Jesus was an either or thinker

JESUS WAS AN EITHER-OR THINKER
EDITED BY GLENN PEASE
Matthew 12:30 30"Whoeveris not with me is against
me, and whoever does not gather with me scatters.
New Living Translation
“Anyone who isn’t with me opposes me, and anyone
who isn’t working with me is actuallyworking against
me.
BIBLEHUB RESOURCES
Robbing The Strong Man's House

Matthew 12:29
W.F. Adeney
The circumstances under which it was spokenexplain this parable. Our Lord
had just castout a demon from a poor creature who was both blind and
dumb. A more pitiable object than such a demoniac can hardly be conceived.
And yet in this extreme instance of the tenderness of Jesus to the bruised reed
his enemies only see sinister motives and suspectmalign influences. they
charge the greatDeliverer with being in league with Satan. The parable is our
Lord's reply to this monstrous allegation.
I. SATAN IS LIKE A STRONG MAN. Some men speak lightly of temptation,
and boastof their strength to resistit. These may be its earliestvictims. Christ
knew the powers of evil, and he did not despise their magnitude. He had met
the tempter in the wilderness, and though he had come off completely
victorious, he had seenthe awful might of the greatenemy of souls. Satanis so
strong that no human being canmaster him alone. Only a strongercan bind
him.
II. THE SIX-POSSESSEDWORLD IS A HOUSE OF SATAN. The miserable
demoniac was like a house of Satan, in the power of the prince of evil. But the
whole world is describedas under the spirit of evil. He is the prince of this
world.
III. EVIL INFLUENCES ARE THE WEAPONS AND TOOLS OF SATAN.
We might render the word "goods" as "instruments." The demon in the poor
possessedman was one of Satan's instruments. In a secondary sense we may
now saythat evil passions and corrupt habits are Satan's weapons, because it
is through them that the powerof evil works in the world and inflicts his cruel
tortures on his victims.
IV. IT IS THE PURPOSE OF CHRIST TO DELIVER THE WORLD FROM
EVIL INFLUENCES. His principal miracle-working is describedas the
casting out of demons. Doubtless this was intended to be suggestive ofhis
greatspiritual work in liberating souls from the bad influences, the sinful
habits and passions with which they are possessed. Thus he is a robber,

breaking into the house of Satan to take awayhis detestable instruments.
When he has done this the house itself will no longer be in the powerof the
evil one.
V. THE HOUSE OF SATAN CANNOT BE ROBBED TILL ITS MASTER IS
OVERMASTERED.The strong man will keephis house and will permit no
weak intruder to rob it.
1. The first work in the salvation of the world must be the binding of Satan.
Something more must be done than to bring gracious influences to bear on
individual men. An awful conflict must go on till the powerof evil itself is
restrained.
2. It is impossible to raise the fallen till the sin that has ruined them is
conquered. The problem of rescuing the degraded inhabitants of greatcities
must be faced on its moral side. Drunkenness, gambling, and profligacy must
be fought and conqueredbefore the wretched condition of these people can be
effectually overcome.
3. Evil must be eastout by conquering temptation. The tempter must be
bound. It is a Christian work to restrain or remove the influences that tempt
to vice.
VI. CHRIST REDEEMS THE WORLD BY MASTERING THE POWER OF
EVIL.
1. He worstedSatanin his temptation.
2. He effectually vanquished the spirit of evil in his work, and beheld him fall
like lightning from heaven.
3. He completely masteredthe evil one at Calvary and in the resurrection.
4. He now hinds Satan in individual hearts, conquering the ruling powers of
evil within. - W.F.A.

Biblical Illustrator
He that is not with Me is againstMe.
Matthew 12:30
Neutrality in religion impossible
I. THE CHARACTER DESCRIBED.
1. Let us direct our attention to the openly profane.
2. There are others not habitually profane.
3. The honest and well-disposed.
4. The outwardly religious.
II. THE LIGHT IN WHICH THEY ARE REGARDED BYCHRIST. All who
are not with Christ are againstHim, and will be chargeable —
(1)With rejecting His salvation;
(2)With inducing others to rejectit;

(3)With preventing as far as they canthe display of the Saviour's glory.
Learn:
1. How inevitable is the destruction of the Saviour's enemies.
2. How awfully severe will be their destruction. (5'. Steer.)
The necessityofgathering with Christ
T. Dale, M. A.
I. DESCRIBETHE MAN WHO IS WITH CHRIST. Union and
companionship.
II. THE PROOF OF AN INTEREST IN CHRIST, AS AFFORDED BYOUR
GATHERING WITH HIM.
(T. Dale, M. A.)
With Christ, or against? Gathering, orScattering
C. R. Alford, M. A., J. Dixon.
The principle illustrated is the impossibility of a state of neutrality in the
service of Christ: illustrations are fetched first from the battlefield — "He
that is not with Me," etc. And, secondly, from the harvest-field — "He that
gatherethnot," etc. The immediate occasionofthe text was the blasphemous
imputation of the Pharisees, that Jesus castoutdevils by Beelzebub. In reply
our Lord appeals to reasonEvery kingdom divided againstitself, etc. He also
appeals to the acknowledgedduct. Thus He must be the stronger.
I. MAKE A PERSONALAPPLICATION OF THE SUBJECT. In the
battlefield of life, whose side have you chosen? In the greatharvest-field of the
world, whose interests are you serving?
1. The battlefield is the world. We are soldiers. Are we fighting? Are we clad
in armour?

2. The harvest-field. Are you gathering or wasting?
II. MAKE A NATIONAL APPLICATION OF THE SUBJECT. Has England
gatheredwith Christ, or scattered?
(C. R. Alford, M. A.)
I. THAT THOSE WHO ARE NOT WITH CHRIST IN DISCIPLESHIP AND
IN THE PROFESSION OF FAITH ARE AGAINST CHRIST, AS THE
DISCIPLES OF ANOTHER MASTER, AND IN THE DISOBEDIENCEOF
UNBELIEF.
II. THOSE WHO ARE NOT WITH CHRIST IN THE PURPOSE AND
DESIGN OF HIS DEATH, ARE AGAINST CHRIST IN DEFEATING THE
PURPOSE OF HIS DEATH
(1)The first purpose was to make an atonement for our sins;
(2)To give repentance and pardon to guilty men;
(3)To make meet for the glory of heaven. We can be with Christ by enjoyment
and participation.We are againstChrist by defeating the purpose of His
death.
(1)By rejecting it altogetherin a spirit of infidelity;
(2)By embracing a system which does not containany of its grand principles;
(3)By carelessunconcern.
III. THOSE WHO ARE NOT WITH CHRIST IN THE AFFECTIONS OF
THE HEART, ARE AGAINST HIM IN ITS ENMITIES AND IN ITS
INDIFFERENCE. To love Christ is an essentialofChristianity; we may be
againstChrist by enmity or indifference.
IV. THOSE WHO ARE NOT WITH CHRIST IN GATHERING, ARE
AGAINST HIM IN SCATTERING ABROAD. Neutralityhere is opposition.
(J. Dixon.)

No neutrality in religion
Newland.
In those days when there was warin heaven, and Satanand his angels
rebelled againstthe Almighty, one circle of angels alone, it is said, remained
neutral. They would not join the arch-rebel, neither would they range
themselves among the hosts of their Almighty Sovereign. At the final
discomfiture of the rebellious angels, that circle which had not joined in their
rebellion could not justly be associatedwith them in their punishment; nor, on
the other hand, did it deserve the blessednessofheaven. Those angels,
therefore, were consignedto the earth, and bound irrevocably to its fortunes.
These are the fairies. They enjoy all the pleasures and all the happiness which
their new habitation canafford; but it is on a lease, as it were, and every seven
years their lease expires. It is renewable as long as the earth lasts, and they are
always reinstatedin their privileges on paying to Satana quit rent of one of
their number. Now this is an allegory. Wheneverwe have been neglectfulof
our duty, whenever we have refused to fight the battles of Him whose soldiers
we have vowed ourselves, we may be forgiven, indeed, and reinstated in our
former privileges;but it is always at the expense of some sacrifice to the
principle of evil, whose powerwe should have resistedfrom the first, but did
not.
(Newland.)
No neutrality in religion
H. C. H., J. Stewart.
I. WHO ARE ALLIED WITH CHRIST?
1. They who are delivered from the power of Satan.
2. They who are in co-operationwith Christ.
II. ALL NOT THUS WITH CHRIST ARE OF NECESSITYAGAINST HIM.
1. That man's natural state is one of antagonismto God.

2. That it is a necessityofman's nature to influence for goodor evil all with
whom He may associate.
3. That our allegiance is Christ's righteous and inalienable due.
(H. C. H.)
I. The human heart cannot be in a state in which neither Christ nor the world
has the supremacy. Man must have a masterand a God, etc.
II. Neither Christ nor His enemy will acceptof, or allow of, neutrality —
serving both in turn, and hence warring againstboth in turn.
III. Neutrality is impossible, inasmuch as Christ holds it to be war against
Himself. Christ requires the whole heart, life, etc.
IV. Neutrality is seento be practicalhostility to the kingdom of Christ —
enemies of Christ.
(J. Stewart.)
No "via media" in morals or religion
R. Tuck.
Christ's words contain a principle and an appeal. We cannotoccupy a neutral
position in relation to either morals or religion now when life is before us, or
by and by when the issues of life are manifested.
I. THIS TRUTH. Border-countries are proverbially bad to live in. The two
clauses ofthe text may be read thus:
1. He that is not in heart with Me is againstMe. No externality of observance
will suffice:no mere associationwill suffice. There must be personalheart-
union with Christ.
2. He that is not in life-service with Me is againstMe. Unpractical
sentimentality will not suffice. Loudest professions will not suffice. Christ's
words appeal searchinglyto two classes.

(a)Those who excuse wrong life by right creed.
(b)Those who excuse wrong creedby goodlife.
II. THE QUALIFICATIONS OF THIS TRUTH. Temporary uncertainty may
be good, or at leastmay be excused. Such as comes in
(a)Mentalstates of indecision;
(b)Beginnings of religious life;
(c)Occasions ofreligious doubt. There is no excuse for uncertainty or
indecision in relation to Christ. We ought to follow Him wholly.
(R. Tuck.)
COMMENTARIES
Ellicott's Commentary for English Readers
(30) He that is not with me is againstme.—The words seemat first at variance
with the answerto the sons of Zebedee, when they reported that they had seen
one casting out devils in the name of Christ, and had forbidden him “because
he followednot” with them. Then they heard,” Forbid him not: for he that is
not againstus is for us” (Luke 9:50); and those words have naturally been the
watchwordof those who rejoice when Christ is preachedevery way, and by
whateverorganisation. In reality, however, the two formulæ do but present
the opposite poles of the same truth. In the great struggle betweenlight and
darkness, goodand evil, God and the enemy of God, there is no neutrality.
The man of whom the two disciples complained was fighting againstthe devil
in the name of Christ, and was therefore with Him. The Phariseeswere
hindering and slandering that work, and therefore were on the side of Satan.
They were not gathering in God’s harvest of souls, and therefore they were
scattering and wasting.

Matthew Henry's Concise Commentary
12:22-30 A soul under Satan's power, and led captive by him, is blind in the
things of God, and dumb at the throne of grace;sees nothing, and says
nothing to the purpose. Satan blinds the eyes by unbelief, and seals up the lips
from prayer. The more people magnified Christ, the more desirous the
Pharisees were to vilify him. It was evident that if Satanaided Jesus in casting
out devils, the kingdom of hell was divided againstitself; how then could it
stand! And if they said that Jesus castout devils by the prince of the devils,
they could not prove that their children castthem out by any other power.
There are two greatinterests in the world; and when unclean spirits are cast
out by the Holy Spirit, in the conversionof sinners to a life of faith and
obedience, the kingdom of God is come unto us. All who do not aid or rejoice
in such a change are againstChrist.
Barnes'Notes on the Bible
He that is not with me ... - In addition to his other arguments, Jesus urges this
generalprinciple, that there canbe but two parties in the universe.
If anyone did not act with him, he was againsthim. If he gatherednot with
him, he scattered. This is takenfrom the practice of persons in harvest. He
that did not gather with him, or "aid" him, scatteredabroad, or opposedhim.
The application of this was, "As I have not united with Satan, but opposed
him, there canbe no league betweenus." The charge, therefore, is a false one.
Jamieson-Fausset-BrownBible Commentary
30. He that is not with me is againstme; and he that gathereth not with me
scatterethabroad—Onthis important parable, in connectionwith the
corresponding one (Mt 12:43-45), see on[1278]Lu11:21-26.
Matthew Poole's Commentary
Luke hath the same, Luke 11:23. Some understand this concerning the devil,
whom he was so far from favouring, that his work was quite opposite. Some
understand it concerning some neuters, that would neither show themselves
for Christ nor againsthim. Our Saviour tells them, that this cause would bear

no neutrality, they must be either for him or againsthim. But possibly it is
best understood concerning the scribes and Pharisees, whomhe lets know,
that he was one who showedmen the true wayof life and salvation, and those
that complied not with him were his enemies, and instead of gathering,
scatteredthe sheepof God.
Gill's Exposition of the Entire Bible
He that is not with me, is againstme,.... These words chiefly refer to Satan,
and are a further proof, that Christ did not castout devils by him; since they
two are as much opposites, as canpossibly be; Satan is not on the side of
Christ, but an adversary to him; there is an original, and implacable enmity,
betweenthe serpentand the seedof the woman; there is an open war between
them, and therefore one cannotbe thought to lend assistanceto the other.
They were concernedin different things, had different views and interests,
and so took different methods;
and he that gatherethnot with me, scattereth:Christ is the goodshepherd,
that gathers his sheepto himself, and into his fold, by the external ministry of
the word, and internal efficacyof his grace;Satanis the wolf, that catches and
scatters the sheep, and seeks to kill and destroy them: and since there is such
an open war proclaimed and carried on betweenChrist and the devil, none
ought to be neutral; whoeveris not on the side of Christ, is reckonedas an
enemy; and whoeveris not concernedby prayer or preaching, or other means
to gather souls to his word and ordinances, and to his church, and to himself,
is deemed by him a scattererof them.
Geneva Study Bible
He that is not with me is againstme; and he that gathereth not with me
scatterethabroad.
EXEGETICAL(ORIGINAL LANGUAGES)
Meyer's NT Commentary
Matthew 12:30. Jesus is speaking neither of the Jewishexorcists (Bengel,
Schleiermacher, Neander), norof the uncertain, fickle multitude (Elwert in

the Stud. d. Wirtemb. Geistl. IX. 1, p. 111 ff.; Ullmann in the Deutsch.
Zeitschr. 1851, p. 21 ff.; Bleek), neither of which would suit the context; but as
little is He expressing Himself in general terms; so that μετʼ ἐμοῦ must be
applied to Satan, while Jesus is understood to be representing Himself as
Satan’s enemy (Jerome, Beza, Grotius, Wetstein, Kuinoel, de Wette,
Baumgarten-Crusius);for the truth is, He, previously as well as subsequently,
speaks ofHimself in the first person (vv, 28, 31), and He could not be
supposed, He who is the Messiah, to representHimself as taking up a neutral
attitude toward Satan. On the contrary, He is speaking of the Pharisees and
their bearing toward Him, which must necessarilybe of a hostile character,
since they had refused to make common cause with Him as it behoved them to
have done: He that is not with me is, as is seenin your case, my enemy, and so
on.
συνάγων] illustration borrowed from harvestoperations;Matthew 3:12,
Matthew 6:26; John 4:36.
Expositor's Greek Testament
Matthew 12:30. ne begins at this point to have the feeling that here, as
elsewhere,our evangelistgroups sayings of kindred characterinsteadof
exactly reproducing Christ’s words as spokento the Pharisees. The
connectionis obscure, and the interpretations therefore conflicting. On first
view one would say that the adage seems more appropriate in reference to
lukewarm disciples or undecided hearers than to the Pharisees, who made no
pretence of being on Christ’s side. Some accordingly(e.g., Bleek, afterElwert
and Ullmann) have so understood it. Others, including Grotius, Wetstein, De
Wette, take the ἐγώ of the adage to be Satan, and render: he who, like myself,
is not with Satanis againsthim. Kypke, Observ. Sac., says:“Prima persona
posita est a servatore pro quacunque alia, proverbialiter, hoc sensu: qui socius
cujusdam bella cum alio gerentis non est, is pro adversario censerisolet. Cum
igitur ego me re ipsa adversarium Satanae esseostenderim, nulla specie socius
ejus potero vocari.” This certainly brings the saying into line with the
previous train of thought, but if Jesus had meant to saythat He surely would

have expressedHimself differently. The Fathers (Hilary, Jerome, Chrys.) took
the ἐγώ to be Jesus and the ὁ μὴ ὢν to be Satan. So understood, the adage
contains a fourth concluding argument againstthe notion of a league between
Jesus and Satan. Mostmodern interpreters refer the ὁ μ. ω. to the Pharisees.
Schanz, however, understands the saying as referring to the undecided among
the people. The only serious objectionto this view is that it makes the saying
irrelevant to the situation.—σκορπίζει:late for the earlier σκεδάννυμι, vide
Lob., Phryn., p. 218. As to the metaphor of gathering and scattering, its
natural basis is not apparent. But in all cases, whenone man scatters what
another gathers their aims and interests are utterly diverse. Satan is the arch-
waster, Christ the collector, Saviour.
Cambridge Bible for Schools andColleges
30. He that is not with me is againstme] The thought of the contestbetween
Christ and Satan is continued. Satanis not divided againsthimself, neither
can Christ be. Neutrality is impossible in the Christian life. It must be for
Christ or againstChrist. The metaphor of gathering and scattering may be
from collecting and scattering a flock of sheep, or from gathering and
squandering wealth, money, &c.
Bengel's Gnomen
Matthew 12:30. Ὁ μὴ ὢν, κ.τ.λ., he that is not, etc.) The latter part of the
dilemma contained in Matthew 12:27-28, is confirmed by Matthew 12:29; the
former by Matthew 12:30, with this meaning, your sons are not againstMe,
nor do they scatterabroad; therefore they are with Me, and gather with Me.
There is no neutrality in the kingdom of God; that activity which is natural to
man is exercisedeither in goodor in evil, especiallyin the case ofthose who
hear the word of God. The work and cause of Christ is, however, simple and
pure; and though it has so many enemies and adversaries, itoverpowers them
all, nor does it enter into collusionwith them: see Luke 12:51. This verse
forms a Divine axiom.—συνάγων, that gathereth)The work of Christ and of
Christians is to gather; see ch. Matthew 23:37, John 11:52. This word
corresponds with the Hebrew ‫]375[,תלהק‬one that gathereth, or a preacher.

[573]‫ת‬̇‫ל‬̇‫ה‬ ֶ‫,ק‬ Koheleth is the appellation by which Solomonis designatedin the
book which bears this name, viz. Ecclesiastes. Onthe signification and
derivation, see Gesenius in voc.—(I. B.)
Pulpit Commentary
Verse 30. - Parallelpassage:Luke 11:23, omitted in Mark. The aim of this
verse is doubtful.
(1) It may be addressedto the Pharisees, withthe objectof showing them what
their words really implied. They were not due, as some might think, to mere
indifferentism or to a judicial neutrality; such a relation to him was
impossible. They were due to oppositionof inner life and of outward energy.
Thus their words denoted complete separationfrom him. This he brings out
more clearly in the two following verses.
(2) This interpretation, however, would attribute to the Pharisees too greatan
ignorance of their own feelings of oppositionto Christ, and it is therefore best
to understand the verse as addressedto the many bystanders. Christ has do-
fended himself from the accusationbrought againsthim, and now urges these
waverers not to be content with only not opposing him, but to take sides - for,
in fact, they cannothelp doing so. Indifference in this case is only another
name for opposition; not actively to help is really to hinder. Thus understood,
the lessonofthis verse finds its parallelin vers. 43-45, by which, indeed, it is
immediately followedin Luke. He that is not with me is againstme; and he
that gatherethnot with me scatterethabroad. The first clause speaksofthe
inner disposition, that which forms the real being of the man; the second, of
his energy. Observe that the figure of the secondclause appears to be
connectedwith that of ver. 29. If Christ's property is not collected, it is driven
further from him. Christ and Christians must gather (John 11:52; cf. Bengel).
For gathereth(συνάγων), cf. also Matthew 3:12; Matthew 13:30. In scattereth
abroad (σκορπίζει)the thought almostleaves the simile of the σκεύη, and
regards the persons signified. Notice that in John 11:52, referred to above, the

two verbs συνάγειν and (δια) σκορπίζειν, also occur;the figure there,
however, appears to be taken from sheep(cf. John 10:12). Further, Mark 9:40
and Luke 9:50 recordthe saying, "He that is not againstus is for us," which
was addressedto our Lord's disciples. Both sayings are necessary;earnest
Christians need to remember that when outsiders do anything in Christ's
name, it must, on the whole, forward his cause (Philippians 1:18); the
undecided must face the fact that neutrality is impossible.
PRECEPTAUSTIN RESOURCES
BRUCE HURT MD
Matthew 12:30 “He who is not with Me is againstMe;and he who does not
gather with Me scatters.
NET Matthew 12:30 Whoeveris not with me is againstme, and whoeverdoes
not gatherwith me scatters.
GNT Matthew 12:30 ὁ μὴ ὢν μετ᾽ ἐμοῦ κατ᾽ἐμοῦ ἐστιν, καὶ ὁ μὴ συνάγων
μετ᾽ ἐμοῦ σκορπίζει.
NLT Matthew 12:30 "Anyone who isn't with me opposes me, and anyone who
isn't working with me is actually working againstme.
KJV Matthew 12:30 He that is not with me is againstme; and he that
gatherethnot with me scatterethabroad.
ESV Matthew 12:30 Whoeveris not with me is againstme, and whoever does
NIV Matthew 12:30 "He who is not with me is againstme, and he who does

ASV Matthew 12:30 He that is not with me is againstme, and he that
gatherethnot with me scattereth.
CSB Matthew 12:30 Anyone who is not with Me is againstMe, and anyone
who does not gather with Me scatters.
NKJ Matthew 12:30 "He who is not with Me is againstMe, and he who does
not gatherwith Me scatters abroad.
NRS Matthew 12:30 Whoeveris not with me is againstme, and whoever does
YLT Matthew 12:30 'He who is not with me is againstme, and he who is not
gathering with me, doth scatter.
NAB Matthew 12:30 Whoever is not with me is againstme, and whoeverdoes
NJB Matthew 12:30 'Anyone who is not with me is againstme, and anyone
who does not gather in with me throws away.
GWN Matthew 12:30 "Whoeverisn't with me is againstme. Whoeverdoesn't
gather with me scatters.
BBE Matthew 12:30 Whoeveris not with me is againstme; and he who does
not take part with me in getting people together, is driving them away.
that is: Mt 6:24 Jos 5:13 24:15 1Ch 12:17,18 Mk 9:40 Lu 9:50 11:23 2Co
6:15,16 1Jn2:19 Rev 3:15,16
gather: Ge 49:10 Ho 1:11 Joh11:52
NEUTRALITY NOT AN OPTION
IN THIS COSMIC WAR!
Similar Passages:
Mark 9:40 “Forhe who is not againstus is for us.
Luke 9:50+ But Jesus saidto him, “Do not hinder him; for he who is not
againstyou is for you.”

Luke 11:23+ “He who is not with Me is againstMe; and he who does not
gather with Me, scatters.
He who is not with Me is againstMe - Jesus demands a response!With is the
preposition meta which means in company with Jesus. Againstis kata which
speaks ofdownward movement and speaks ofone who is hostile towards
another. There are no "Switzerlands" in this war!
The Gospelis of such a nature,
as to its offers and its claims,
that it cannot tolerate indifference.
- Broadus
Broadus - Here again, as in the preceding verses, ourLord speaksin
apophthegms (Mark 3:23+), eachsentence containing a distinct truth,
expressedin generalterms. It naturally follows that no connectionbetween
these is outwardly indicated, and we are left to see for ourselves the internal
connectionof the thoughts. (Comp. at the beginning of Matthew 7.)The
Scribes said that our Lord was in league with Satan, but in reality he is
opposing and overthrowing Satan’s power, binding him, as it were, and
plundering his house. In this great and deadly struggle, there canbe no
neutrality. No man canbe friends with both sides, nor be indifferent to both.
It is probable that many of those present were thinking they would not take
sides betweenJesus and the blaspheming Scribes. To them, in the first place,
this saying would come home; but it is general, and applicable to all times,
and all varieties of characterand conduct. (Matthew 12 Commentary)
And he who does not gatherwith Me scatters - How are we "with Jesus? How
do we gatherwith Jesus? We aid in gathering people to be His disciples
(Prov. 11:30;Dan. 12:3; Matt. 9:37, 38; Luke 19:10; John 4:35, 36; 1 Cor.
9:22).
Morgan- “Only two forces are at work in the world, the gathering and the
scattering. Whoeverdoes the one contradicts the other.”

Broadus -The image in the secondmember is from gathering grain in harvest,
as in Mt 3:12; Mt 6:26; John 4:36. Men often fancy that they are by no means
opposing Christ’s service, though not engaged in it; that they are friendly to
religion in others, though not personallyreligious. But in the nature of the
case, this is impossible. Stier: “Neutrality here is no neutrality, but a
remaining on the side of the enemy; indolence here is no mere indolence, but
opposition; the merely not believing and not obeying is still resistance and
rejection.” The gospelis of such a nature, as to its offers and its claims, that it
cannot tolerate indifference. If it deserves our respect, it deserves ourentire
and hearty reception. If we are not yielding Christ our whole heart, we are
really yielding him nothing. Professedneutrality, with real hostility of heart,
may even be more offensive to Him, and is sometimes more injurious in its
influence, than avowedopposition.—In Mark 9:40; Luke 9:50+ there is an
expressionwhich at first seems to contradictthis, viz., ‘He that is not against
us is for us.’ But so far is this from being the case that both sayings
(Alexander) “may be exemplified in the experience of the very same persons.
For example, Nicodemus, by refusing to take part with the Sanhedrin against
our Lord, although he did not venture to espouse his cause, provedhimself to
be upon his side (John 7:50 f.); but if he had continued the same course when
the crisis had arrived, he would equally have proved himself to be against
him.” Comp. the apparently contradictory sayings of Prov. 26:4 f.; Gal. 6:2, 5;
Rom. 3:28, as relatedto James 2:24.. (Matthew 12 Commentary)
THOUGHT - This axiomatic apophthegm reminds me of the famous scene in
the Alamo - "Those who stay, cross overthe line (in the sand)." - see
"Drawing a Line in the Sand" (Video). The line betweenthe Kingdom of
Jesus and the Kingdom of Satan has been clearly drawn in the "eternalsands
of time" (so to speak). There is no straddling the middle. Jesus said"If anyone
wishes to come after Me, he must deny himself, and take up his cross and
follow Me. Forwhoeverwishes to save his life will lose it, but whoeverloses
his life for My sake and the gospel’s willsave it. For what does it profit a man
to gain the whole world, and forfeit his soul?" (Mk 8:34-36)Have you lost
your life for the sake ofJesus? Have you crossedoverthe line? There is no
straddling this line! To not chose to follow Jesus is a decisionagainstHim!

Gather (4863)(sunago from sun = with + ago = to lead, ) means literally to lead
together. To gather (in) or gather(up) (Mt 13:47;25:24, 26; Lk 3:17; 15:13;
Jn 6:12f; 15:6). It is the opposite skorpizo (scatter)and merizo (distribute,
divide out);
Scatters (presenttense - continually)(4650)(skorpizo)means scatteror
disperse, to cause a group or gathering to go in various directions. It is the
opposite sunago (gather). It is used as a metaphor drawn from seedsowing,
for what one does to help those in need distribute, disperse, give generously
(2Co 9.9)
GREG ALLEN
"Either One or the Other"
Matthew 12:22-33
Theme: The Holy Spirit's revelationof Jesus forces eachpersonto make a
decisionto either receive Him as goodor rejectHim as evil.
(Delivered Sunday, July 2, 2006 atBethany Bible Church. Unless otherwise
noted, all Scripture references are takenfrom The Holy Bible, New King
James Version; copyright 1982, Thomas Nelson, Inc.)
This morning's passageis a bit like a chainsaw. Pick it up carelessly, and
somebody is bound to get hurt by it.
I'm not the only one who has that opinion. I read of one commentator who
said he believed this morning's passage has done more harm to people than
good;and that he even wondered why God chose to include it in the
Scriptures. He felt so strongly about this, in fact, that he even urged that no
pastor should ever preach from it.

Well; I believe, of course, that there is no portion of God's word that does not
have a blessing to give us—if we handle it correctly!I believe that's even true
of this morning's passage.In fact, I believe that once we getpast the
immediate problems it seems to present, and getdown to the realheart of its
message, Godcanuse this passageto bless us greatly. He can even use it to call
someone to eternal life.
But I also believe that it should be handled with greathumility, and with a
reliance on the Holy Spirit's guidance and help. I hope then that, by God's
grace, we will handle this remarkable passage correctlytoday—and gain the
greatestpossible blessing from it.
* * * * * * * * * *
This passageis a part of our ongoing study of Matthew's Gospel. It tells us of
an encounter that the Lord Jesus had with the religious leaders of His day as a
result of a notable miracle He performed.
Jesus—aswe have seenin the twelfth chapter of Matthew—was experiencing
increasing oppositionfrom the Jewishreligious leaders. And in this morning's
passage, thatopposition came to a very decisive point. It says:
Then one was brought to Him who was demon-possessed, blind and mute; and
He healed him, so that the blind and mute man both spoke and saw. And all
the multitudes were amazed and said, “Couldthis be the Son of David?” Now
when the Pharisees heardit they said, “This fellow does not castout demons
exceptby Beelzebub, the ruler of the demons.” But Jesus knew their thoughts,
and said to them: “Every kingdom divided againstitself is brought to
desolation, and every city or house divided againstitself will not stand. If
Satancasts out Satan, he is divided againsthimself. How then will his
kingdom stand? And if I castout demons by Beelzebub, by whom do your
sons castthem out? Therefore they shall be your judges. But if I castout
demons by the Spirit of God, surely the kingdom of God has come upon you.
Or how can one enter a strong man’s house and plunder his goods, unless he
first binds the strong man? And then he will plunder his house. He who is not
with Me is againstMe, and he who does not gather with Me scatters abroad.

“Therefore I sayto you, every sin and blasphemy will be forgiven men, but
the blasphemy againstthe Spirit will not be forgiven men. Anyone who speaks
a word againstthe Son of Man, it will be forgiven him; but whoeverspeaks
againstthe Holy Spirit, it will not be forgiven him, either in this age or in the
age to come.
“Either make the tree goodand its fruit good, or else make the tree bad and
its fruit bad; for a tree is knownby its fruit.” (Matthew 12:22-33).
* * * * * * * * * *
As you probably noticed as I read this passage, there is—tuckedawayin the
middle of it—something mentioned that has causeda lot of anxiety and
problems for a lot of people. It's the whole question of the so-called
“unpardonable sin”.
Let me share with you about something that happened to me last week. Near
the end of the week, as I was preparing to study this passage, Icheckedmy
email late one night; and I found a note from someone who visited our church
website. As you might know, we have a feature on our website through which
visitors cansend in a question about a particular Bible passageora spiritual
issue;and this particular person wrote to ask me to explain what the
'unpardonable sin' was all about.
I wrote back to them and told them that, as it happened, I was about to
preach from that very passage!I did my best to summarize for them how I
understood the whole matter of the “unpardonable sin”, and then sentmy
note off to them. But here's the remarkable thing: No soonerdid I sent that
note off to that person, than I checkedmy email one more time just before
going home to bed. And when I did, I found that I had just then received
another question from a completely different person asking the very same
question! At first, I thought someone was playing a joke on me. But after I
read it carefully, I could see that it was not a joke at all.
Well; this was much easierto dealwith the secondtime around! I simply
copied what I wrote for that first person, and sent it off to the secondperson
as well. It answeredmany of the questions they were asking. I have to admit

that, after I did so, I wonderedif that secondperson was a little amazed that
they gota detailed response so quickly! But whateverthey thought, I know
that I was greatlysurprised to have receivedtwo notes on the same evening
from two different visitors to our website—bothasking the same question!
The secondpersonwho wrote was writing with a certainamount of anxiety.
They were concernedthat they themselves had committed the “unpardonable
sin”. And as a pastor, I have talked to many people who were afraid they had
done so. I believe that, through this little email exchange the other night, God
was reminding me that this is a very relevant and important concernto some
people; and that I should handle this passage withgreatcare.
So; here's what I'd like to do this morning. I'd like, first, to deal with the
whole question of the “unpardonable sin” that's mentioned in this passage. I'd
like to clearthings up, to the best of my ability, so that this question doesn't
stand in our way and that no one here has any undue anxieties about it. And
then, I'd like to focus on what this passage is REALLY about.
You see;this passage is NOT about the “unpardonable sin”. In fact, that sin is
only an incidental part of what this passageis really about. And I believe that,
once we understand what this passageis really about, we'll better understand
the “unpardonable sin” that is mentioned in it.
* * * * * * * * * *
The setting of this passage is very important to notice—thatis, the opposition
Jesus was receiving from the religious leaders of the day. Jesus had healeda
man on the Sabbath day in their synagogue;and as far as the Pharisees were
concerned, this was the last straw! He was proving Himself to be the Son of
God; but they would not believe in Him or receive Him as such. And so, they
plotted togetherhow they might destroy Him. This growing and intensifying
opposition againstJesus is the immediate context of this morning's passage.
So; when we come to this morning's passage, we find that Jesus healeda
demon-possessedman. Before their very eyes, the Holy Spirit was
authenticating to them that Jesus was the long-awaitedJewishMessiah. Other

people who observed it all were even beginning to wonder; saying, “Could
This be the Son of David?”
But upon hearing that, the Pharisees jumped in and accusedJesus ofbeing
able to castout demons "by Beelzebub, the ruler of the demons" (v. 24). And
this was what evokedthose startling words from Jesus:“Therefore Isay to
you, every sin and blasphemy will be forgiven men, but the blasphemy against
the Spirit will not be forgiven men. Anyone who speaks a word againstthe
Son of Man, it will be forgiven him; but whoeverspeaks againstthe Holy
Spirit, it will not be forgiven him, either in this age or in the age to come.”
Mark, in his telling of this story, adds that Jesus spoke these words to the
Pharisees "becausethey said, 'He has an unclean spirit'" (Mark 3:30).
So; howeverwe understand the “unpardonable sin", we have to see it in the
context of the factthat the Phariseeswitnessedthe work of the Holy Spirit
being exhibited through Jesus personally;but then attributed the power to
perform that work to an evil source. It is a sin that was committed when
Jewishreligious leaders witnessedthe actualwork of Jesus Christ in
performing a miracle through the power of the Holy Spirit in an undeniable
way and in His bodily presence. And yet, they were so persistently hardened
in their hearts againstJesus that they dared to call the Holy Spirit the devil.
Now;that's all that the Bible tells us about this remarkable sin—this
“unpardonable” sin. We don't have a right to define it in any other way than
that. And that means that, strictly speaking, this is NOT a sin that can be
committed by anyone today. It was a unique sin, committed at a unique time,
by a unique people; and that was why it receivedsuch a unique
condemnation!
I believe that, today, there is absolutely no sin today that Jesus Christ cannot
and will not forgive, if the sinner confessesand repents. And what's more, I
believe that people who are fearful that they have committed the
“unpardonable sin”, and who worry that they will now never be forgiven,
actually prove by the presence of their fearthat they haven't committed it at
all! The Bible teaches us that it is the gracious work of the Holy Spirit to
“convictthe world of sin, and of righteousness, andof judgment . . .” (John

16:8); and so, I believe that a man or womanwho sincerely feels the conviction
of sin is experiencing the gracious work ofHoly Spirit; because apartfrom the
grace ofthe Holy Spirit, he or she wouldn't even feelthe convictionof sin at
all.
* * * * * * * * * *
Now;in all of this, we should remember that the Holy Spirit is just that—most
holy! At the very least, Jesus'words concerning the dreadful seriousnessof
blaspheming the Holy Spirit should teachus that we should not speak about
the Spirit or His ministry in a flippant or careless way. And I certainly believe
that we should be very careful about referring to preachers orChristian
ministries or denominations that we don't happen to like as “of the devil”. Be
very careful about that! And most certainly, I believe this passageteachesus
that we should always respond with the utmost reverence to what ever it is
that the Holy Spirit seeksto teachus from the Scriptures about Jesus.
And that brings us to what this passageis really about. Its main concernis not
about “the unpardonable sin”. That, as I have said, is incidental to what it is
really seeking to teach us. If you would like a keyverse for this passage, I
would say that it's verse 28;where Jesus says to the Jewishleaders, “But if I
castout demons by the Spirit of God, surely the kingdom of God has come
upon you.” That's the main point—that there, before them, was their long
awaitedKing. The kingdom of God has come upon them, and is now there
before them in the person of the King Himself. And if you would like a verse
that highlights the key application of this passage,I would say it's verse 33;
where Jesus calls those Phariseesto make a clear-cutdecisionabout Himself:
“Either make the tree goodand its fruit good, or else make the tree bad and
its fruit bad; for a tree is knownby its fruit.”
The point of this passage forus today, then, is that the Holy Spirit's revelation
of Jesus forces eachone of us to realize who Jesus is and make a decision
about Him. We have been given the testimony of Jesus— written down for us
in the pages ofthe Holy Scriptures that the Holy Spirit has preserved for us,
and authenticatedto us by the inner testimony of the Holy Spirit Himself with
respectto the truth of these things. In fact, we stand at an even greater

advantage than the Pharisees ofold; because we have the full story—not only
of His righteous life and of His miracles as those Pharisees knew ofthese
things; but also of His death, His burial, His resurrection, His ascension, and
of His ongoing ministry over the past two-thousand years of changing the lives
of those who trust Him.
People in our day have a far greaterand more complete testimony of the truth
about Jesus Christ. And now, it comes before us to either receive Him as good
or reject Him as evil. The way we will choose withrespectto Jesus is what
reveals the nature of what is in our heart. That's what this passage is really all
about.
Note, first, then . . .
1. THE SITUATION OF HEALING (v. 22).
We're told, “Thenone was brought to Him who was demon-possessed, blind
and mute . . .” There are stories in the Bible of how demons afflicted people in
harmful physical ways (see Matthew 9:32-34;17:15-18);and apparently, this
poor man had a demon that afflicted him in just such a way. And while there
were some Jewishpeople in those days who 'claimed' to have the ability to
castout demons1; none of them would dare to claim to be able to do so in such
a way as to heal a man's blindness and restore his ability to speak. To do that
would be a notable miracle—one that would immediately verify whether or
not that the person truly had the power and authority to castout demons.
And by the way; I can't help but think of what a picture it was of the
helplessnessofa sinner apart from God's grace. The demon that oppressed
him had effectivelyclosedhim off from the way of life. He lived at the time
when Jesus walkedthe earth; and there were blind men in that day who cried
out to Jesus for mercy (Matthew 9:27). But this poor man was not only unable
to see the Savior, but he wasn'teven able to cry out for mercy. The Bible tells
us that “the god of this age” is able to blind the minds of those who are
perishing, “who do not believe, lestthe light of the gospelofthe glory of
Christ, who is the image of God, should shine on them” (2 Corinthians 4:3-4).

Apart from the grace ofGod, you and I are no better off than that poor blind
man. But Matthew tells us that he was brought to Jesus, “andHe healed him,
so that the blind and mute man both spoke and saw.” This, then, was a
remarkable miracle; and it was also a great actof kindness and mercy on the
part of our Saviortoward this poor man. It was a picture, if I may, of the
'regenerative'grace ofGod—calling the sinner to live; giving him or her eyes
to see their need; giving him or her ears to hear the gospel;and giving him or
her the voice to cry out to God for salvation and confess faith in Christ.
* * * * * * * * * *
This leads us, next, to notice . . .
2. THE REACTIONS OF THE WITNESSES(vv. 23-24).
Those who brought the poor man to Jesus—andperahps others who stood by
and witnessedit—were astonishedatwhat they saw. The word in the Greek2
means that they were “put out of their place” by it. They were astonishedat
the things they saw;and they beganto ask questions about Him. “Could this
be the Son of David”—thatis, the long-awaitedMessiah(2 Samuel7:27)? In
fact, according to the way it's worded in the original language, it was almost
as if they were in some measure of disbelief about Him, but were still so
astounded by Him as to be uncertain about their disbelief! The New American
Standard Version translates it best: “This man cannot be the Sonof David,
can he?”
And it was right then that the Pharisees jumped into the picture! People were
beginning to believe on Him; and they had to put a stop to it. Matthew tells us,
“Now when the Pharisees heardit [that is, the things that the people were
beginning to sayabout Jesus], they said, 'This fellow does not castout demons
exceptby Beelzebub, the ruler of the demons.'”
To say that Jesus operatedin the power of Beelzebubwas an extremely vulgar
blasphemy! This was a play on the name of a false god; and the Jewishpeople
altered it to mean, “lord of the flies” or “lord of dung”. It was a name that had
come to be understood by the Jewishpeople as a reference to Satan. Jesus
Himself warned His disciples that His enemies treat Him shamefully, they will

also treat His followers shamefully: “If they have called the master of the
house Beelzebub, how much more will they callthose of his household?”
(Matthew 10:25).
And this wasn'tthe only time that the Pharisees saidthis kind of thing about
Jesus. In Matthew 9:34, when He had casta demon out of a different man and
healed him of his inability to speak, they said, “He casts outdemons by the
ruler of the demons”. So, this wasn'ta spontaneous reaction. It was the
expressionof a heart that was progressivelyhardening againstthe Savior.
Here, they were basicallysaying that the fact that He was able to exercise
authority over demons was because He Himself was enabled to do so by the
devil. They never recognizedthat He had authority over the demons
because—as the Son of God in human flesh—He had authority over the devil
as well!
When Jesus physically gave sight and voice to the man, He revealedthe
spiritual condition of the Pharisees. Onanother occasion, Jesussaid, “For
judgment I have come into this world, that those who do not see may see, and
that those who see may be made blind” (John 9:39).
* * * * * * * * * *
So, this underscores the deep hardness and sinfulness of the hearts of the
Pharisees.It was evident that they were trying to dissuade people from
believing on Jesus as a result of this miracle. They were trying to prevent
people from seeing Lord Jesus operating in the powerof the Holy Spirit, and
from coming to the conclusionthat He was the promised Messiahsentfrom
God. They were actually seeking to stifle belief in Him. Later on in Matthew's
Gospel, Jesus wouldbring this back upon them and say, “But woe to you,
scribes and Pharisees, hypocrites!For you shut up the kingdom of heaven
againstmen; for you neither go in yourselves, nor do you allow those who are
entering to go in” (Matthew 23:13).
It's very important to understand the seriousnessofwhat they were doing.
There, standing before them, was the long-awaitedMessiah. And here they
were, the religious leaders of the people—the very ones who should have been
there to welcome their King—seeing Him perform miracles in the powerof

the Holy Spirit; and yet, rejecting Him, and despising Him, and going so far as
to say that He operatedin the power of the devil . . . all in order to keeppeople
from trusting Him.
It's important to understand what a lostopportunity this was for the leaders
of the Jewishpeople. And it's important to understand what a decisive
reactionto Him it was. As the Scriptures tells us, “He came to His own, and
His own did not receive Him” (John 1:11).
By the way; how do you reactto what the Holy Spirit has revealedabout
Him? Have you truly receivedHim and trusted Him?
* * * * * * * * * *
Matthew tells us that none of this was hidden from the Lord. Matthew writes,
“But Jesus knew their thoughts . . .” And what's more, He responded to those
thoughts; and showedhow foolish and nonsensicalit was to reject Him on the
argument that He operated in the powerof the devil. This leads us, then, to
next consider. . .
3. THE ARGUMENTS OF OUR LORD (vv. 25-29).
First, Jesus saidto them, “Every kingdom divided againstitselfis brought to
desolation, and every city or house divided againstitself will not stand” (v.
22). This is just a matter of common sense. No organization—no institution—
no corporation—no family can stand if it is in discord with itself. If it fights
againstitself, and actively seeks to undo its own interests, it is doomed.
We might call this “the principle of disunity”. And Jesus takesthis principle
and applies it to the argument of the PhariseesagainstHim to show how
absurd it was:“If Satan casts outSatan, he is divided againsthimself. How
then will his kingdom stand?” (v. 23). Satanisn't stupid. He spreads his own
evil kingdom by destroying men; and if he himself were in the habit of casting
out his own demons, then he would be undoing his own kingdom. If that were
the case,then the Phariseeswouldthen have done best to simply shut up and
watchthe devil destroy himself.

But Jesus was showing them that, in casting demons out of men, He was
undoing the kingdom of Satan; and that He could not therefore be operating
in the powerof Satan.
* * * * * * * * * *
Second, Jesus seems to allow them their argument, just to show how arbitrary
their accusationwas. Thatfirst argument demonstratedthat the Pharisees
were mistakenabout Jesus;and this secondargument demonstrates the
hardness of their heart towardHim. He said, “And if I castout demons by
Beelzebub, by whom do your sons castthem out?” (v. 27).
Some have suggestedthat Jesus was arguing from the fact that the Jews had
people within their ranks who claimed to be able to castout demons. Jesus
referred to them as the Pharisees “sons”—thatis, their followers;and it would
be as if He were saying, “Think of your own followers who are 'exorcists'. Tell
Me, do they do their work by the power of the devil or by the powerof God?
Obviously, you're not going to make the claim that your own 'sons'castout
demons by the prince of demons! But I am, at the very least, doing nothing
else than what they claim to be able to do. And if that's the case,then why to
you acceptthem and condemn Me? Therefore, they stand as a condemnation
againstyou for being so arbitrary in your condemnation of Me.”
That's one way of looking at this. But personally, I question that the followers
of the Pharisees everhad such an ability. I believe Jesus was pointing to the
fact that they couldn't castanything out at all. There were stories of Jewish
exorcisms;but they are fanciful and ridiculous. And so, I take it that, when
Jesus said, “And if I castout demons by Beelzebub, by whom do your sons
castthem out?”, it was meant to point to the fact that it was by nobody—
because they couldn't castany demons out at all! This, I believe, makes sense
of the fact that He speaks in the future tense;and says, “Therefore theyshall
be your judges” (v. 27). In the end, the inability of the sons of the Pharisees
will condemn them; and will prove that the results of their exorcists was more
in keeping with Satan's kingdom plan to keepdemons in—because Jesus
actually castdemons out; and they castout nothing!

This too, I believe, makes more sense ofthe conclusionJesus draws in this
argument: “But if I castout demons by the Spirit of God, surely the kingdom
of God has come upon you” (v. 28). He forces the Phariseesto the inevitable
conclusion. Since they could not castany out; then it was only revealing that
Jesus truly did operate in the powerof the Holy Spirit—and this would mean
that there, standing before them, was the King Himself. The kingdom of God
had now come upon them; and they must now choose whatthey will do with
the King.
* * * * * * * * * *
And third, Jesus asks, “Orhow can one enter a strong man's house and
plunder his good, unless he first binds the strong man?” (v. 29). This, again,
was just common sense. No thief would dare to break into the house of a
world-class bodybuilder, or a professional wrestler, ora holder of a black-belt
in Karate, or a champion rifle-marksman, without first making precautionary
use of duct-tape and a chair! Once he has successfullybound the “strong
man”, the thief will have made it impossible for the strong man to stop him.
As Jesus says, “And then he will plunder his house.”
In this parable, Satanis the strong man, and the souls of men and women are
the plunder. Jesus is clearlyindicating that He has exercisedsuperiority over
the devil in that He is plundering Satan's domain—and that, being bound by
Him, Satancan do nothing to stop Him.
* * * * * * * * * *
Now, all of this is meant to do two things. First, it was meant to remove from
the Phariseesthe ability to argue that Jesus operatedin the powerof the devil.
And second, it was meant to force them to the inescapable conclusionthat the
kingdom of God had truly come upon them in the personof the King Himself.
But in spite of it all, they would not receive Him. Instead, they hardened their
hearts againstHim. And this leads us, next, to consider . . .
4. THE WARNING AGAINST HARDNESS OF HEART (v.. 30-32).

First, Jesus warns them that there is no neutrality with Him. It's black or
white when it comes to our response to Jesus. He said, “He who is not with Me
is againstMe, and he who does not gatherwith Me scatters abroad” (v. 30).
Jesus has spokenof only two kingdoms—the kingdom of God (of which He
was King), or the kingdom of the devil (of which He was the enemy). There
was no possibility of a third kingdom being formed by the Pharisees. There
was no other alternatives. There was no middle-ground. The Pharisees were
either of one kingdom or the other.
And yet, even today, people believe that they can be neutral towardJesus. But
He has put everyone at the fork of a decision. In Matthew 10:32-33, He has
said, “Therefore whoeverconfessesMe before men, him I will also confess
before My Father who is in heaven. But whoeverdenies Me before men, him I
will also deny before My Fatherwho is in heaven.”
If we think that we are simply being “neutral” toward the Lord Jesus, we are
deceiving ourselves and are—in fact—blinded by the devil. To not be “with”
Him is to set one's self “against”Him. To not “gather” with Him is to
“scatter” in oppositionto Him.
* * * * * * * * * *
And then, Jesus takesit a step further and warns that there is no hope for
those who thus persist in hardening their hearts againstHim. In the case of
the Pharisees;to see the truth about Jesus, to have Him revealedbefore their
eyes by the Holy Spirit, and then to dare to blaspheme the work of the Holy
Spirit for having revealed the truth, was to commit a sin that revealedan
unredeemable heart. Jesus told the Pharisees, “ThereforeI say to you, every
sin and blasphemy will be forgiven men, but the blasphemy againstthe Spirit
will not be forgiven men. Anyone who speaks a word againstthe Son of Man,
it will be forgiven him; but whoeverspeaks againstthe Holy Spirit, it will not
be forgiven him, either in this age or in the age to come.”
Someone might ask, “Whywas a word spokenagainstthe Son of Man
forgivable; but blasphemy againstthe Holy Spirit unforgivable?” I believe a
possible answermight be in the fact that, apart from the work of the Holy

Spirit, we can't even believe truly on the Lord Jesus Christ. In 1 Corinthians
12:3, Paul says, “ThereforeI make known to you that no one speaking by the
Spirit of Godcalls Jesus accursed, andno one can say that Jesus is Lord
exceptby the Holy Spirit.”
The ministry of the Holy Spirit, you see, is that of 'shining the spotlight' on
Christ (John 16:14). And it's one thing for the Pharisees ofthat day to have
misunderstood the One upon whom the light has been shined. That could be a
result blindness. But it's a completelydifferent thing to actually be blind to
the truth, and then go so far as to curse and blaspheme the 'spotlight' itself for
seeking to remove the blindness! That was a sin that the Phariseescommitted
with full knowledge andawarenessofwhat they were doing. It was an act of
profound hardness of heart. It was a sin that left no room for the grace of
God. What hope is there for someone who would do that?
* * * * * * * * * *
Well; all of this has been intended to presentJesus to us—and to show Him to
be who He truly is. And this leads us, finally, to . . .
5. THE CALL TO MAKE A CHOICE (v. 33).
Jesus saidto the Pharisees thatit was time to make a choice. There could be
no more wishy-washiness. He said, “Eithermake the tree goodand its fruit
good, or else make the tree bad and its fruit bad; for a tree is knownby its
fruit” (v. 33).
He was, in effect, saying, “It's time to come to a conclusion. You can't ride the
fence any longer. You can't get by with simply saying, 'Well, it's a goodthing
that this Man who claims to be the Messiahcasts outdemons. I'm all for
casting out demons! But I don't acceptHis claim! I believe that He is doing a
thing that God would approve. His fruit is good. But I don't acceptHim, and I
say that He's doing it all in the powerof the devil. The fruit may be good, but
the tree is bad!' You can't saythat kind of thing anymore. You now must
choose!Either say that, in casting out demons, I do evil and am evil at the
root; or say that, in casting out demons, I do the work of God through the
powerof the Holy Spirit, and am of God!”

* * * * * * * * * *
That is, I believe, what this passageis meant to do. It's meant to bring us to
the point of decision. Will we receive Jesus forwho the Spirit shows Him to
be? Or will we try to ride the fence; and saythat Jesus did good;but was not
who the Spirit was showing Him to be.
The leaders of the Jewishpeople rejectedtheir King. But it now comes upon
you and me to say, “Theymay have disbelieved what the Spirit said about
You, Lord Jesus;but I believe! They may have disownedYou; but I claim
You. They may have rejectedYou; but I receive You!”
May that be the way that eachof us personally responds to the testimony of
the Holy Spirit concerning Jesus!Because there is no middle ground. It's
either one or the other!
1See Josephus, The Wars of The Jews, 7.6.3;also Acts 19:13.
2Existnmi; to put out of place;to astonishor amaze. Here, this is given in the
imperfect tense; which suggests a growing sense ofamazement.
Misseda message?Check the Archives!
Copyright © 2006 BethanyBible Church, All Rights Reserved
BARCLAY
The Impossibility Of Neutrality (Matthew 12:30)
12:30 "He who is not with me is againstme, and he who does not gatherwith
me scatters abroad."
The picture of gathering and scattering may come from either of two
backgrounds. It may come from harvesting; he who is not sharing in
gathering the harvest is scattering the grain abroad, and is therefore losing it

to the wind. It may come from shepherding; he who is not helping to keepthe
flock safe by bringing it into the fold is driving it out to the dangers of the
hills.
In this one piercing sentence Jesuslays down the impossibility of neutrality.
W. C. Allen writes: "In this war againstSatan's strongholds there are only
two sides, for Christ or againsthim, gathering with him or scattering with
Satan." We may take a very simple analogy. We may apply this saying to
ourselves and to the Church. If our presence does not strengthen the Church,
then our absence is weakening it. There is no halfway house. In all things a
man has to choose his side; abstention from choice, suspendedaction, is no
way out, because the refusalto give one side assistance is in factthe giving of
support to the other.
There are three things which make a man seek this impossible neutrality.
(i) There is the sheer inertia of human nature. It is true of so many people that
the only thing they desire is to be left alone. They automatically shrink away
from anything which is disturbing, and even choice is a disturbance.
(ii) There is the sheercowardice ofhuman nature. Many a man refuses the
way of Christ because he is afraid to take the stand which Christianity
demands. The basic thing that stops him is the thought of what other people
will say. The voice of his neighbours is louder in his ears than the voice of
God.
(iii) There is the sheerflabbiness of human nature. Mostpeople would rather
have security than adventure, and the older they grow the more that is so. A
challenge always involves adventure; Christ comes to us with a challenge, and
often we would rather have the comfort of selfish inaction than the adventure
of action for Christ.
The saying of Jesus--"He who is not with me is againstme"--presents us with
a problem, for both Mark and Luke have a saying which is the very reverse,
"He that is not againstus is for us" (Mark 9:40; Luke 9:50). But they are not
so contradictory as they seem. It is to be noted that Jesus spoke the secondof
them when his disciples came and told him that they had sought to stop a man

from casting out devils in his name, because he was not one of their company.
So a wise suggestionhas been made. "He that is not with me is againstme," is
a test that we ought to apply to ourselves. Am I truly on the Lord's side, or,
am I trying to shuffle through life in a state of cowardlyneutrality? "He that
is not againstus is for us," is a test that we ought to apply to others. Am I
given to condemning everyone who does not speak with my theologyand
worship with my liturgy and share my ideas? Am I limiting the Kingdom of
God to those who think as I do?
The saying in this present passageis a test to apply to ourselves;the saying in
Mark and Luke is a test to apply to others; for we must everjudge ourselves
with sternness and other people with tolerance.
JIM BOMBKAMP
VS 12:30 - “30 “He who is not with Me is againstMe; and he who does not
gather with Me scatters”” - Jesus reveals that there is no middle ground
regarding being on His side
7.1. Jesus teachesthat the person who is not ‘with’ Him is really against
Him
7.1.1. Whena personputs off or refuses to make a decisionto follow Christ,
He really has made a decisionagainstChrist, and he is regardedas an enemy
of Christ
7.2. Jesus teachesthat the person who ‘does not gather’with Him
‘scatters’
7.2.1. Christdwells in the midst of His people, and the person who refuses to
come in and dwell among God’s people in the church and when the body of
Christ assemblesis a person who also has rejectedHim

7.2.2. In Heb. 10:25, the author teaches us that it is important that we not
miss those times when the body of Christ assemble togetherin His Name,
“25Notforsakingthe assembling of ourselves together, as the manner of some
is; but exhorting one another: and so much the more, as ye see the day
approaching”
7.2.3. The word‘scatters’that Jesus uses here is an interesting one for it
implies ‘going in every direction’, perhaps much in the sense that ‘tossedto
and fro’ implies in Ephesians 4:14, “14 As a result, we are no longer to be
children, tossedhere and there by waves, and carried about by every wind of
doctrine, by the trickery of men, by craftiness in deceitful scheming;15 but
speaking the truth in love, we are to grow up in all aspects into Him, who is
the head, even Christ”
7.2.3.1.Strong’sGreek Dictionaryhas the following entry for this word
translated, ‘scatters’: “4650 skorpizo { skor-pid’-zo} apparently from the
same as 4651 (through the idea of penetrating); TDNT - 7:418,1048;v AV -
scatter3, scatterabroad 1, disperse abroad 1; 5 GK - 5025 { skorpivzw } 1)
to scatter1a)of those who, routed or terror strickenor driven by some other
impulses, fly in every direction 1b) to scatterabroad(what others may
collectfor themselves), or one dispensing blessings literally”
7.2.3.2.Itis interesting to me that Jesus uses this word because this is exactly
what happens in Christians’ lives when they begin to miss church services and
Bible Studies, then sortof go off on tangents in every which direction, both
doctrinally and in their conduct or behavior
7.2.3.3.This principle is illustrated very well by looking a coals ona fire, for if
all the coals are kept togetherthey will all staynice and hot, howeverif you
take one out of the fire and place in on the hearth, it begins to cooldown and
soongoes out, so happens to a Christian’s life if he makes it a habit of missing
the church services and Bible Studies

CALVIN
30. He that is not with me. There are two ways of explaining this passage.
Some suppose that it is an argument drawn from contraries, and that Christ’s
meaning is: “I cannotreign till the devil is overthrown; for the object of all his
attempts is, to scatterwhateverI gather.” And certainly we see abundant
evidence of the earnestnesswith which that enemy labors to destroy the
kingdom of Christ. But I rather agree in opinion with those who explain it to
denote, that the scribes are declaredto be, in two respects, opposedto the
kingdom of God, because they intentionally hinder its progress. “Itwas your
duty to assistme, and to give me your hand in establishing the kingdom of
God; for whoeverdoes not assistis, in some measure, opposedto me, or, at
least, deserves to be reckonedamong enemies. What then shall be said of you,
whose furious rage drives you into avowedopposition?” 126
And he that gathereth not with me scatterethThe truth of this is abundantly
manifest from what has been already said; for so strong is our propensity to
evil, that the justice of God can have no place but in those who apply to it in
goodearnest. This doctrine has a still more extensive bearing, and implies that
they are unworthy to be consideredas belonging to the flock of Christ, who do
not apply to it all the means that are in their power; because their indolence
tends to retard and ruin the kingdom of God, which all of us are called to
advance.
RICH CATHERS
:30 "He who is not with Me is againstMe, and he who does not gather with
Me scatters abroad.
You’re either for Jesus oragainstJesus.
Greg Laurie likes to say that when you want to geton an elevator, there are
only two buttons – up or down. There’s no “undecided”. You are either for
Jesus or againstme.

You either “gather” with Jesus, or you are guilty of scattering what God
intends to be gathered.
You are either helping people come to Jesus, oryou’re keeping people from
coming to Jesus.
A. T. ROBERTSON
Verse 30
He that is not with me (ο μη ων μετ εμου — ho mē ōn met' emou). With these
solemn words Jesus draws the line of cleavage betweenhimself and his
enemies then and now. Jesus still has his enemies who hate him and all noble
words and deeds because theysting what conscience theyhave into fury. But
we may have our choice. We either gather with (συναγων — sunagōn) Christ
or scatter(σκορπιζει — skorpizei) to the four winds. Christ is the magnet of
the ages.He draws or drives away. “Satanis the arch-waster, Christthe
collector, Saviour” (Bruce).
Matthew 12:30f
by Grant | Sep19, 2008 | Matthew | 7 comments
ReadIntroduction to Matthew
30He who is not with Me is againstMe, and he who does not gather with Me
scatters abroad. 31“ThereforeI sayto you, every sin and blasphemy will be
forgiven men, but the blasphemy againstthe Spirit will not be forgiven men.
32Anyone who speaks a word againstthe Sonof Man, it will be forgiven him;

but whoeverspeaks againstthe Holy Spirit, it will not be forgiven him, either
in this age or in the age to come.
Jesus now invited the crowd to make a clearconclusionabout His claim to
Messiahship.
12:30
He who is not with Me is againstMe,
Jesus challengedthe crowdto make a choice for Him or againstHim. The
Pharisees made their choice by attributing the claims of Jesus to the demonic
work of Satan. Since they were not “with” Him, they were “against’Him.
There is no neutrality or middle ground when we face the claims of Christ.
People are on one side or the other when it comes to Jesus. He draws a line of
difference betweenpeople who embrace Him and those who rejectHim.
and he who does not gatherwith Me scatters abroad.
Those who rejectedJesus as the Messiahby not gathering people to Him
(harvesting) instead scatteredpeople who might have acceptedHim as
Messiah.
The GreatDivide
This entry was postedin Matthew (Rayburn) on September 26, 2004 by Rev.
Dr. Robert S. Rayburn.
Matthew 12:22-37
In this sectionof the Gospelof Matthew, the seconddevotedto the narrative
of the Lord’s ministry, we have been treatedto the accountof various

responses thatpeople made to the Lord. We have seenthe confusion of John
the Baptist, the rejectionof the Lord by the population of severalGalilean
towns, and now the opposition of the Pharisees, the Jewishsectthat was to
prove most adamant and relentless in their rejectionof him. The first
paragraph of chapter 12, which we consideredtwo Lord’s Days back, is an
accountof their accusing the Lord of violating the Sabbath commandment
and his response to that accusation. Now the accountof the Lord’s dealings
with the Phariseescontinues afterthe brief intermission provided by the
intervening paragraph, the paragraph we consideredlast Lord’s Day
morning, in which God’s own verdict on Jesus as the Messiahis heard, his
response to Jesus, if you will.
v.22 Though it is not said in so many words, the man was healedbecause
the Lord castout the demon that was possessing him. That becomes clearin
the following verses.
v.23 “Sonof David” would mean Messiah, ofcourse, the promised
descendantwho would sit on David’s throne. The people are amazed at the
Lord’s powerand authority, but they are confused, as we said, because he
does not do what they supposedthe Messiahwoulddo when he appeared.
v.24 This statementof the Pharisees is very important, by the way, in
coming to understand the nature of a miracle. The supernatural powerwas
not in question; it could not be questioned. No one ever questioned it. So the
Pharisees were leftwith only one option: to argue that it was the Devil’s
power, not God’s. So much of what is claimed to be miraculous nowadays,
even by well-intentioned Christians, does not have this self-authenticating
character. The miracles claimed for faith healers and televangelistsdo not
force unbelievers to reckonwith the origin of such power. Modern so-called
miracles do not leave unbelievers with no option but to acceptthat
supernatural power is at work. Unbelievers, and believers too for that matter,
easilydismiss them as the work of charlatans or as the dreams of the gullible.
No one was ever able to do this with the Lord’s miracles.
v.27 The charge the Pharisees broughtagainstJesus was not only offensive
– that he was in fact the agent of Satan – but ridiculous. Satanwould hardly

deploy his power to attack his own interests in the world. What is more, the
Jews had their own exorcists. We hearof one of them in Acts 19:13 and
Josephus makes referenceto them. Whether they actually ever drove a
demon out of someone we have our doubts, but who cansay. There are so-
calledChristian exorcists around today, whateverone may think of either
their theologyor their effectiveness. Butthe Lord’s simple argument is that if
the Phariseesrecognize the reality of exorcismand the work of exorcists, why
should they criticize the Lord’s driving out of demons, all the more when it
was so wonderfully effective and was bringing deliverance to so many
heretofore benighted people.
v.28 But if his exorcisms are not of the Devil, then they are of the Spirit of
God and, if so, then God himself has come among them in the ministry of
Jesus. It may not be the Messianic rule they were expecting, but this victory
of God is over Satan, not Rome. They were looking for a physical victory,
Jesus had brought a spiritual one. In any case,Godwas at work. They should
reckonwith that fact.
v.29 Satanis powerless before the Spirit of God.
v.32 These are difficult verses, but takenin context and in keeping with the
teaching of the rest of the Bible, Jesus seems to be saying that a failure to
recognize the work of God in his own ministry – confusing, unexpected, even
incognito as it was in some ways – was not so greata sin and not so final an
error as a deliberate refusal to recognize God’s powerand presence whenit
was gloriouslyand triumphantly displayed, a deliberate rejectionof the light
when it was shining brightly for all to see. The latter was the sin of the
Pharisees who attributed to Satanthe Lord’s wonderful and healing miracle
working by the Spirit of God. Later on, in the rest of the NT, it would be the
same. The sin unto death, or the unforgivable sin, or the sin from which
someone would never be recoveredthrough repentance, is the sin of apostasy,
the overt rejectionof the gospelofChrist by someone who knew that Gospel,
had felt its power, and had, at leastfor a time, claimed to believe it. It is the
knowing and the emphatic rejectionof the light.

v.35 These verses are making the same point as those that came before
them. What a personsays and does depends upon and reveals what that
person is. The Pharisees’rejectionofJesus, their slander againsthim, showed
their true nature. Their opposition to Jesus revealedthese upstanding men,
these public paragons ofvirtue and religious zeal, to be vipers in fact.
v.36 Once again, as so often in the Gospel, it is the looming reality of the
Day of Judgment that changes everything. It is the knowledge ofthat coming
day by which one’s life in the present must be evaluated and it is in the light of
that coming day that a person must live now, or else he is without hope.
v.37 In Matthew 7:16-20 the metaphor of trees and their fruit were used to
refer to a person’s works. Here the person’s words reveal what the person
really is. Words, of course, are some of our, if not most of our, important
works. Thatis why they are a reliable basis for judgment. The Pharisees’
words – their abuse of Jesus – showedthem to be fundamentally opposedto
the plan and purpose of Godin the world. Their words revealedthat they
were anti-God, no matter their supposedzeal for God and his law. The words
Jesus is talking about here are not idle or careless because theyare only chit-
chat about the weatheror a carefree joke. He is speaking rather about those
words that reveal the fundamental dispositionof the heart, often without the
speakerevenrealizing it.
There is a greatdivide in this world, a separationof the entire human race
into two and only two communities. The Bible is emphatic and insistent on
this point. It is the emphasis here as it is in many places. In v. 35 the word
“good” is used 3 times and the word “bad” is used three times to underscore
the contrast. It is absolute. There are goodpeople and there are evil. That is
all. Human beings are always protesting this absoluteness. Theywould make
many more divisions or have none at all. The modern relativist sentiments of
our culture, inclusive, tolerant, accepting ofall views and ways of life as it
wishes to be, wants there to be but one humanity of which we are all a part,
howeverdifferent our views may be. Or, at the same time, it wants us to
acknowledge thatthere are a greatmany different categoriesofhuman
beings, though all equal and all to be approved.

Now the Bible recognizes thatthere is a sense in which there is but one
humanity. All human beings are createdby God in his image, all have
descendedfrom Adam and all are sinners and in need of salvation. In that
sense we are all one. But only in that sense. The salvationof God creates a
separation, a division and a division into two and only two kinds of human
beings.
In the Bible a person is either goodor evil, he is either righteous or
unrighteous, he is either a believer or an unbeliever, he is either a child of God
or a child of the Devil, he is either savedor lost. Always this single
alternative; always only the two possibilities;always either the one or the
other. And here the Lord assumes and teaches the same reality that is taught
everywhere else in Holy Scripture. There are goodtrees and bad trees, good
men and evil, those who will be condemned and those who will be acquitted on
the Dayof Judgement.
Men naturally would prefer what they think would be a more nuanced
evaluation of the human race. There are the supremely goodpeople, the very
goodpeople, the really good people, the better than average people, the
slightly better than average, the average, the slightly below average andso on.
What is more, they would like to take many more factors into account. Some
people gota goodstart and some a poor one. Some have lived in poverty and
some in wealth. Some have receiveda greateducationand some have
receivednone. Some have suffered grave injustice and some have lived in
peace and harmony. Surely all of that must be takeninto account. And, to be
sure, in the Last Judgement, God will take all of this perfectly into account.
But, important as these things are in some ways, they do not bear on the
fundamental division of mankind into two groups. It is not so in the Bible that
there are many different categoriesofhuman beings. It is never so in the
Bible or in the judgment of God. Savedor lost, goodor evil.
But the Bible also recognizes that this single division of the entire race into the
goodand the evil is not immediately obvious to our sight. There may be some
unbelievers among us this morning and perhaps they are thinking, “The gall
of these Christians to think themselves ‘good’ and everyone else ‘evil.’” That
is, of course, preciselywhat many people think about historic Christianity in

our day. That it is an arrogant viewpoint for claiming that it is truth and all
other religions and philosophies of life are falsehood. Peoplesay, “I know
some Christians and they don’t seemto be so much better or to live so much
better than some of the non-Christians I know.” Whatarrogance, whatnerve
to call yourselves goodand everyone else evil. I certainly don’t see it. Much
of the world doesn’t see it either.
That is exactly the way the Pharisees thought. They were deeply religious
men. They were famous in their day for their concernto live according to the
law of God. They were noteworthy for their zeal for obedience. Theyhave a
bad press because ofthe Lord’s searching condemnationof both their
viewpoint and their motives but, in their own day, they were actually highly
thought of by many Jewishpeople. But here Jesus calls them evil, and not
only evil, but vipers, snakes whosepoisonous bite kills people. And, on the
other hand, the people who followedJesus were oftenpeople with a shady
past, people with dubious employment (tax-collectors and the like), and, by
and large no accounts. Nothing about their lives – we are talking about
fishermen like Peterand John and some of the women who followedthe Lord
Jesus – nothing about their lives marked them out as better people than
anyone else. Peterwas as likelyto lose his temper as the next man and, if the
crowds had difficulty understanding what Jesus taught, so did his disciples.
Where is the greatdifference then? But, like it or not, Jesus makes this single
division betweengoodand evil people and lumps many people among the evil
whom we might have been inclined to suppose were good and some among the
goodwe might well have thought were among the evil.
Unbelievers may be surprised to learn that Christians have no difficulty
understanding their confusionon this point, even their doubt. Listen,
probably every Christian here would be quite ready to admit that there are
some unbelievers we know who are much easierto like than some Christians
we know. As someone has tartly put it, “Christians are an acquired taste.”
But there is more. Factis, the better sort of Christian, the more serious
Christian is somewhatembarrassedby this characterizationofhimself or
herself as “good” in comparisonto others who are “evil.” We Christians
know all too well how much evil there remains in us: pettiness, selfishness,
greed, lust, envy, jealousy, cruelty. It is all there and far too much there. We

don’t see ourselves as “better” than unbelievers. Often we see ourselves as
worse preciselybecause,knowing the Lord as we do, knowing his law, living
under the obligation to love him as he has loved us, having the Holy Spirit to
help us, we have no excuse whatsoeverfor our sins.
But, you see, that is the point here in the Lord’s remarks. The difference
betweenmen is not so superficial that it is easilyrecognizedat the surface.
True, there is a direction to the life of believers that is fundamentally different
from that of the life of unbelievers. There are different commitments,
different aspirations, different loyalties, different loves and hatreds. These
will lend to different lives, to be sure. But at the surface, at the level of words
and deeds there is not so greata difference that anyone and everyone notices
it. And sometimes we can be deceived, as the Bible candidly acknowledges.
We know very well, everyone does, ofpeople we thought were upright,
conscientious, moralpeople, but who are discoveredto have done terrible
things. And we know people who have done terrible things, who have hurt
other human beings terribly, who now, nevertheless, strike us as goodpeople.
We know there is more than simply outward behavior, than simply certain
acts of someone’s life that tells the tale of that life.
I remember so clearlythat terrible night, many years ago, when a young
woman of this congregation(she has since moved elsewhere), who had for
severalhours that evening babysat our children, was kidnapped just a few
blocks from our home. A Ft. Lewis soldier forcedhis way into the driver’s
seatof her caras she stopped at an intersectionon her way home. He kept
her through the night and sexually assaultedher. I will always remember my
first sight of her in the wee hours of that morning at the old Madigan
Hospital. Later I was presentat the military trial at which the young man
was convictedand sentencedto many years in the military prison at Ft.
Leavenworth, Kansas. I couldn’t help but look at that young man as the trial
proceeded. I listened to him tell the court how sorry he was for what he had
done. What he had done was pure evil. But I couldn’t help but feel sorry for
him. The consequencesofhis evil were heavy to bear indeed for that poor
young woman and for her loved ones. I don’t know what has become of that
young man. He is not so young any more. I imagine he is still in prison. In

the military one is much more likely to do the time. Surely, we think, such a
man must be numbered among the evil human beings Jesus spoke of. And if
he has not found new life in Christ, no doubt he is. But I just gota letter the
other day from a man who is also doing time at the penitentiary at Fort
Leavenworthfor a similar kind of crime, an egregious evil. But he is a
Christian man. I have no reasonto doubt that he is. He is and has been for
some years an avid student of the Bible. He is a man who confesseshis sins,
who trusts in Christ for his salvation, who gathers with other believers to
study the faith, who wants to grow in the grace and the knowledge ofthe
Lord. Factis, thieves, prostitutes, adulterers, even murderers are numbered
among the goodand not the evil in Holy Scripture. A simple evaluationof
conduct is not enoughto identify or explain the difference.
Rather, Jesus says, the difference lies beneath, in the heart, in the inner life, in
the spiritual nature of a person. What is significant about words and deeds,
and especiallywords, is what they often revealabout what lies beneath.
There, deep within, is the great difference and there it is so greata difference
that it separates the world very clearly into two camps and only two.
The Lord uses on severaloccasions a homely metaphor to make this point.
There are various trees in the orchard. Some are goodand some are bad.
You can’t tell the difference by looking at the trunk or its bark, by looking at
the shape of the tree. You can’t tell the difference by looking at the foliage as
it blossoms in the spring. You can’t tell it either after the fruit has been
harvestedand before the leaves fall. Only the fruit, only what the tree
eventually bears will tell which is a goodtree and which a bad. But it is the
tree that is goodor bad, howeverindistinguishable the trees may be some of
the time.
What is more, whether we are talking about trees, as in v. 33 or human hearts,
as in vv. 34-35, it is clearenough in the teaching of Holy Scripture from
beginning to end, that it is God’s work to remake and renew a heart, God’s
work alone that can make a tree good. No human being cantake credit for
being found among the goodand not the evil, for that is God’s work and
God’s gift. Whether we describe it as a new birth, or a new heart, or a new
creation, or a new man – all ways the Bible has to describe the change in a

person, the change down deep, the transformation of his sinful nature into a
holy nature – every description of this change is intended to teachus how
impossible it is for men to effectthis change within themselves by themselves.
You cannot make yourself a goodtree. Only God can do it. Whether
speaking ofthe works of someone’s life or the words of his mouth, we are not
talking about a person being goodbecause he has made himself good, or
because he has done enough good. We are ever only talking about people who
are goodbecause Godin Christ has made them good.
So we have a greatdifference betweenpeople down at the bottom of their
selves. A difference in spiritual nature. That difference expresses itselfto
some degree in what is done and said. It does not express itself perfectly and
always with unmistakable clarity, but it does express itself. And that is why
the Lord speaks here as he does concerning the Pharisees andtheir words.
Every now and then our words make terribly clearwhat lies beneath, what
sort of nature we have, what sort of people we are, and still more, what sort of
people we will become as that nature more and more expresses itselfand,
finally, becomes perfectlyitself at the end of our sojourn in this world. At the
end of the day, and this must be remembered always when we are thinking
about a human life, the person’s outward life will be as the true nature of his
heart. It is not so now. Evil people behave much better than they truly are
and goodpeople behave much worse than they truly are. But at the end of the
day, people with unrenewed hearts, people who are, at bottom, still rebels
againstGod, will express that rebellion, with all its sour bitterness, all the way
out to their fingertips. And, on the other hand, people who have a new heart
from God, will become finally altogetherand wonderfully goodin every way:
in heart, in speech, and in behavior. As has often been said, you would
scarcelyrecognize the people you know now, if you could see them as they will
somedaybe. The evil heart of the unbeliever fully come into its own and
expressing itself in every word and deed and, contrarily, the heart of the
believer, which now has only a spot down deep in the center that is pure as
pure can be, but then so pure, so full of love that the entire life becomes
perfect goodness. C. S. Lewis says that if you could see the unbeliever now as
he will somedaybe you would recoilfrom him in horror and if you could see
the believeras she will somedaybe you would be tempted to bow down in

worship. Satan’s followers willbecome just like him and Christ’s followers
just like him.
But now we cannot see this great, this impossibly greatdifference. Only now
and againdo the words that people speak revealeither the darkness or the
light that lies within.
Here are the Pharisees calling the Son of God a servantof the Devil. And they
do that, they saythat monstrous thing, right after watching him drive a
demon out of a miserable man and restore sightand voice, life and happiness
to that poor man. They callJesus a servant of Satan after all that they had
seenhim do for the sick and the miserable among them. They had heard from
his ownmouth the pure truth of God. Theyhad no excuse. Their words
revealed, in a way much of the Pharisees’daily behavior did not, the deep,
abiding, bitter rebellion againstGod that lay in their hearts, the terrible,
overweening pride that kept them and would continue to keepthem from
being willing to acknowledgeJesus as the Saviorof the world.
A lot of stupid things came out of the disciples’ mouths during the three years
of the Lord’s ministry. We admit it. The Lord had to rebuke them repeatedly
for the stupid things they said. After a particularly bad remark came out of
Peter’s mouth, the Lord once saidto him, “Getbehind me Satan!” And so it
has continued. A lot of stupid things have come out of my mouth and of your
mouths, no matter now long you have been Christians. How often have your
words made you cringe because they were so unbecoming a followerof Jesus
Christ. But then, when Peter witnessedone of the Lord’s miracles, out of his
heart, out of the overflow of his heart, came these words, as he knelt before
the Lord, “Departfrom me, Lord, for I am a sinful man.” Those words
revealedthe inner life of that man. The Phariseeswho encounteredthe Lord
here, saw his miracles, but they never said, they never thought to say, and
would have been deeply offended if one of their number had said, “Depart
from me, Lord, for I am a sinful man.”
Neither the believer nor the unbeliever can help it. The overflow of the heart
makes its way to the mouth. It is a fixed law. Sooneror later, more often than

we realize, our words tell the tale and reveal what lies within us, the state of
our hearts.
Sometimes it is just a single word. I don’t know how many times I have had
people admit their sin to me and then, in the same breath, say“But…” And I
tell them that that little conjunction just nullified their confession. Aman
who says, “Yes I yelled at my wife, but…” is not yet reckoning with his sin, he
is still interestedin defending himself, in parceling out the blame. What Jesus
calls a “careless word” has given him away.
So it was with the Pharisees, who found it natural to accuse the Son of God of
being a minister of Satan. And so it was with Peterwho hardly realized what
he was saying when, by the lake, he fell to his knees, andsaid to Jesus,
“Departfrom me, Lord, for I am a sinful man.” By your words you will be
acquitted and by your words you will be condemned, because your words
revealthe heart out of which they come.
Verses 22-37
CRITICAL NOTES
Mat . Is not this the Son of David?—See "The ParallelNew Testament"
(1882). The "not" is omitted in both columns. It "was wiselyomitted by King
James'translators. It is not found in the 1611 edition, the primary edition.
Neither is it found in the four succeeding folio editions, those of the years
1613, 1617, 1634,1640. Butsomehow or other it has got smuggledinto our
present copies" (Morison). The form of the question expressesbewilderment
and hesitation;but hesitation, nevertheless, that inclined to a negative
decision. The idea that the Wonder-workerwas the Messiah, the Messianic
son of David, was forcedin upon their minds, but yet they could not entertain
it (ibid.).

Mat . Beelzebub.—Seeon Mat10:25. A like narrative has met us in Mat 9:32,
and it is probable enough that the charge was repeatedas often as the
occasionpresenteditself, and as often answeredin identical or like words
(Plumptre). The words appearto have been whisperedby the Pharisees
among the people. They were not addressedto Jesus (ibid.). Two things are
here implied:
1. That the bitterest enemies of our Lord were unable to deny the reality of
His miracles.
2. That they believed in an organisedinfernal kingdom of evil, under one
chief. This belief would be of small consequence,had not our Lord set His seal
to it; but this He immediately does (Mat ) (Brown).
Mat . By whom do your children castthem out?—The "children" of the
Pharisees are their disciples, and in this case,suchas practised exorcism, like
the sons of Sceva in Act 19:13. The belief in demoniacalpossessionhad as its
natural accompanimentthe claim, on the part of those who could control the
disordered reasonof the possessedperson, ofpower to castout the demon. We
need not assume that such power was always a pretence, or rested on spells
and incantations. Earnestness, prayer, fasting, faith—these are always mighty
in intensifying the powerof will, before which the frenzied soul bows in
submission or yields in confidence, and these may well have been found
among the better and truer Pharisees. OurLord's question, indeed, requires
for its logicalvalidity the admissionthat the "children" of the accusers did
really castout demons, and that not by Beelzebub (Plumptre).
Mat . The kingdom of God.—The Destroyerof Satanis already in the midst of
you, and that kingdom which is destined to supplant His, is already rising on
its ruins (Brown). Come unto you.—Upon you (R.V.). Literally, surprised you
by coming, came upon you unawares (Carr).
Mat . Blasphemy.—In general, the idea of a malicious attack upon a person,
whose fame is calumniously injured, attaches to the term "blasphemy."
Hence, defamation of what is good, noble, and holy, on its appearance in the
world, with malicious (lying and murderous) intent (Lange).

Mat . Neither in this world, etc.—Justanextended way of saying "never." Cf.
Mar 3:29 (Morison).
Mat . Either make the tree good, etc.—The meaning and connectionare:"Be
honest for once;represent the tree as good, and its fruit as good, or the tree as
evil, and its fruit as evil; either say that I am evil, and that my works are evil,
or, if you admit that My works are good, admit that I am goodalso and not in
league with Beelzebub" (Carr).
Mat . O generationof vipers, etc.—Ye offspring of vipers (R.V.). Here the law
which had been pressedin its logicalbearing in the preceding verse, is
brought in to explain the bitter and evil words of the Pharisees(Plumptre).
Out of the abundance of the heart, etc.—Whatis in the well will be in the
bucket (Trapp).
Mat . By thy words.—Words exhibit the righteousness orunrighteousness
which is in the heart (Bengel).
SUPPLEMENTARYNOTES
Mat . The sin againstthe Holy Ghost.—In"ExegeticalStudies," by the Rev. P.
J. Gloag, D.D. (T. and T. Clark), there is an able exposition of this subject, in
which the various opinions that have been held are stated. Dr. Gloag's view is
similar to that of Dr. David Brown, as given in the outline on p. 309. He says,
"The sin, then, againstwhich our Lord cautionedthe Pharisees,supposing, as
we think most probable, His words to be a caution and not a sentence, wasthe
continuance in their opposition to Him and to His doctrine after the Holy
Ghostwas given. These blasphemies againstHim were pardonable; their
malicious disposition had not, as yet, placedthem outside the pale of Divine
mercy; if, however, they perseveredin their opposition after the Holy Ghost
was given, they would never have forgiveness, but be guilty of eternal sin. And
from this we infer that it is probable that the blasphemy againstthe Holy
Ghostis no particular actof sin, but a malicious disposition; a perseverancein
opposition to Christ in spite of the Spirit's influences to overcome that
opposition; an incurable, and therefore, an unpardonable, evil disposition;
and this dispositionis here called blasphemy againstthe Holy Ghost, because
it consists in a continued resistance to His influences." An article on the

subject in the EvangelicalMagazine, from the pen of the Rev. G. S. Barrett,
B.A., calledforth some valuable discussions and notes in the Expository
Times, November 1891 to March 1892.
MAIN HOMILETICS OF THE PARAGRAPH.—Mat
Encountering blasphemy.—The best way of dealing with some adversaries is
to leave them alone. So, in our last, with those mentioned in Mat . Here we
read of some adopting a different line. An (apparently) most unusual case of
demoniac dispossessionhad produced a corresponding effecton the people at
large. "Is this," they said—whenthe "blind and dumb" both "spake and
saw"—is this indeed the Son of David? Stirred up by this question, the
"Pharisees"fell back, as once before (Mat 9:34), on counsels of despair.
Having nothing better to say, they say as before: He castethout devils "by
Beelzebub, the prince of the devils" (Mat 12:24). This time the Saviour,
hearing their words, and "knowing their thoughts," thinks it well to take up
the accusationin question, and will be found, in doing so, to point out its
extreme folly in the first place, and its extreme peril in the second. He also
finally counsels men as to how best to avoid the extreme peril described.
I. The extreme folly involved.—The proposedsolution was utterly foolish:—
first, because it was not consistentwith what was true about Satan. Had things
been as they alleged, the "kingdom of Satan" would before now have come to
its end (Mar ). That is true of all kingdoms, and therefore of this. A king
opposedis a king deposed—ifopposedby himself. The very fact, therefore,
that there still existeddemoniacs to be healed, proved of itself that His way of
healing them was not of this kind. The proffered solution, in the next place,
was not consistentwith what they believed of themselves. Besides the Saviour
Himself there were those who were consideredcapable of effecting similar
cures, and who, either because oftheir birth and extraction(as the Saviour's
own disciples, it may be), or else because oftheir extraction and faith (as some
of their own disciples, it may possibly mean (Act 19:13))—might be described
as being their "children." Anyway, whoeverthey were, it was to them He
appealed. Let them deal with this charge (Mat 12:27). Lastly, the explanation
was foolishbecause it was not consistentwith what was true about Christ.
For, after all, in the instances before you, what is it you see? Do you not, in

Jesus was an either or thinker

Jesus was an either or thinker

Recommended

Recommended

More Related Content

What's hot

What's hot (20)

Similar to Jesus was an either or thinker

Similar to Jesus was an either or thinker (20)

More from GLENN PEASE

More from GLENN PEASE (20)

Recently uploaded

Recently uploaded (17)

Jesus was an either or thinker