Biblical commentary on the New Testament - The Christian ...

448 Matthew XII. 22.
§ 19. Of the Calumnies of the Pharisees. Jesus' Severe
Eebukes of them.
(Matth. lii. 22-45; Mark iii. 20-30; Luke xi. 14-26, 29-32.)
To suppose a more intimate connexion of the narrative which
follows, with what precedes, is in Matthew, out of the question, inasmuch,
as, after the general formulas in ver. 15, 16, the narrative
is taken up by a simple tote^ then. In Luke xi. 14, seq., we find
ourselves transported into a perfectly strange region ; and Mark iii.
20 again leads us hack to the sending forth of the twelve Apostles,
where the report of their return is followed by an indefinite : KaX
ovvipxerat -ndXiv ox^og, and a multitude again come together. The
addition, however, in ver. 22, "the scribes that had come down
from Jerusalem/' renders it probable, that a feast in Jerusalem has
preceded. But,, on the one hand, it is uncertain which of the feasts
is to be understood ; and, on the other, we might suppose the jour-
ney of the scribes not at all connected with a feast ; a supposition
admissible, only, if these doctors were Galileans. But since this is
not mentioned, we may conceive that they were emissaries sent out
by the chief men of Jerusalem, and these might arrive at any time
in Galilee. At all events, it will not do to attempt to determine
what has been left undetermined. In Mark iii. 21, another remark-
able circumstance is added, which will presently occupy our atten-
tion (at Matth. xii. 46); but then he immediately states the
impudent charge of the Pharisees against the Lord, without referring
to the cause which called it forth. Matthew thus represents the
opposition of the Pharisees in its gradual growth, until it reaches
its climax, in accusing Christ of a connexion with the kingdom of
the evil one, and of madness.
Ver. 22.—According to Matthew, the cure of a demoniac, who
was at the same time dumb and blind, was the occasion of the impudent
accusations of the Pharisees. (Luke xi. 14 points out his
dumbness only, without however denying that he was blind also.)
The sick man must have suffered from the extraordinary form of
disease, as it is only thus that the remarkable astonishment of the
multitude, and the inferences which they draw from the cure, can
be accounted for. (Matth. xii. 23 uses the phrase : t^ioravro iravreg
ol ox?^oi. The verb as well as the noun tKoraaig are, in the New
Testament, frequently used to express violent terror or astonishment
; [Mark ii. 12, v. 42 ; Luke v. 26 ; Acts iii. 10.] Concerning
vlog Tov M(3i6j compare remarks on Luke i. 35.) It is clear, however,
that the sick person is called demoniac, not because he was