65 Can You Accidentally Commit the Unforgivable Sin? (Matthew 12:22-50)

Krisan Marotta: Welcome to the Wednesday in the Word podcast. I'm Krisan Marotta, and this is my podcast about what the Bible means and how we know. Today is the 65th talk in my series on the Gospel of Matthew, and we will finish chapter 12. We'll be studying Matthew chapter 12, verses 22 through 50. The lecture notes for today's talk are on the link below this podcast. You can also go directly to those notes by going to wednesdayintheword.com slash Matthew 65. Thanks so much for listening. We're finishing the 12th chapter of the Gospel of Matthew today. And in the section we've been looking at, Matthew is focusing on how people respond to Jesus, particularly how the Jewish people respond. In chapter 10, Jesus sent the 12 out to preach the gospel, and he warned them that they would face hostility and persecution, and that they would be rejected because people reject Jesus. Then in chapter 11, we saw that even John the Baptist became confused about Jesus' identity because Jesus was not acting like the Messiah he expected. Jesus straightens out his thinking, then he pronounced woe on some of the Galilean cities because they failed to repent, even though they saw more of his teaching and his miracles than any other place. We begin chapter 12 with two Sabbath stories, which highlight the growing opposition and hostility of the Pharisees toward Jesus, and we saw the surprising way in which Jesus accomplished his mission. As Isaiah predicted, rather than rallying a conquering army, he quietly and unassumingly sacrificed himself for his people. And that brings us to the next story, which continues focusing on how the Pharisees are reacting to him. We're starting with Matthew twelve, verses twenty two to twenty-four. Then a demon-oppressed man who was blind and mute was brought to him, and he healed him, so that the man spoke and saw. And all the people were amazed and said, Can this be the son of David? But when the Pharisees heard it, they said, It's only by Beelzebal, the prince of demons, that this man casts out demons. So here we have a man who is blind and mute because he's oppressed by a demon. He is brought to Jesus and Jesus heals him. Matthew gives us almost no details about the healing itself, because he wants to focus instead on how people react to it. First, he tells us how the crowds react, and they're amazed and they ask, can this be the son of David? And as we've talked about in this series, the son of David is a title for the Messiah. So the crowds see the miracle and they say, Can this be the one? Is this really the Messiah? By contrast, when the Pharisees see what's going on and they hear what the crowd is saying, they don't like it. They have to put a stop to that kind of thinking. So they offer a different explanation for the miracle. They suggest that Jesus is not in league with God, that he does not have divine authority, rather, he is in league with Beelzebub, the ruler of the demons. So essentially they're saying, okay, what's the big deal? This man, Jesus, is casting out demons. Who's the ruler of the demons? Satan is. Jesus is simply showing that he has the power of Satan behind him. So everyone present has tangible empirical evidence that Jesus just did something miraculous. He cast out a demon and healed a man who was blind and mute. And the question on the table is what divine power gives him the authority to do that? Well, the most logical and obvious answer is that God gives him that power. God is demonstrating for all to see that Jesus is the Messiah by granting him the authority to cast out demons. But the Pharisees don't want to reach that conclusion, and they don't want anyone else to reach that conclusion either. So they search about for another possible explanation. They can't deny that this remarkable healing just took place right before their eyes. They can't deny that Jesus has power and authority to heal because everyone saw it. Instead, they seek a different explanation for the healing that allows them to avoid the conclusion that Jesus is the Messiah. And their suggestion is that Jesus casts out demons by the ruler of the demons, not by the power of God. Well, Jesus responds with two points. His first point is in Matthew twelve, twenty-five through twenty-six. Knowing their thoughts, he said to them, Every kingdom divided against itself is laid waste, and no city or house divided against itself will stand. And if Satan casts out Satan, he is divided against himself. How then will his kingdom stand? So his logic is pretty apparent. He says, Look, if you were the ruler of the demons, would you go around defeating and undermining the activity of your own minions? Well, that would be defeating yourself. So he's saying, Look, I just destroyed a work of Satan. I've cast a demon out of this man and restored his life to him. You think because Satan has power over demons, I must be working with Satan. But if that were the case, Satan would be undermining his own work and defeating himself. Since that would be completely counterproductive, your line of reasoning is not a very likely explanation. It makes much more sense that the enemy of Satan is the one defeating his minions. His second point is in Matthew 1227, and then he offers a better explanation in 1228. And if I cast out demons by Beelzebol, by whom do your sons cast them out? Therefore they will be your judges. But if it is by the Spirit of God that I cast out demons, then the kingdom of God has come upon you. So his second point in twelve twenty-seven is by whom do your sons cast out demons? And I think he's speaking ironically here. To be a son of something is to be a member of that group or that people, so he's saying, Who among you, who among you Pharisees cast them out? Now some people have suggested that Pharisees could also cast out demons, or at least they claim to have this ability. And if that's true, then Jesus would be saying something like, By your logic, you must be in league with Satan as well, because you cast out demons too. That is a possible interpretation. The problem is we don't have any evidence that the Pharisees cast out demons, nor do we have any evidence that they even claim to cast them out. And I think this context suggests that a lot of people could not do this. In fact, no one else could do this, because if lots of people could cast out demons, say several of the Pharisees, the crowds would not be so amazed that Jesus was doing it. Their reaction, their amazed reaction in 1223, suggests that this kind of casting out of demons did not take place every day. So it makes more sense to me that Jesus is ironically pointing out that the Pharisees don't have this kind of authority. So he's saying, by whose authority do you cast out demons? Oh, wait, you can't. You don't have the power or the authority to do that. So he's ironically reminding them how unique it is that he has this power. He says they will be your judges because the fact that the Pharisees lack the power and authority to heal is another kind of testimony that Jesus is the Messiah. His ability to perform these miraculous healings testifies to the fact that he is the Messiah. Their lack of ability to heal also testifies to the fact that Jesus is the Messiah because Jesus is doing something no one else can do. He is uniquely gifted by God. So I think he's saying your lack of ability is going to judge you in the end because you're denying what's right before your eyes. The fact that I can heal this blind and mute man by casting a demon out ought to speak volumes to you. But instead, you close your eyes to the truth and that's going to judge you in the end. In verse 28, then he suggests a better conclusion. He says, I can cast out demons by the Spirit of God. Doesn't that seem like the most obvious and the most rational conclusion? They have blindly and determinedly dismissed the miracle, saying Jesus must have the power of Satan. Jesus says, that is exactly what makes the miracle a big deal. Yes, Satan is ruler over the demons, but I just cast the demon out. That means I have power over Satan. Where would I get power over Satan except from the Spirit of God? The most logical explanation is that I have to get my authority to do this from God. And if I cast demons out by the Spirit of God, then you are standing face to face with the Messiah who is sent to establish the kingdom of God and to proclaim to you that you need to repent and believe. That's the most obvious and the best conclusion from what you've just witnessed. Then Jesus goes on to tell a brief parable. This is Matthew 12, 29. Or how can someone enter a strong man's house and plunder his goods unless he first binds the strongman? Then indeed he may plunder his house. So in this little parable, Jesus says, Look, if you were a burglar and you wanted to rob this man's house and he has a big strong bodyguard, how would you proceed? You want to steal this man's stuff, but his bodyguard's at home guarding the house, what do you need to do? Well, the first thing you need to do is take care of the bodyguard. You have to get the bodyguard out of the way and then you can plunder the house. That being the case, doesn't it seem likely and plausible that when God sends his Messiah into the world to rob the devil of his dominion, wouldn't you expect him to cast out a few demons to accomplish his purposes? Wouldn't you expect the Messiah to come into the world and cast out demons just like the burglar takes out the bodyguard first? Yes, you would. That is the kind of activity that we expect from the Messiah just like we expect a burglar to bind up the guard first. The miracle you just witnessed shows the great authority that God has given me, Jesus. And if God has granted me such great authority, that means that what I have been proclaiming is true. The kingdom of God has come upon you. In me, I am the Messiah. So three different ways he has said, look, your conclusion just doesn't hold up. Your conclusion is weak. The conclusion you want to come to that denies the obvious that I am the Messiah doesn't hold up to the evidence. The conclusion you should reach is that I am acting by the power and authority of God, and therefore I am the Messiah. Now rejecting the Messiah is a very serious thing, and that's where he goes next. Let's look at twelve thirty through thirty two. Whoever is not with me is against me, and whoever does not gather with me scatters. Therefore, I tell you, every sin and blasphemy will be forgiven people, but the blasphemy against the Holy Spirit will not be forgiven. And whoever speaks a word against the Son of Man will be forgiven, but whoever speaks against the Holy Spirit will not be forgiven, either in this age or in the age to come. First, Jesus makes the point no one can sit on the fence. You're either with Jesus or you're against him. There's no neutral ground. At some point you have to decide whether or not you believe him. Either you believe he is who he said he is and you acknowledge him as Lord and Savior, or you don't. There's no high moral ground in withholding your judgment and saying, Oh, I don't want to take a side. Not taking aside is taking aside. Not deciding he is who he says he is is a decision. So either you follow him or you don't. There's no sitting on the fence. You're either with him or you're against him. Then he makes this somewhat confusing point about the blasphemia of the Holy Spirit. And for many people, this is a really scary verse. Over the years, I've talked to many people who were terrified because they thought they had accidentally blasphemed the Holy Spirit and therefore forfeited their place in the kingdom of God. This is one of those statements that it's really, really important to keep in context. We don't want to read Matthew 12, 31 and 32 in isolation and try to fill in the thought out of thin air. We want to look at these verses in their immediate and their larger context. The context suggests that Jesus is talking about what the Pharisees just did. And if we want to know what it means to blaspheme against the Holy Spirit, that's where we have to start. The Pharisees just witnessed to Jesus performing a miracle by the Spirit of God. And they said, Nope, nope, Satan did that. They didn't swear, they didn't curse the Holy Spirit, they looked on a work of God with unbelief. They saw the Spirit of God at work in a miracle that Jesus performed and they rejected it. I think that tells us that blasphemy of the Holy Spirit is another way to talk about unbelief. It's not some super sin that is above all the others. It is regular old unbelief, rejecting God. Now notice he says any sin and blasphemy will be forgiven. One of the jobs of the Spirit is to teach us truth. In fact, the Holy Spirit is sometimes called the Spirit of Truth. The Spirit is the one who enlightens us, who gives us the eyes to see and the ears to hear, and the ability to know, understand, and recognize the truth. One of his jobs is to dispel our ignorance, teach us who God is, what God requires, and give us understanding. The problem that's in view here is rejecting that truth. In my ignorance and foolishness, I might speak against Jesus, but once the truth has been revealed to me, I dare not reject it or ignore it. If the Spirit of truth seeks to reveal to me that Jesus is the Messiah, and I reject it, I turn my back on it and say, no, that's not true. That's the blasphemy that is unforgivable. Now notice this is a blasphemy that comes not out of ignorance, but out of rejection. We can make a distinction between acts which come out of ignorance and foolishness and acts which come out of premeditated willful disobedience. And if you've ever had children, you know how to make that distinction. The ignorant and the foolish can repent and be forgiven. The hard-hearted who have rejected God and refuse to repent when the truth smacks them in the face are not going to be forgiven. The situation he's describing is the one we just witnessed. People like the Pharisees who've been presented with the truth of the gospel, they have accurately heard the truth about Jesus, they've seen him perform a miracle, and then they turn away and reject it. The Pharisees have no good reason to look at the miracles of Jesus and reject him. Instead of reacting with the crowd and saying, maybe this guy really is the Messiah, they will not repent and they stubbornly refuse to see the work of the Spirit for what it really is. Instead, they call it a work of Satan. So I think blaspheming the Holy Spirit is another way of saying unrepentant unbelief. And unrepentant unbelievers will not be forgiven. Now it might sound strange that he talks about speaking a word against the Son of Man can be forgiven, but speaking against the Holy Spirit will not be forgiven. It sounds like, oh, I could go around all day mocking Jesus, saying I hate him, and that's okay. But then if I say, well, I don't like the Spirit either, oops, now I've done it, now I'm really in trouble. I don't think he's saying anything like that. Again, we want to fill in our understanding with the context. Jesus just cast out a demon by the spirit. The Pharisees reject his action in casting out this demon and say it can't be by the power of the Spirit. But Jesus says everything he does is by the Spirit. In other places, Jesus says you can't follow God and reject Jesus, because if you reject Jesus, you're also rejecting the Father who is working through him. It wouldn't make sense for him to say in this context, you can mock me, but don't say anything bad about the Spirit, because he repeatedly claims that rejecting the Son is a big deal. The way you deal with the Son is the way you deal with the Father. I think he's speaking again in one of those striking hyperbolic phrases that we've talked about before. If you reject who Jesus claims to be, you are speaking against God. You're speaking against the work of the Spirit of God in teaching and the miracles of Jesus. And that's unbelief. Rejecting his spirit-empowered role as the Messiah, the one anointed by the Spirit, the one whose every word and action comes through the Spirit of God is a big deal. No unbeliever is going to be forgiven. Remember, he just said, He who is not with me is against me, and he who does not gather with me scatters. He's just made it clear that we have to actively choose to embrace him as the Messiah. You can't sit on the fence and be safe. Not choosing is not a safe option. If you haven't already actively chosen to humble yourself before him in belief, then you have in essence rejected him. There's no middle ground. Just to try to make this a little more clear, let me give you an analogy. It's kind of a silly analogy, but I think it makes the point that Jesus is making here about the difference between saying a word against the Son of Man and saying a word against the Spirit. Imagine someone is walking through the marketplace in Capernaum and he bumps into Jesus. Literally. He turns a corner, and there is Jesus with a big crowd surrounding him, and this guy can't get through. The road's all blocked, and all those followers of Jesus accidentally overturn his apple cart. So he starts swearing at Jesus and his followers and calling them names and yelling at them to get out of the way. That rather unkind and ungracious reaction is an act of ignorance and foolishness. It's not indicative of his response to the Spirit of God. At that moment, Jesus is just some guy who's got this large crowd that's clogging up the marketplace, and he's angry that they're interfering with his business. That is a forgivable sin. That is not the kind of thing Jesus is talking about, even though this man called him names or whatnot. Now, later, let's say that same man has a chance to listen to Jesus preach a sermon and watch him heal a few people. Now, if that man were to say, This is the stupidest sermon I've ever heard, and that guy's a fraud, that's unbelief and that's not forgivable. That's blasphemy against the Holy Spirit because that is looking at the wisdom and teaching of Jesus. Which was given to him by the Spirit and rejecting it. So that's an act of rejection. That's not an act of ignorance or foolishness. I think that's the kind of distinction he's making in 1232 when he says, Whoever speaks a word against the Son of Man will be forgiven, but whoever speaks against the Holy Spirit will not be forgiven, either in this age or the age to come. It's that distinction between an ignorant, foolish reaction and a deliberate rejection of the truth that the Holy Spirit has just revealed to you. I think that's the kind of distinction he's trying to make. Then he goes on to explain why the sin of unbelief is not forgivable. And his answer is basically because what we say and do reveals who we really are on the inside. Let's look at Matthew twelve, thirty three through thirty seven. Either make the tree good and its fruit good, or make the tree bad and its fruit bad, for the tree is known by its fruit. You brood of vipers, how can you speak good when you are evil? For out of the abundance of the heart the mouth speaks. The good person out of his good treasure brings forth good, and the evil person out of his evil treasure brings forth evil. I tell you, on the day of judgment, people will give account for every careless word they speak, for by your words you will be justified, and by your words you will be condemned. I think we're talking about words here because of what the Pharisees said in response to the miracle. They saw the miracle, Jesus healed this blind and mute man, they heard the people asking if Jesus was the Messiah, and they said, No, no, no, Satan did that. And now Jesus says, A tree is known by its fruit. If you want to know what kind of a tree it is, you go examine its fruit. If you want to know if a tree is healthy or not, you examine its fruit. If the fruit is diseased and rotted, don't try to tell me the tree is healthy. Conversely, if the fruit is healthy and whole, don't tell me the tree is sick, I won't buy it, because you know the state of a tree by its fruit. The analogy is that the Pharisees present themselves as among the most godly of men. They claim that they are among the most righteous, devout followers of God. No one keeps the law like they do, they are religiously elite. So in the metaphor, they would claim that their tree is good. But they have just blasphemed the Holy Spirit by claiming that his work through Jesus is the work of Satan. Those unbelieving words are bad fruit, and that bad fruit shows that the tree is bad as well. Their unbelieving words demonstrate that they do not really believe. I think in a way Jesus is challenging them here, saying, Admit it, admit your heart is evil and repent. You have a bad tree, that's why your fruit is bad. Turn your heart toward belief and let your believing words be the fruit that shows your tree is good. Stop pretending to be God fearing people because you're showing your unbelief through your words in rejecting the Messiah. Then he makes his point explicit out of the abundance of the heart, the mouth speaks. What you say is like the fruit of a tree. You can put on pretty words and a mask of hypocrisy for a little while, but eventually you're going to slip up and reveal who you really are by your words. The kind of person you are inside is eventually going to be revealed by what you say and what you do. And I think this word careless in 1236 has the force of worthless or unproductive. It's more than thoughtless, it's destructive. It doesn't produce anything worthwhile, rather it destroys. By your words you will be justified, and by your words you will be condemned. Why? Well, because we can control our mouths up to a point. But when the pressure's on, we say what we think. I'm sure you know what I mean. You've probably been in a situation where you're trying to be polite, you're trying to be diplomatic, and almost before you know it, you find yourself saying something unkind or something that reveals your true inward selfishness or arrogance or bitterness, and then you go away ashamed. Eventually our inward attitudes come out. We won't be condemned for the words themselves, but because of what the words reveal, because they reveal who we are inside. It's not a thoughtless word that does me in, it's the fact that I'm a selfish, sinful person, and eventually that selfishness is revealed by what I say. Words reflect the condition of the heart, and ultimately it's the condition of the heart that we're judged for. Okay, now we start getting into the really thorny issues in this passage. Let's look at Matthew twelve, thirty eight through forty two. Then some of the scribes and Pharisees answered him, saying, Teacher, we wish to see a sign from you, but he answered them, an evil and adulterous generation seeks for a sign, but no sign will be given to it except the sign of the prophet Jonah. For just as Jonah was three days and three nights in the belly of the great fish, so will the Son of Man be three days and three nights in the heart of the earth. The men of Nineveh will rise up at the judgment with this generation and condemn it, for they repented at the preaching of Jonah, and behold, something greater than Jonah is here. The queen of the south will rise up at the judgment with this generation and condemn it, for she came from the ends of the earth to hear the wisdom of Solomon, and behold, something greater than Solomon is here. Okay, now remember the context. This is another one of those little sections we want to keep in the larger context. How did this whole conversation get started? Jesus healed a man of his demons. A man who was blind and mute can now see and talk because Jesus healed him. Now it's true Matthew doesn't say all this happened on the same day, and it could be that this healing was only minutes before this conversation, or it could have been days before this conversation. We don't know the exact timing, but we do know that Matthew juxtaposed these events on purpose. So I am making the assumption that these verses describe one event that all took place together, and I think we are meant to read this verse about the scribes and the Pharisees asking for a sign and think to ourselves, wait, didn't they just get a sign? This man was just healed. They tried to rationalize it away and find some reason to avoid concluding that Jesus is the Messiah. Jesus pointed out the flaws in their explanations and their alternative conclusions. And now they're asking for a sign. It sounds to me like they're saying, okay, you got us. Our explanation doesn't hold that much water. Maybe we judged you too quickly. So tell you what, give us a sign. We'll believe you if you just give us a sign. Instead of reconsidering the evidence they already have right in front of them, they're asking for more evidence. They think the problem is, well, they just don't have enough evidence. They're saying, well, actually, our lack of belief is justified because we don't have the right evidence yet. We don't have enough evidence. So just give us a sign. We need more evidence, and that'll do it. But they already have enough evidence to believe. Now, I don't think that Jesus is saying that it's wrong or that it's evil to want evidence. He spent much of his earthly ministry giving evidence about his identity. I think the miracles, the healings were intended as physical, tangible evidence that he is the Messiah. It's not wrong to want evidence. What is wrong is to demand evidence when you already have it. What's wrong is to say, that's not enough, I want more. Their demand for a sign is not an honest request for more information. It's a stubborn refusal to deal honestly with the information they already have. I think 1239 refers to the generation standing in front of him. This is an evil and adulterous generation that keeps demanding evidence when the Messiah is right there teaching, preaching, and healing. He says, No further sign will be given you but the sign of Jonah the prophet. Okay, what does he mean by the sign of Jonah? As you probably expect, there are several possibilities here. Luke 11 has a version of this passage with a little different order. And Luke has some interesting differences that we don't have time to get into. Scholars spend a lot of time dealing with this question and comparing Matthew and Luke. I'm going to give you my best understanding at this time, but you have to realize this is my good for nothing opinion, and there are other options and permutations and interpretations out there. I think Jesus is referring to his resurrection from the dead, and he's saying, That's the only sign left that I'm going to give you. Just like Jonah was three days in the belly of the great fish, Jesus will be in the grave three days, but then God will resurrect him. Even as bad as they were, the people of Nineveh repented when they heard the prophet Jonah. The Gentile Ninevehit responded to God's prophet Jonah. Similarly, the queen of the south traveled a great distance to hear King Solomon. This Gentile queen responded to God's king, Solomon. But here, you pious Pharisees are standing face to face with the Messiah and you're rejecting him. These people will judge you, judge this generation, because they responded to the evidence they had. They didn't get to see the Messiah in the flesh, they didn't get to witness his miracles or see his resurrection, but even so they repented. They had far less evidence than this generation has, but they listened and repented based on what they had. So they will condemn you, scribes and Pharisees, because you have greater evidence. You are standing talking to the Messiah and yet you still reject him. You have seen the Messiah perform miracles by the power of God, and you claim he's in league with the devil. The Messiah himself is standing here telling you the kingdom of God is at hand, and your response is I don't think so. Well the Messiah is going to give you the sign of all signs. You Pharisees are going to have Jesus executed, and God will resurrect him from the dead, and still you Pharisees are going to reject him. Okay, now that brings us to the really hard part. This is Matthew twelve, forty three through forty-five. When the unclean spirit goes out of a person, it passes through waterless places, seeking rest, but finds none. Then it says, I will return to my house from which I came, and when it comes, it finds the house empty, swept, and put in order. Then it goes and brings with it seven other spirits more evil than itself, and they enter and dwell there, and the last state of that person is worse than the first. So also it will be with this evil generation. I admit right up front, this is a very difficult passage, and I'm going to give you my best understanding at this time, which could still be wrong. I am still studying, I could change my mind as I learn more. I hold these conclusions loosely, but right now I do find them persuasive. So the first question we need to ask when we come to a passage like this is should we take this passage literally or figuratively? Now taking it literally is probably our first reaction, our gut reaction. You come to a truly foreign and strange-sounding passage like this and you don't know what to do with it. So the straightforward thing to do is usually to try to take it literally. And a lot of people do take this passage literally as advice about exorcisms. I don't think we should take this literally. I think we should take it metaphorically. Having said that, I do believe that Jesus did literally and physically heal people of demons and unclean spirits, but the conclusion in Matthew 12, 45 is the tip-off to me that something else is going on. He concludes, so it will be with this evil generation. That kind of comparative language is the hallmark of a metaphor. Anytime you sing language like so also it will be, or just as this, so that, or X is like Y, that suggests we're looking at a comparison or an analogy of some sort. After a story when Jesus says, just as X, so Y, he tips us off that we're making a comparison. Usually he's telling a parable and we are not meant to take it as a literal fact. Another reason to take it metaphorically is this passage has the earmarks of a passage that is not meant to be taken literally. And by that I mean the story does not match any reality we have experience with. The unclean spirits leave a man, but they don't return to a person. They return to a house. We have an empty house that's swept and put in order, but then when the unclean spirit returns with reinforcements, suddenly we switch back to a person, and he says the last state of the person is worse than the first. This switching between house and person suggests this is not meant to be taken literally. We also have this language about the unclean spirit passing through waterless places, seeking rest. I mean, what reality is that? What do waterless places have to do with rest? Can unclean spirits even be at rest? Basically, this passage doesn't make sense if we try to take it literally. It's not any kind of reality we're familiar with. And if it's not literal, then what is it? It could be either a parable or an allegory. Parables and allegories are not the same literary device, they are very different. I have a talk on my website about how to understand parables as opposed to allegories, and I'll put a link to that in the lecture notes. I'm only going to give you a brief description here. So is it a parable? First, let's define parables. Parables are simple analogies between normal everyday life and some other reality. Parables make sense as a story. They reflect reality in a real and coherent way. In fact, the parable counts on you understanding the story to make sense of the comparison. And often we'll see, especially with Jesus, the comparison is the kingdom of God is like this story. Or we might say, our Heavenly Father is like that, but much more so. Or this eternal abiding truth is analogous to the reality that we see in that story, and the story always describes a reality that you know and you're familiar with. But this story that we're looking at here in Matthew with the unclean spirit does not make sense as a story. It describes no reality that we're familiar with, and the story itself doesn't even make sense. So briefly, I would say it's not a parable. I would say that this is an allegory because this story has all the marks of an allegory. The hallmark key feature of an allegory is that the story makes no sense. The elements in the story are chosen for their symbolic value, not for their value to the story. So the switch between a person and a house and back again is the kind of switch we would expect in an allegory. In allegories, the story doesn't necessarily make sense because in an allegory the elements are picked for their symbolic value. In an allegory, we don't care if a rocking chair sprouts wings and flies away because that's not the point. The point is the symbolic value of the rocking chair and the flying. An allegory does not make sense as a story. So if this is an allegory, then we have to find a way to understand the symbolic value of the elements, and we have to understand it in the context. And I would argue that Matthew 12, 38 is the key to understanding the context. He says, then some of the scribes and Pharisees answered him saying, Teacher, we wish to see a sign from you. I think that verse gives us the immediate context. That is the request that Jesus responds to with this allegory about the unclean spirits. The section we're looking at with unclean spirits is the answer to this request. So again, we want to make sure we understand what they're asking and how this story answers that question. Jesus just healed a man of his demons. The Pharisees reject him as coming from Satan, not from God. And he counters that claim, and then they say, okay, well, then give us a sign. And as I said earlier, I think we're meant to read that and go, wait, they just got a sign. Why are they asking for more signs? This man was just healed. They tried to rationalize it away. They tried to find some reason, any reason at all, to avoid concluding that Jesus is the Messiah. But Jesus pointed out the flaws in their thinking, and now they're asking for a sign. They're saying, okay, wait, well, the real problem is we don't have enough evidence. We want more evidence. But as we said, they already have enough evidence to believe. This allegory concludes with, so will it be with this evil generation, and we know why this generation is evil. We have already learned from the context that they reject the evidence that Jesus is the Messiah and they're demanding more. They have the greatest sign standing in front of them, they're talking to the Messiah face to face, and still they're asking for another sign, and they're going to see the empty tomb and reject it too. Now, if this is an allegory, we know that in an allegory the elements are picked for their symbolic value. And typically we use our knowledge of the context and of the culture of the day to figure out the symbolism. This is where we don't have a whole lot of evidence to go on. So this is my best guess. Because of the context about not believing the evidence right before their eyes, I think the unclean spirit is a spirit of unbelief, the spirit of a hard heart that refuses to believe the truth. Because that's the issue under discussion in the context. So it makes sense that that would be the main kind of point of the analogy. Passing through the waterless places seeking rest. Well, water is sometimes used as a symbol of judgment. So you have this picture of the unclean spirit seeking rest or seeking to avoid judgment. It's looking for a place where it won't be judged. Again, that fits with the context where we have the scribes and the Pharisees seeking to avoid the most obvious conclusion from the miracle that they've just witnessed. So the scribes just saw Jesus heal a man and they're trying to find a way to deny what happened. They're trying to find an excuse or some way to deny the truth that's right before them. And that is analogous to passing through the waterless places seeking rest. Jesus just gave them physical, tangible, visible evidence that he was, in fact, the Messiah. The scribes don't want to acknowledge that he's the Messiah. They seek an alternative explanation, and that's analogous to the unclean spirit going out of a man, seeking a place to rest where it won't be judged, a place where there's no water. But they don't find it. Jesus challenged their explanation and revealed the flaws in their thinking. So they didn't find rest in their excuses and their rationalizations. Now in the story, the unclean spirit panics when he finds his empty house put in order. He can't have that. So he goes out and gets seven other spirits to fortify. Him and help him cope. He needs reinforcements because his house is swept, empty, and orderly. Okay, what does that mean? This stuff about the house is the most perplexing part because nothing in the context gives us a clue to what it means. But we do have a clue from the Old Testament. And remember, Jesus is talking to Pharisees. The Pharisees were experts in Old Testament law. They made it their business to know every detail of the law and to apply it meticulously. And Jesus can reasonably expect them to be familiar with the laws in Leviticus. It so happens, Leviticus 14 gives us laws for cleaning a house. And there is a passage in Leviticus that spells out the rules given to the priests of Israel for how to clean a house that was infected with leprosy. At this point, my best guess is that this symbolism is an allusion to that section of Leviticus. Now you say, wait, houses can't get leprosy, and that's true, but my understanding is that what the Bible calls leprosy was actually a very broad category of diseases that included modern leprosy. The rules given in Leviticus would apply to a house that had mold or mildew or some kind of fungus or germs, any kind of house that was unclean. So this is Leviticus 14. I'm going to read you thirty three through forty one. The Lord spoke to Moses and Aaron, saying, When you come into the land of Canaan, which I give you for a possession, and I put a case of leprous disease in a house in the land of your possession, then he who owns the house shall come and tell the priest, there seems to me to be some case of disease in my house. Then the priest shall command that they empty the house before the priest goes to examine the disease, lest all that is in the house be declared unclean, and afterward the priest shall go in and see the house, and he shall examine the disease, and if the disease is in the walls of the house with greenish or reddish spots, and if it appears to be deeper than the surface, then the priest shall go out of the house to the door of the house and shut up the house for seven days. And the priest shall come again on the seventh day and look, and if the disease has spread in the walls of the house, then the priest shall command that they take out the stones in which is the disease and throw them into an unclean place outside the city, and he shall have the inside of the house scraped all around, and the plaster that they scrape off they shall pour out in an unclean place outside the city. The text goes on to give a few more instructions about dismantling a house that remains unclean and gives instructions about what those who entered it must do to become clean again. If the priest returns and the disease has not spread, then there are instructions about what to do before someone can live in the house again. But from Leviticus 14, we notice the first thing they were to do was to empty the house. The first step is to take everything out of it. Then the priest inspects it, they wait seven days to see if the disease spreads. If after seven days the spots have not spread, then the house is declared clean and they can move back in. But if the disease has spread, then they go inside and they scrape all the walls clean and they clean out all the contamination, they put the house in order, they remove problem stones and they replace them with clean stones, and then they wait some more. The priest checks again. If the mold or the disease has come back, the house is declared unclean and they dismantle in it, and no one can ever live in it because it's unclean. But if the disease has not come back, then the priest offers a sacrifice, the house is declared clean, and they live in it again. So that gives us a picture of a house that is empty, swept, and put in order as a house that has been emptied and is waiting to be declared clean. This is a house that's waiting for the priest to offer a sacrifice and declare it clean again. This is a house on the verge of being cleansed by a priest. Well, that suggests that the house in this allegory could be a symbolic way of depicting a person who is on the verge of belief. The truth has been revealed to this person, the evidence is right before their eyes, they have no reason to reject the truth, their excuses have all been knocked down, and all that's left to say is, Yes, Lord, I believe, and they will be cleansed and forgiven. And that's the situation in Matthew 12. The Messiah is standing before the scribes and Pharisees. He has just miraculously healed a man of demon possession. They have physical, tangible evidence that this man, Jesus of Nazareth, is the Messiah, and the question is, will they believe? Well, no, they go crazy trying to offer some other explanation. And that's the activity we see in the allegory. The unclean spirit leaves, it goes out, it can't find rest, so it decides to go home. When it comes home, it finds the house empty, swept, and put in order, and it's like, oh, I can't have that, so it goes out and it gets reinforcements. In a similar way, the Pharisees say, no, that can't be truth. Jesus couldn't possibly be the Messiah, and they cast about for any kind of explanation to deny it. The spirit of unbelief can't stand the truth. It doesn't want to bow to the truth, so it seeks reinforcements in the sense of other arguments, other ways to explain away the facts. This evil and adulterous generation says, give me another sign, that one wasn't good enough. Or to use the biblical language, they harden their hearts, they become that much more stubborn in rejecting the truth, and they refuse that much more vehemently to believe. And that gives us the punchline, the last state of the person is worse than the first. Why? Because his heart is now harder than it was before. He can no longer claim ignorance because he's been told. He can no longer claim foolishness because wisdom has been offered to him, and he can no longer claim he didn't have any evidence because he rejected the evidence he was given. To reject the truth is worse than never having had a chance to learn the truth. This explains why Jesus didn't perform miracles every single day of his public ministry. Why didn't he heal everyone in Israel? Why didn't he always speak plainly and openly instead of speaking in parables or riddles or hyperbole? Why at certain times did he ask people not to talk about who he was? Well he was being merciful. He's withholding truth from those who would reject it so that they won't further harden their hearts. In effect, he's giving them more time to respond. Miracles don't help people with a hard heart, and that's the way it was with this generation standing before Jesus. The only sign left for that generation was the resurrection, because if Jesus was to extend his earthly ministry, say ten more years, it would only harden that generation and make it worse for them. Well, that's my best understanding at this point. Again, I hold this very loosely as this is a very difficult passage. And that brings us to the final section in chapter twelve. This is Matthew twelve, forty six through fifty. While he was still speaking to the people, behold, his mother and his brothers stood outside asking to speak to him. But he replied to the man who told him, Who is my mother and who are my brothers? And stretching out his hand toward his disciples, he said, Here are my mother and my brothers, for whoever does the will of my father in heaven is my brother and sister and mother. I think the interesting part of this story is that Jesus includes mother. Imagine that in this story only the brothers of Jesus were at the door, and Jesus pointed to his disciples and said, Who are my brothers? These are my brothers. Well that language would sound very familiar to us. We talk about having brothers and sisters in Christ all the time. I can easily think of Jesus as my brother, but it sounds very strange to think of any of us being Jesus' mother. So in thinking about why he would include mother, I think that helps us unravel his point. Here's the situation. Someone interrupts Jesus while he's teaching to tell him that his family is outside and wants to talk to him. His mother and his brothers are waiting. These are his people. Family typically represents the people closest to you. When a family works well, these are the people that know you, that love you no matter what, and you know you always have a place with them. They're on your side, they support you, you have a stronger connection with family than anyone else. So, what does the person knocking and interrupting Jesus expect? Well, he expects Jesus to stop what he's doing and go talk to them. That's what you do. Family's important. They're your people, they're your strongest connections. Jesus picks up on that idea and says, No, my strongest connection is not with my physical family, it's with my disciples. That sense you have that your mother and your siblings are your people, the people you have the strongest, closest loyalty to, the strongest connection to, that's how I feel about those who, like me, are seeking to do the will of God. Those who are seeking God are my real family. These are the people who have the most important connection with me. Now, this idea of being in the family of Christ comes up a lot in the New Testament. We've talked about it on this podcast before. Part of loving God is loving God's people. Other believers who are on this journey of faith should matter to us. They're our people. We should look at them and say, they're like me. We're going to share eternity together. And in a real sense, they are our true family. And I think that's the point Jesus is making. Now to wrap this up very briefly because this podcast is already kind of long, let me make two comments. First, notice how this passage underscores the centrality of Christ. There's no neutrality when it comes to Jesus. Each one of us must decide what to do with this person Jesus of Nazareth. The stumbling block before us is not a lack of evidence. The stumbling block is the hardness and stubbornness of our hearts. Ultimately, we don't believe because we don't want to believe. Faith is a gift, and the fact that you and I believe is a miraculous act of the Holy Spirit revealing the truth to us and giving us faith. But there's no neutrality when it comes to Jesus. We're either for him or against him. We have to decide. Sitting on the fence is not an option. Second, I think we must learn when to speak the truth and when to be quiet. Sometimes by telling people about Jesus, we're only pushing them farther away and hardening them farther to the truth. And if that's happening, we must learn to wait for a time when God has been working on them so that they're more open to hearing what we have to say. Especially with family members who are lost, the temptation is to just keep talking and talking and talking. But sometimes our persistence in talking is not doing them any favors. Sometimes I think we have to learn to sit back and wait for the Spirit of God to make them receptive. Thank you for listening to Wednesday in the Word, the podcast that explains not only what a passage means, but also shows you how to figure it out. If you've been blessed by this podcast, please do me a favor. Take a minute to leave a positive rating or review wherever you listen to your podcast. Reviews really do help people find the podcast. You can also subscribe to the mailing list, subscribe to the podcast, but most importantly, tell a friend what you learned and where you learned it. Our theme music is graciously provided by Reggie Coates. You can find more of his music and listen to his CDs on heartfeltmusic.org. Thank you so much for listening today. I'm Krisan Marotta, and I hope you'll join me next week for Wednesday in the Word.