Matthew 12.22-29:
Jesus’ Use of Reason
1.
Setting the scene
a.
There is a demon-possessed man who was blind and
mute.
b.
Jesus responds by healing the man “so that he
spoke and saw” (v. 22).
c.
The crowds are amazed and begin to draw the
explanatory conclusion that Jesus might be the Son of David—the Messiah.[1]
d.
The Pharisees offer another causal
explanation—Jesus’ exorcistic power is from Beelzebul, the ruler of the demons.
2.
Jesus begins to reason about why their
explanatory cause makes no sense.
He points to their (a) inconsistency
and (b) arbitrariness.[2]
a.
Inconsistency: Jesus points to an internal
inconsistency in his opponents argument in verses 25-26. Essentially Jesus argues that if Satan
is casting out Satan this creates a divided kingdom. If Satan is casting out Satan and in the process is drawing
people’s minds to think of God’s promises—namely the Davidic Messiah—then is a
stupid plan.[3]
b.
Arbitrariness:
In verse 27 Jesus points to a reality the Pharisees accepted—exorcisms by their
“sons.” Jesus is asking if their
causal explanation of his exorcisms is consistent with the fact of other
exorcisms they do accept. Jesus is
thus demonstrating that their causal explanation is arbitrarily applied.[4]
3.
Jesus continues to draw out his reasoning about the
situation in verse 28: “But if I cast out
demons by the Spirit of God, then the kingdom of God has come upon you.”
a.
This is an example of modus ponens:
i. If P then Q
ii. P
iii. Therefore,
Q
b.
In Jesus’ argument:
i. P
= I [Jesus] cast out demons
ii. Q
= the kingdom of God has come upon you
c.
Jesus had defended P in verses 25-27 against the
counter-explanatory claims of the Pharisees
4.
The Pharisees can irrationally hold to their
inconsistent and arbitrary explanation or they could attempt to take Jesus’ modus ponens argument and turn it into a
modus tollens argument.
a.
modus
tollens
i. If P then Q
ii. ^Q
iii. Therefore,
^P
b.
They could deny that the kingdom has come
(^Q). Therefore, whatever the
explanatory cause of the exorcism it is not the case that the kingdom has come
so they reject Jesus’ reasoning.
It is to admit that they do not have an explanation for Jesus’ power but
they refuse to give credence to Jesus’ explanation.
5.
Why does Jesus draw the conclusion about the
relationship between exorcism by the Spirit and the coming of the kingdom?
a.
Jesus’ words in Matthew 12.29 help us to see the
background of Jesus’ reasoning.
Matthew 12.29 states: “Or how can
anyone enter the strong man’s house and carry off his property, unless he first
binds the strong man? And then he
will plunder his house.”
b.
This language of Matthew 12.29 is an allusion to
Isaiah 49.24-25:
24”Can the prey be
taken from the mighty man, or the captives of a tyrant be rescued?” 25Surely, thus say the Lord,
“Even the captives of the mighty man will be taken away, and the prey of the
tyrant will be rescued; for I will contend with the one who contends with you,
and I will save your sons."
c.
Larger context of Isaiah 49 is about the
“Servant.”
i. Servant
is both corporate (Israel—verse 3)
ii. And
an individual—the Servant brings back Israel (Jacob) to God (verse 5-6)
d.
“Servant” language in Isaiah 49 is part of
larger Servant imagery in Isaiah that Jesus also appeals to in his teaching.
i. Isaiah
42.1 “Behold, my Servant, whom I uphold;
my chosen one in whom my soul delights.
I have put my Spirit upon him…
1.
Isaiah 42.1-3 is the passage quoted by Jesus in
Matthew 12.17-21—the pericope immediately prior to the passage under
consideration about Jesus’ exorcisms!
2.
The Servant who has God’s Spirit upon him is
linked in Isaiah with the Spirit-anointed One in Isaiah 61.1 “The Spirit of the Lord God is upon me,
because the Lord has anointed me to bring good news to the afflicted;…”
ii. Isaiah
61.1-2
1.
“This individual parallels in the servant figure
of Isa. 40-55. The anointment of
the Spirit recalls 42:1…”
2.
“Thus Beuken (1989) is correct in understanding
Isa. 61 as an ‘interpretation’ of Isa. 40-55.”[5]
3.
Isaiah 61.1-2 is quoted by Jesus in Luke 4.18-19
e.
Jesus is utilizing the background material in
Isaiah regarding the Spirit-anointed Servant who brings God’s kingdom.[6]
6.
Jesus and the Pharisees hold certain background
assumptions in common. They both
formally affirm the Old Testament perspective on God, his covenants, his
promises in Isaiah, etc. Jesus
reasons from within these shared assumptions to show the inconsistency and
arbitrariness of the Pharisees.
Their explanation does not fit the evidence as situated within their
shared background assumptions.
[3]
“It is not be presumed that Satan is stupid: the Pharisees were taking up an
impossible position.
Theoretically, of course, it might be argued that Satan could allow the
expulsion of one demon in order to effect some diabolical purpose, but this
would be met by the fact that Jesus kept on expelling demons; he carried on an
unrelenting war against all the demonic forces.” Leon Morris, The
Gospel According to Matthew (Grand Rapids, Mich.: Eerdmans, 1992), 315.
[4]
“The only possible logic behind the Pharisaic position was that a mere human
could not overcome a demon. If
Jesus did have such a victory, therefore, it would show that he had aid from a
superhuman source, and in their hostility their logic led them to hold that the
source could only be Satan. But
they had spoken hurriedly; they had not stopped to reflect that some of their
own people claimed to cast out demons.
The Pharisees would have vehemently denied that their sons were in
league with the evil one, but they had not realized that such exorcisms said
something about Jesus also.
Therefore they will be your judges;
your own sons will prove you wrong!
The logic of a Pharisaic denial that their followers cast out demons
through the evil one meant that Jesus did not use the powers of evil
either. The sons would be able to
testify to the fact that casting out demons was not a work of Satan. They would ‘judge’ them for ascribing
to Satan what they, the exorcists, knew came from God.” Leon Morris, The Gospel According to Matthew (Grand Rapids, Mich.: Eerdmans,
1992), 316.
[6]
“In making this unique claim—in the light of the expectation that in the last
time God’s Spirit would rest on the Messiah (Isa. 11.2)—Jesus was almost
certainly claiming that in his exorcisms it was evident that he was endowed
with the eschatological Spirit and therefore an eschatological figure
himself.” Graham H. Twelftree,
“The Miracles of Jesus: Marginal or Mainstream?” Journal for the Study of the Historical Jesus 1.1 (January 2003),
119.
