not random. One commentator places the healing at the close of the Lord's dealings with the nation, and reads the man's condition as a picture of Israel.
The Lord was departing from Israel, but this is not all. There is a final testimony before He passes sentence on Israel. Blind and mute — that was the condition Israel was about to be in, without an eye or a voice for Jesus. It is a fitting picture of the nation's state, the Messiah unseen and His praise unspoken in their midst.
The crowd did not pick that title at random. It carried the hope of a nation, and the miracle in front of them matched what the prophets had promised.
From the Old Testament Scriptures the godly Israelite had his hope centred on the coming of the Son of David. Ezekiel 34 and 37 promised Him as Shepherd and King. Isaiah 11 looked forward to a reign of blessing and justice. Isaiah 35:5 said that the eyes of the blind shall be opened and the ears of the deaf unstopped. Then a crowd watched the Lord Jesus heal a blind and mute man who was under a demon's power. In great amazement they exclaimed, "Can this be the Son of David?" The evidence before their eyes answered their question. Jesus of Nazareth was indeed the promised Son of David.
The people reached for the right title. But their words were a question, not a confession.
No wonder that all the crowds were amazed and said, "Can this be the Son of David?" By this cry they must have meant the Messiah. They expected Him under the title of the Son of David. Still, the question also implies doubt.
Another writer separates wonder from conviction, and says what the same miracle should have proved to the Lord's accusers.
But there is only wonder, and not conviction. Others attribute the power over demons — which they cannot deny — to Beelzebul the prince of the demons. The Lord shows them that He has read their thoughts, and refutes them: on their own view, Satan would be divided against himself. But if this was the finger of God, then the kingdom of God had come upon them.
Commentators differ on how much credit the crowd deserves. One finds a true instinct for God in ordinary people.
The common people did show some appreciation, for they said, "Can this be the Son of David?" Simple people of the earth have often been very true in seeing the hand of God.
Another lists the people in the Gospels who did call Jesus by that name. The crowd is not among them.
Very few greeted the Lord this way when He was here in His humiliation. The blind men in Galilee (Matt. 9:27), Bartimaeus and his companion (Matt. 20:30-31) at Jericho, the Syrophoenician mother (Matt. 15:22), and the children in the temple (Matt. 21:15) are the only examples given to us. The crowds in Galilee could ask one another, "Can this be the Son of David?" (Matt. 12:23). But the only ones who greeted Him as the Son of David were blind men, who could not see Him, a woman who was not of Israel's line, and children. No one would turn to children for such information.
The crowd's murmur did not go unnoticed. It pushed the opposition into the open, and this time the Lord did not let the charge pass.
Jesus cast out the demon and gave the man sight and speech. The people wondered greatly and began to think of Him as the true Son of David. This stirred the Pharisees to desperate measures. They repeated their blasphemous claim even more openly: the power He used was Satan's. Their earlier blasphemy (see Matt. 9:34) went unanswered, but this time the Lord took up their challenge.
- Sign — Jesus gives sight and speech to a man who is blind and mute. His condition pictures Israel: no eye to see the Messiah, no voice to praise Him.
- Title — "Son of David" was the nation's hope. Isaiah 35:5 tied opened eyes and unstopped ears to His coming, so the miracle answered the crowd's question.
- Wonder — Their words are a question, not a confession — amazement without conviction.
- Silence — Only blind men, a foreign woman, and children called Him by that name. The crowds just asked each other about it.
- Verdict — The crowd's stir drove the Pharisees to call His power Satan's. The Lord answered them: if this was the finger of God, the kingdom of God had come upon them.
But the Pharisees, having heard [it], said, This [man] does not cast out demons, but by Beelzebub, prince of demons.
Jesus had just healed a blind and mute man, and the crowd asked aloud whether He was the Son of David — the promised Messiah. The religious leaders could not deny the healing, so they said His power came from hell.
Writers disagree about what the name Beelzebul means. The leaders' own explanation of it is clear.
The meaning of the word Beelzebul is much disputed. Some connect it with Baal-zebub, "lord of the fly," in the Old Testament, but others believe it is a term of contempt meaning "lord of dung." The Jews blasphemously charged the Lord with casting out demons by Beelzebul (that is the right spelling). They call him "the prince of the demons." That plainly shows their meaning: the one who was head of those demons enabled the Lord to cast them out.
Older English translations blur a distinction here.
We must distinguish between the instruments of Satan's power and the devil himself. The word "devils" mixes up the two things. It should say "demons."
This is not simple doubt. The healing was public and undeniable. The only way to resist it was to blame another source — and the men who did that had the strongest reputation for godliness.
It was not unbelief only, but its darker form — when no one can dispute that the power at work is God's kind power, and men credit it to the evil one as its source. Such is the inevitable lot of those who enjoy a religious reputation as orthodox and righteous without living faith. If they encounter Christ, as here, they must either submit to the testimony given to His person, or attribute the power of God's Spirit that He wields to the arch-enemy. The more people know of divine things, the more fatally they sin against the truth when they defy it in unbelief. Their sin then takes the shape of blasphemy against the Holy Spirit, which will not be forgiven in this age or in the age to come.
Either way the charge exposes the men who made it. They were the nation's teachers, and this tested their judgment.
If they truly could not tell the hand of God from the hand of Satan, they were utterly unfit to teach God's people. If instead they saw God's power and deliberately called it the working of hell, because it did not come through official channels, the wickedness of it is almost too awful to think about. No evil is worse than religious evil.
They had said this before. What drove them to repeat it, and where they said it, exposes them.
Jealousy, anger, malice and Satanic hatred against Him moved them to say it. They had made the accusation before (9:34), and the Lord passed it over then. But now, after the repeated displays of His power, after their hatred reached the point of seeking His life, He rebukes the awful blasphemy. They were cowards: they did not dare bring the accusation to His face. How could they dare to stand before Him? So He reads their very thoughts again — a miracle in itself, which should have startled them.
The Lord answers from what they themselves believed about Satan's kingdom.
Whether for kingdom, city, or house, to divide against itself is ruin. If Satan therefore casts out Satan, as they said, he is divided against himself: how then shall his kingdom stand? But no Jew doubted for a moment that Satan's kingdom would last until the Messiah comes in power and glory to judge and destroy it. So their plea refutes itself as inconsistent and false.
Here the rejection of the King becomes open and final.
The Pharisees showed their unyielding spirit of rejection in the most unmistakable way. They traced the miraculous power He displayed to a Satanic origin (Matt. 9:34; Matt. 12:24). No manner of sin or blasphemy could exceed this. It struck not only at the Son of Man but against the Holy Spirit, who always empowered Him. The Lord could not let it pass (Matt. 12:31). So in the next chapter He begins to teach in parables the new form the kingdom would take because of this irreconcilable opposition.
- The name. Beelzebul may mean "lord of the fly," or the mocking "lord of dung." The accusers themselves called him the head of the demons, so their charge was that Satan's chief supplied Christ's power.
- The motive. They could not deny the miracle, so they credited it to hell. That is unbelief in its darkest form, and it came from men with a religious reputation but no living faith.
- The absurdity. A kingdom, city or house divided against itself falls. No Jew believed Satan's kingdom had fallen, so their theory destroyed itself.
- The exposure. They would not say it to His face. He read their thoughts and answered them — a miracle in itself that should have made them bow.
- The result. Calling the Spirit's work Satan's becomes blasphemy against the Holy Spirit, which will not be forgiven in this age or the next. From here the King is rejected, and the kingdom takes a new form, taught in parables.
But he, knowing their thoughts, said to them, Every kingdom divided against itself is brought to desolation, and every city or house divided against itself will not subsist.
The Pharisees had just seen a man set free from a demon, and they called the power behind it the work of the prince of demons. Jesus answered their unspoken charge with a rule anyone could test: whatever is divided against itself falls apart.
The accusation was never brought to Him openly. Commentators note that His reply to an unspoken charge was itself a claim about who He is.
Of course Jesus knew their thoughts, though they had not dared to speak to Him in this way. But His answer to their thoughts should have convinced them that His knowledge is divine.
Earlier in the same chapter He knew because He heard the report. Here His knowing is of a different kind.
In Matthew 12:15, Jesus knew (that they were plotting to destroy Him) having heard it. And in Matthew 12:25 Jesus knew their thoughts — had the conscious knowledge of it.
The Lord does not appeal to Scripture here. He appeals to something every hearer already knew from ordinary life.
All experience in the world proves that division and faction in a community end in break-up. That unity is strength is a universal rule.
He states it at three scales — kingdom, city, house — so the argument cannot be dodged by saying the case is special.
Here the Lord pronounces the mind of God. Consciously knowing their thoughts He exposes their malicious absurdity. Whether for kingdom, city, or house, to divide against itself is ruin… No Jew doubted for a moment that Satan's kingdom would last until the Messiah came in power and glory to judge and destroy it. So their charge refutes itself as inconsistent and false.
Apply the rule to their charge and it collapses. If Satan were driving out Satan, he would be dismantling his own realm.
He who could attribute what cast out Satan to Satan himself was self-condemned. It would make Satan more foolish than the most foolish man. A kingdom divided against itself cannot stand: that principle holds everywhere. Can it be thought that Satan deliberately destroys his own kingdom and himself? Is he really suicidal?
The argument carries a piece of teaching alongside it.
Satan casting out Satan would divide his dreadful domain, and that would mean complete ruin and overthrow. So it is unthinkable that the devil could supply the power to destroy the kingdom he controls. The passage is full of meaning apart from the argument it contains. He who knows all things in perfect knowledge tells us that Satan is a person and a king. He has a kingdom, and he rules it.
They were not confused; they were cornered. The way out cost them their ability to tell good from evil.
They could not deny the power that was so obvious. If they would not submit and own God in it, one terrible option was left: to blame this on Satan… But to say so would only confuse good with evil, and lose the power of discernment altogether.
Note who said it: men with a reputation for being orthodox and upright.
It was not unbelief only, but its darker form. That form appears when no one can dispute the kind power of God, and people credit it to the evil one as its source. This is the unavoidable end for people who have a religious reputation as orthodox and upright but no living faith.
He might have ignored it. That He did not is itself instructive about when a charge must be met.
There are times when one may leave objections unnoticed. We have an example of this in Mark 3:21, when the friends of the Lord said He was out of His mind. It seems He took no notice of that. But there are times when the enemy must be met head on, and his suggestions or accusations clearly refuted… Experience teaches how easily sound without substance leads a crowd away — that is, foolish statements that will not stand up to examination.
- Known. He replied to a charge they never voiced aloud — knowledge of the heart that belongs to God alone.
- Principle. Kingdom, city, house — division against itself is ruin at every scale.
- Absurd. Satan does not raid his own house; the accusation would make him more foolish than the most foolish man.
- Motive. They could not deny the power. Refusing to own God in it, they confused good with evil.
- Answer. He answered slanderers, because a crowd will follow any claim that sounds good but cannot bear examination.
And if Satan casts out Satan, he is divided against himself; how then shall his kingdom subsist?
The Pharisees could not deny that a demon had just been driven out. So they said the power came from Satan himself. The Lord answers the thought behind their words with a question they cannot escape: a kingdom at war with itself is already finished.
The charge was never made to His face. That He replied to it at all was itself evidence of who He was.
Of course Jesus knew their thoughts, though they had not dared to speak to Him in this way. But His answering their thoughts ought to have impressed them with the fact of His divine knowledge. He answers them that every kingdom or city or house divided against itself cannot continue. But Satan's kingdom had lasted for centuries and was still fighting. Satan did not win his gains by casting himself out. The very idea that he would do this was nonsense. Of course the Pharisees knew there was supernatural power in Christ's casting out of demons. Since they wanted to deny it was God's power, their only other option was this foolish dodge.
The principle holds at every scale — nation, town, family. The Pharisees themselves believed Satan's rule would last until the Messiah came to break it. So their own belief disproved their charge.
He knew their thoughts, and He exposes the malicious absurdity in them. For a kingdom, a city, or a house, to be divided against itself means ruin. So if Satan casts out Satan, as they said, he is divided against himself. How then will his kingdom stand? But no Jew doubted for a moment that Satan's kingdom would last until the Messiah came in power and glory to judge and destroy it. So their claim refutes itself. It is inconsistent and false, and there is no way to defend it.
The Lord's words do more than win an argument. They tell us what kind of enemy stands behind the demons.
He who knows all things in perfect knowledge tells us that Satan is a person and a king, for he has a kingdom over which he rules. The demons are in his kingdom, one with the head in thought and purpose.
If the accusation were true, the enemy would be working his own downfall. That makes him the biggest fool alive.
Man had already been tested by this power. Anyone who could credit the power that cast out Satan to Satan himself stood self-condemned. It would make Satan more foolish than the most foolish man, because it is a universal rule that a kingdom divided against itself cannot stand. Can anyone think that Satan sets out to destroy his own kingdom and himself? Is he really bent on his own ruin?
Their claim was not that one evil had simply replaced another. They admitted the man was free, and then called the power that freed him evil.
No — they admitted that Satan's power was broken and gone. Satan really had been cast out. So Satan had not done this. To say he had would be to confuse good with evil, and to lose the power to tell them apart at all.
Having shown the absurdity, the Lord gives the true explanation. Two powers are at work, and one of them is stronger.
The compassionate Saviour came down to reason with His evil critics. He asked them how Satan could cast out Satan... Here was the true position. Satan, the strong one, had long kept his captives in peace. Now a Stronger One had come, with power to overcome him and to divide the spoils... He has met the enemy in his last stronghold, death, and has defeated him, putting away sin at the same time. Every child of Adam may be set free from Satan's slavery at once by appealing to the Saviour's grace.
Israel itself had become Satan's territory, and the Lord had walked into it.
He had entered the territory of Satan's power — that is what Israel had become! — and He was plundering his goods, after first tying up the strong man. This was a time of direct conflict between Christ and Satan, and people had to take sides.
- Thought — The accusation was never spoken aloud. The Lord answered what was in their hearts, and that alone should have told them who He was.
- Kingdom — Every kingdom, city or house divided against itself collapses. If Satan drove out Satan, his rule would already be over.
- Absurdity — The charge makes the enemy more foolish than the most foolish man, out to destroy himself. It refutes itself.
- Discernment — They admitted Satan's power was broken, and still called the rescue satanic. That confuses good with evil and destroys the ability to tell them apart.
- Stronger — The real explanation is a Stronger One entering the strong man's house. He has since met the enemy in death and won. Anyone who appeals to His grace can go free.
And if *I* cast out demons by Beelzebub, your sons, by whom do they cast [them] out? For this reason *they* shall be your judges.
The Pharisees could not deny the power at work in Jesus, so they said it came from Beelzebul, the prince of demons. Here He turns their own charge on people they had never accused.
The accusation Jesus answers was not honest doubt. It came from men with a religious reputation to protect.
It was not only unbelief, but unbelief in its darker form. That is what happens when no one can dispute the good and generous power of God, and people trace it to the evil one instead. This is always where people end up if they enjoy a religious name for being sound and righteous, but have no living faith. If they meet Christ, as here, they have only two choices. Either they accept the testimony given about who He is, or they say that the power of God's Spirit He uses belongs to the arch-enemy. The more people know of divine things, the more deadly their sin against the truth if they brazen it out in unbelief. It then takes the shape of blasphemy against the Holy Spirit, which will not be forgiven in this age or in the one to come.
Jesus points to a fact His critics had already accepted elsewhere. Other people were driving out demons, and the Pharisees never accused them. So their rule about the source of that power had to cover those cases too.
Besides, their sons claimed to cast out demons. How could that be, if they admitted this — as they did admit it? Was it an opposite power working in the same way? Or how did they tell the difference? These, then, would be their judges.
The verse ends by handing the Pharisees over to a verdict. Either way you read their charge, it exposes the men who made it.
If they truly could not tell the hand of God from the hand of Satan, they were in no way fit to teach God's people. If instead they saw God's power and called it the work of hell on purpose, because it did not happen to come through official channels, the wickedness of it is almost too terrible to think about. No evil is worse than religious evil.
Commentators differ on the identity of these sons. One reading takes them as exorcists from the Pharisees' own circle. Exorcists claimed the power to drive demons out.
The Lord certainly did not mean His own disciples. He had given them the power to cast out demons in His name. He meant the school of Pharisees, who practised, or claimed to practise, exorcism. The question our Lord put to them demanded an answer they did not care to give, for it would have condemned them.
Another reading turns it the other way. The Pharisees knew where the disciples came from; Christ Himself was the one they could not place.
Matthew 12:27 is often quoted to show that the Lord admitted such people were able to cast out demons. Is it not more likely that in that passage the Lord was referring to His disciples? The Lord was a mysterious person they could not understand, and they charged Him with casting out demons by the prince of demons. But the Lord said, By whom do your sons — whose origin you do know — cast them out?
A third reading takes the words as a real acknowledgement. God had worked among the Jews before Christ came, and the Lord says so even while they slander Him.
Before this, God had at times given power to Jews to cast out demons. God always honours faith. Even on the darkest day the Lord kept the holy fire burning, so that His light would not go out on the earth altogether. No unbelief on their part ever irritated the Lord. Far from it. He could calmly acknowledge what had been of God among them. Even so, they went on denying God Himself present among men.
- Power admitted. The Pharisees never disputed that demons were leaving. They could not deny the good in front of them, so they blackened its source instead.
- Power tested. Jesus applies their own rule to their own people. If the same result proves Satan in His case, it proves Satan in theirs.
- Power identified. Commentators differ. "Your sons" may mean Jewish exorcists, or Christ's disciples. Either way, the Pharisees knew of demons cast out that they had never blamed on Satan.
- Power judged. Their double standard makes those sons their judges. Men who cannot tell God's hand from Satan's are unfit to teach, and men who can tell and lie about it are worse.
- Power honoured. Slander never stirs the Lord. He still owns what God had done among that people. He defends the truth without defending Himself.
But if *I* by [the] Spirit of God cast out demons, then indeed the kingdom of God is come upon you.
Jesus' critics said He drove out demons by Satan's power. His answer names the Spirit of God instead — and says the kingdom has already reached the very people who could not see it.
Only two explanations for His power over demons are possible, and one of them collapses at once.
It is impossible that Satan could cast out Satan. There remains, then, only one other alternative: the Spirit of God casts out the demons. Then, indeed, the Kingdom has come upon you in the person of the King who shows this power. Sadly, they knew it, but they would not have Him or the Kingdom He preached.
Jesus points to the Spirit of God as the power at work. That was the pattern of all He did in public ministry.
The Holy Spirit anointed the Lord Jesus before He entered His public ministry. This matters greatly to anyone who wants to be a true and effective servant of God. As to His manhood He was conceived by the Holy Spirit. In His own Person He was "God manifest in the flesh." All the fullness of the Godhead was in Him. Yet note it well: when He came forth as man to do the will of God on earth, He did it all by the Holy Spirit. That covered whatever the will of God was — preaching the gospel, teaching in the synagogues, healing the sick, cleansing the leper, casting out devils, feeding the hungry, or raising the dead.
Others did cast out demons at times. What set Jesus apart was not the act itself, but that it never failed.
Man was totally unable to do such work; others might have done so by special answer to prayer... But in the Lord's case it was not occasional, exceptional, or partial. It was uniform and universal. Even where the disciples themselves, using His name, failed to cast them out, He always did it with a word. The kingdom of God, therefore, had come as a witness of His power, not yet as a state and sphere of display.
The kingdom did not arrive in the shape they expected, so they missed it while standing in front of it.
But if they had to admit that this was the work of the Spirit of God, then the kingdom of God had come upon them unawares. The expression here suggests surprise. The kingdom was here — not set up outwardly, but present in the power that belonged to it, and that power appeared in the King Himself. Yet they were not ready for it and did not recognise it, when it was right before their eyes!
This verse says "kingdom of God," not "kingdom of heaven." One writer explains what the two phrases cover.
The kingdom of heaven never means heaven itself. It means the rule of the heavens over the earth. So when the Lord was here below and showed His power over Satan, it was the kingdom of God, because the King — the power of God — was there.
The difference is also one of timing.
The text speaks of the kingdom of God, not of heaven. The kingdom of God was there, and showed itself to be there, when Christ was there in the mighty power that expelled the demons. The kingdom of heaven could not come until Christ went on high.
Jesus said the kingdom had come upon them. They refused it, and one writer traces where that refusal led.
Israel's blindness lay above all in this: they did not see or hear God in Jesus. His kingdom was in their midst when Jesus was there, delivering them from the enemy's grip... They did not believe this. That fatal error led them on, under Satan's guidance, to the place called Calvary. Their rock of shipwreck was this: they exalted themselves in the state they were in, and so refused Him. He had come to bless them by turning every one of them from their sins.
- Only one alternative. Satan cannot cast out Satan. So the power behind these miracles must be God's Spirit. The verse closes an argument; it is not a stray claim.
- The Spirit is the power. Jesus was God manifest in the flesh. Yet as man He worked by the Holy Spirit — preaching, healing, casting out demons.
- The proof is constancy. Others cast out demons now and then. He did it every time, with a word. That steady power announced the kingdom.
- The kingdom came unawares. Not set up outwardly, but present in its power, in the Person of the King standing in front of them.
- The result was Calvary. They did not see God in Jesus, and refusing the kingdom that had come upon them carried them to the cross.
Or how can any one enter into the house of the strong [man] and plunder his goods, unless first he bind the strong [man]? and then he will plunder his house.
Religious critics had just accused Jesus of driving out demons by the power of Satan himself. His answer is a picture of a house being robbed. The question the picture forces is simple: if someone is walking off with a strong man's property, who tied the strong man up first?
The picture has three parts, and each one has a meaning. One writer works through them plainly, drawing on the parallel words in Luke:
"When a strong man, fully armed, guards his own palace, his goods are safe; but when one stronger than he attacks him and overcomes him, he takes away his armor in which he trusted and divides his spoil" (Luke 11:21-22). And what is the meaning of that? Satan is the strong man, and he is armed with everything that can trap and hold his subject — man. This strong man keeps his palace. His armour is what he knows about human weakness. He has learned to use that weapon well to upset and overcome man. His palace is the world. His goods are sinners. And while he holds them like this, they are at peace. You were never anxious about your soul? Never. You have been at peace all your days.
His argument works backwards from what the crowd could see:
The strong man of verse 29 is of course Satan, who had held terrible power over people even in Israel. How could Christ enter Satan's territory and plunder his goods if He had not first made Satan powerless to stop Him? Anyone could see that Satan's power was broken in every one of these cases of casting out demons. So someone stronger than Satan was at work.
Commentators differ on when the binding happened. Many point back to the wilderness, where Jesus met the tempter before His public work began:
First, and at just the right time, the Lord meets him as a tempter. In the wilderness Satan tried to fill Him with the same moral corruption he had already planted in Adam and in human nature. This victory over the tempter was the necessary and righteous beginning of all His works... Before the Son of God could go out and plunder the house of the strong man, He must bind him. He had to stand against the enemy and keep him outside Himself. Only then could He enter his kingdom to destroy his works.
Others say a sinless life on its own could not be the whole answer. They point to the cross:
In due time the promised offspring of the woman came into the very world His own hands had made. The tempter tried every way to pull the lowly Nazarene off His path of complete obedience to His Father's will, and every attempt failed. He was the only one who could say, "The ruler of this world is coming. He has no claim on me"; yet that blessed, perfect, sinless life could not by itself set man free from the power of Satan. The announcement made in Eden's garden had to be fulfilled. The battle was fought and won at Calvary. The cross where Jesus died shows the bruising of Christ's heel — and, far more important, the bruising of the serpent's head.
"Then indeed he may plunder his house" was not a promise held in reserve. It describes what the crowds had been watching for three years:
Jesus had bound Satan to a certain extent, although Satan was conquered only that far. Now, for three years the Lord goes about plundering the strong man's house. He delivered the poor woman who had been bent over for eighteen years. He healed the man with the withered arm. He gave the dead son back to his mother. The Gospels are full of the wonders He performed against Satan's power in every form... He also spoke the truth of God everywhere, preaching the word through the villages.
The verse settles who is stronger, and so where anyone in trouble should turn:
The true position was this — Satan as the strong one had long kept his captives at peace; now a Stronger had come, with power to overcome him and divide the spoils. For this let us praise our God... He has met the enemy in his last stronghold — death — and has defeated him, putting away sin at the same time. Any child of Adam may be set free from Satan's slavery at once by appealing to the Saviour's grace. Souls in distress over sin need not worry about the ways and criticism of quarrelsome religious people. The Saviour is their true resource. Let them cast themselves on Him.
- Strong — Satan is the strong man. The world is his palace, sinners are his goods, and his armour is what he knows about human weakness.
- Stronger — no one robs a strong man unless someone stronger has tied him up first. Demons coming out proved that a greater power than Satan was at work.
- Bound — commentators differ on when. Some point to the wilderness, where Jesus kept the enemy outside Himself. Others point to Calvary, where the cross crushed the serpent's head.
- Plundered — for three years it was there to see — every healing, every deliverance, every village where He preached.
- Freed — the Stronger One has met the enemy even in death. So any child of Adam may appeal to the Saviour's grace and go free at once.
He that is not with me is against me, and he that gathers not with me scatters.
The Pharisees had just claimed that Jesus drove out demons by the power of Satan. This saying is His answer: with Him or against Him, gathering or scattering, nothing in between. It leaves every reader with two questions. Where do I stand toward Christ? And what is my work producing?
The saying is not a general rule about disagreement. It belongs to a moment when the Lord's own glory was under attack. That is what makes any middle position impossible.
In this verse it was a question of Christ Himself — of the glory and the power of God in Jesus here on earth. The moment it becomes a question of His person, attacked by enemies, then whoever is not with Christ is against Christ. Do people allow anything to lower His person now? Every other question is secondary to this one. Anyone who is indifferent to it would be deliberately taking the enemy's side against Christ.
Both halves of the verse close off the option most people would prefer: staying out of it.
Note there is no neutrality as to position or practice in this verse. No person can say, "I am not with Christ, but I am NOT against Him." It is either a case of "with" or "against." Nor can a person say, "Though I do not gather, I do NOT scatter." It is either a case of "gathering" or "scattering." In a vote, one person counts as two. How searching this is!
The verse has two halves. Commentators read them as two tests: first who you are, then what you do. The second test can convict a man the first would clear.
If I am not with Him, I am against Him. The more He is rejected, the more I must throw in my lot with Him. And this tests not only what a person is, but also what his work is... The first is more true of the unconverted man, and the second of the converted man who is worldly in his work. A man may be truly with Christ himself, and yet in his work he may build up or prop up what belongs to the world. Such a person may become the most popular of preachers, whatever the visible results may be. He may produce wide effects, charitable and religious; but "whoever does not gather with me scatters," says the Lord. In God's sight there is no scattering so real as the gathering of Christians on false principles. It is worse than if they were never gathered at all.
"Gather with me" fixes the point that people gather around. A crowd can form around many things, and its size settles nothing.
It is not Christians but Christ who has become God's centre. We may gather Christians together, but if it is not Christ in one's own spirit, it is scattering. God knows no centre of union but the Lord Jesus Christ. He Himself is the object, and nothing but Christ can be the centre. Whatever is not gathered around that centre, for Him and from Him, is scattering. There may be gathering, but if it is not "with Me," it is scattering. By nature we are so sectarian that we need to watch against this. I cannot make Christ the centre of my efforts, if He is not the centre of my thoughts.
The Lord spoke these words to opponents, but the second half of the verse is not limited to them.
He also adds, "and whoever does not gather with Me scatters." Sadly, this may be true not only of an unbeliever. Even a believer who has no concern about gathering souls to the person of Christ will tend to scatter them.
Notice the pronoun. The Lord said "with Me," and no group of His followers may swap in its own name.
No group of Christians, however gifted and intelligent, has the right to say, "Whoever does not gather with 'us' scatters." That was John's thought in Luke 9:49-50. But this word of the Lord Jesus challenges every one of His servants today: "Whoever does not gather with Me scatters."
Elsewhere the Lord says what sounds like the opposite: "the one who is not against us is for us" (Mark 9:40). He said it when the disciples tried to stop a man working in His name. Commentators read the two sayings as answers to different situations, not as a contradiction.
Mark 9:40 commends forbearance, in contrast with a sectarian party spirit; while Matthew 12:30 speaks of looseness as it touches Christ personally... Matthew supplies the principle that applies to ourselves, Mark the one that applies to others... In Mark, neutrality means help; in Matthew's Gospel, indifference means hostility to Christ.
- Occasion — the charge that Christ worked by Satan's power forced an open decision. His own person was under attack.
- Position — you are with Him or against Him; no one gets to say he is neither.
- Practice — the second half tests your work, not just your standing. A believer who does not gather with Christ scatters, whatever the visible results.
- Centre — what you gather around decides everything, not how many gather. Only Christ can be that centre; any other centre scatters.
- Yourself first — apply Matthew's word to your own heart, and Mark's forbearance to others. "With Me" was never "with us."
For this reason I say unto you, Every sin and injurious speaking shall be forgiven to men, but speaking injuriously of the Spirit shall not be forgiven to men.
The Pharisees had just watched Jesus free a man from a demon, and they said the power came from Satan. That charge draws out this warning, which holds two things together: pardon wide enough to cover everything, and one solemn exception.
The words are not a riddle dropped from nowhere. They answer a specific accusation. One commentator names the sin, then walks back through the scene that provoked it:
The sin spoken of here is "blasphemy," or "speaking against" the Holy Spirit, and you can gather the exact force of these words from the context. This display of divine power and mercy made a deep impression on the people. They saw in it evidence that He was the Messiah, for they said, "Can this be the Son of David?" But the enemies of Christ — the Pharisees — used it to show their hatred. The miracle was in front of their eyes, and they even admitted it, yet they credited the power they had seen at work to the devil. The power in which Jesus worked and carried out His mission was that of the Holy Spirit. So it was by the power of the Spirit of God that He drove the demon out of the man.
Mark's account adds the reason for the warning in one line. They were saying, "He has an unclean spirit" (Mark 3:30). That fixes the meaning. The sin is not a mood or a stray thought but a definite charge:
Blasphemy against the Holy Spirit consists in attributing the power of the Spirit to evil agency. Many a person with an over-sensitive conscience has worried that he has committed that sin. A simple reference to Mark 3:30 should at once set such a person at rest.
Another writer presses the question that such a charge forces:
So the rulers called the Holy Spirit the devil. What remained for a people who confused God and Satan? Awful thought! What forgiveness could there be for those who acted this way on purpose, and not in ignorance?
Before the exception comes the promise, and the promise is enormous. One writer points to the clearest proof that God forgives even a blasphemer:
The Lord declared: "All sins will be forgiven the children of man, and whatever blasphemies they utter" (Mark 3:28). We have a wonderful example of this in the apostle Paul. Before his conversion he was a blasphemer himself. He even threatened others with severe punishment to force them to blaspheme (Acts 26:11). Yet he was forgiven.
Why can this one sin never be forgiven? One writer answers by setting it against plain ignorance:
It is the final rejection of the Spirit's testimony to Christ. That was true when the Lord was here, and it is even more complete now that He is in heaven. It is not ignorance that rejects Christ like this. A man may be without light, and when it comes, grace may enable him to receive Him. But take the man who refuses all divine testimony and uses the open display of the Holy Spirit's power to show his spite against Jesus. He is clearly lost for ever.
Elsewhere the same writer sets the sin beside the one condition of forgiveness:
It means crediting to Satan that power of God which the Holy Spirit was exercising then and afterwards. It shows a deep and settled hatred of God. Souls who give themselves up to such malice against the worker of all good are beyond pardon. Forgiveness is for those who repent and believe the gospel.
The warning fell on a whole nation, and not only on separate people.
The Jewish nation was then falling fast into this blasphemy against the Holy Spirit. They were not forgiven then, and they never will be. There will be a new stock, so to speak. God will raise up another generation, and they will receive the Christ whom their fathers blasphemed.
The same writer speaks directly to anyone afraid his own sin is this one:
Take comfort, poor, despairing backslider. Your sin is grievous, but it is not this sin. The Saviour waits to be gracious; He will not turn a deaf ear to your penitent cry.
- Occasion. Jesus worked a real miracle in front of witnesses who could not deny it, and they credited it to the devil. That is the setting of the verse.
- Definition. The sin is calling the Holy Spirit's work satanic, on purpose and not in ignorance. Mark gives the reason: "He has an unclean spirit."
- Offer. Before the exception stands the sweep of grace. Paul proves it: he blasphemed, he forced others to blaspheme, and God forgave him.
- Line. What puts a person beyond pardon is not the weight of the sin. It is settled hatred of God. Forgiveness is for those who repent and believe.
- Comfort. If you dread this sin and grieve over your own, your sin is not this sin. The Saviour never turns a deaf ear to a penitent cry.
And whosoever shall have spoken a word against the Son of man, it shall be forgiven him; but whosoever shall speak against the Holy Spirit, it shall not be forgiven him, neither in this age nor in the coming [one].
The Pharisees had just watched Jesus free a man who could neither see nor speak, and then said He did it by the power of Satan. So the Lord draws a line. Words against Himself can be forgiven. Words against the Spirit cannot.
The verse does not leave the sin vague. It points to one moment and one accusation:
The people were deeply moved by this display of divine power and mercy, and saw in it evidence that He was the Messiah… But the enemies of Christ — the Pharisees — used it as an occasion to show their hatred. With the miracle in front of their eyes — in fact, admitting it — they credited the power they had seen to the devil… The sin, then, is the deliberate crediting to Satan of what the Holy Spirit had done, and so blaspheming the Holy Spirit by calling His work devilish.
Much needless fear grows out of a loose phrase:
What the Lord condemns is blasphemy against the Holy Spirit. Keeping that clearly in view would save many souls a great deal of needless trouble. How many have groaned in terror, afraid they were guilty of sin against the Holy Spirit! That phrase invites vague ideas and loose reasoning about what it means. But our Lord spoke definitely… What is this evil that is never forgiven? It is attributing the power that worked in Jesus to the devil.
The answer lies in how He had come. His lowliness could be misread.
A word spoken against the Son of man might be forgiven. The lowly place He had taken might still hide His glory from the eyes of natural men — though that lowly place was fullest grace, taken to meet man's need. But here was something they had to admit and could not hide: open-eyed hatred could not be forgiven; it never could be.
This sin attacks the One who brings a person to repent.
In the Son of Man, God set Himself before their eyes. They might speak against Him, and yet the Spirit's work might bring them to repentance, and so they would be forgiven. But the Holy Spirit alone works repentance and faith in the soul. To blaspheme Him is to put yourself in a hopeless position. It is to push away both repentance and faith, to bolt and bar the only door that leads into salvation.
So which two stretches of time does the verse mean?
Does it not mean the future age when the Messiah would reign, as distinct from the age of the law that had not yet closed? Blasphemy against the Spirit will be forgiven in neither. Whatever may be pardoned in either age, that cannot be. That is, this age and the coming one are two dispensations. The nature of the case rules out the eternal scene, where there is no question of sin or its forgiveness.
It is also no hint that sins get a second hearing after death:
So when it says that whoever blasphemes will not be forgiven either in this world or in the world to come, it does not refer to forgiveness beyond the grave… The sin would not be pardoned to anyone who committed it in either age.
The warning fell first on a nation that rejected both the Son and the Spirit's work.
What could be done for those who not only rejected the Son but resisted the Holy Spirit and credited His blessed work to Beelzebub? They could not be forgiven in the "age" of the law, nor in that of Messiah. In short, in this scripture it is entirely a question of the apostate nation of Israel handed over to hopeless ruin… We simply add that we judge it a temptation of Satan to lead you to imagine you have committed "the unpardonable sin."
The fear itself points the other way:
So we can say with confidence: no one under conviction of sin, no one who longs to be reconciled to God through the blood of Christ, can have committed "blasphemy against the Holy Spirit." In fact, these very convictions of sin and desires for peace with God are the effects of His own work in the soul. They are the sure proof that this "blasphemy" has not been committed.
- Named — The sin is not vague. It is calling the Spirit's visible work satanic, with the miracle admitted and in plain sight.
- Hidden — Words against the Son of Man can be pardoned: His lowliness hid His glory from natural eyes. The Spirit's power was plain, so hating it was open-eyed.
- Barred — This sin bolts the only door in. It rejects the Spirit, and He alone works repentance and faith.
- Timed — "This age" and "the age to come" are two periods: law, then Messiah's reign. Neither hints that sins may be forgiven after death.
- Freed — Conviction of sin and longing for peace with God are the Spirit's own work in you. That is proof this blasphemy is not yours.