article17

§12 Opposition Mounts (Matt. 12:1–50)

In chapter 12 Matthew relates a number of incidents that reveal the basis for Pharisaic opposition to Jesus and his ministry. Jesus vindicates his disciples’ plucking grain on the Sabbath (vv. 1–8), restores a paralyzed hand on the Sabbath (vv. 9–14), moves away when he hears of a plot against him (vv. 15–21), refutes the Pharisees’ claim that he drives out demons by the power of Beelzebub (vv. 22–32), calls his antagonists “snakes” who will be held accountable on the day of judgment (vv. 33–37), and refuses to perform a miracle for the “wicked and adulterous” people of his day (vv. 38–42). Small wonder that the unrepentant religionists rose up against him! So strong is the opposition that some writers have decided that the material belongs to the Jewish-Christian controversies that arose at a later time. However, without such opposition during the lifetime of Jesus, the crucifixion would remain an enigma.

12:1–2 / Although Matthew does not mention the return of the Twelve, we find them back with Jesus as the narrative resumes with chapter 12. Walking through the grain fields, they become hungry, so they pick some heads of grain and begin to eat. In Jesus’ day cultivated fields were laid out in long narrow strips with paths in between. The season would have been late spring, when the grain was ripe. That the disciples were not stealing is clear from Mosaic legislation, which says, “If you enter your neighbor’s grainfield, you may pick kernels with your hands, but you must not put a sickle to his standing grain” (Deut. 23:25).

When the Pharisees saw what Jesus’ disciples were doing, they objected, saying that such activity on the Sabbath was unlawful. Had not God said, “Six days you shall labor, but on the seventh day you shall rest” (Exod. 34:21)? In order that the Torah not be broken, the scribes and Pharisees had developed a precise code of regulations. Thirty-nine different kinds of work were prohibited on the Sabbath (m. Shab. 7.2). According to the Book of Jubilees a man is to die if on the Sabbath he goes on a journey, farms, lights a fire, rides a beast, travels by ship, kills a beast, or catches a fish (50:12). From the Pharisaic perspective, the disciples had unlawfully reaped (pluck the grain), winnowed (rub it between the hands), threshed (separate the chaff), and prepared a meal (eat the grain).

12:3–8 / Jesus responds to the Pharisees by asking whether they had read about when David and his companions entered the house of God and ate the consecrated bread, although it was against the law for anyone except the priests to eat it. The story is recorded in 1 Samuel 21:1–9. Although the Jewish leaders knew the story well, they had failed to grasp its spiritual lesson, that is, human need must take precedence over ceremonial technicalities. The bread that David received from the priest was from the twelve loaves that were placed every Sabbath on a table of pure gold in the house of God. When they were replaced with new bread, they could be eaten by the priests. The hunger of Jesus’ disciples (v. 1) parallels the hunger of David’s men and points up a comparison between David and the “Son of David.” What was permissible for the lesser is even more appropriate for the greater.

Jesus draws his second illustration from the practice of the temple priests, who break the law every Sabbath and yet are not guilty. The priests “profane” the Sabbath by changing the consecrated bread “regularly, Sabbath after Sabbath” (Lev. 24:8), and “on the Sabbath day” making a double burnt offering (Num. 28:9). If Sabbath laws can be set aside in the interests of temple service, it follows that they can be set aside for something or someone greater than the temple. And Jesus declares that that is exactly the situation. The Greek comparative meizon is neuter (a few manuscripts have the masculine) and has caused most writers to interpret the “something greater” as the kingdom that Jesus inaugurates. Gundry is persuaded that Matthew’s high Christology argues for a reference to Jesus, and he explains the neuter as stressing “the quality of superior greatness rather than Jesus’ personal identity” (p. 223; for other views, see Hill, p. 211).

Once again Jesus quotes the prophet Hosea (6:6) in support of actions that run counter to Jewish restrictions (cf. 9:13). He states that his opponents would not have been so quick to condemn the innocent if they had grasped the real meaning of the Scripture that said, I desire mercy, not sacrifice. The Greek eleos translates the unusually rich Hebrew ḥeseḏ, which connotes God’s faithful and merciful help that flows from a covenant relationship binding the two together (cf. TDNT, vol. 2, p. 480). It is not Jesus’ purpose to compare the ceremonial law unfavorably with the moral law. The point is that acts of kindness take precedence over religious rites when one must choose in a given situation. The kingdom of God is of greater importance than the ceremonial legislation that prepared the way for its arrival. If the Pharisees had understood this principle, they would not have criticized the disciples for plucking grain on the Sabbath. That the Son of Man is Lord of the Sabbath should not be difficult to grasp. The title has eschatological overtones: it is not simply a way of saying “man,” as if what is being taught is the humanitarian lesson that physical needs are more important than religious prescriptions. As Messiah, Jesus has the authority to override Sabbath ordinances when appropriate.

12:9–14 / Jesus has just declared that the moral obligation to show kindness takes precedence over the ceremonial responsibility to fulfill ritual duties (vv. 1–8). The incident that follows demonstrates the same ethical priority. Jesus moves on from there and enters a synagogue. Their synagogue refers to the synagogue of the Pharisees (cf. v. 2). It does not reveal a later period in history when Jewish Christians were no longer welcome in local synagogues. There he encounters a man with a withered hand. The apocryphal Gospel According to the Hebrews identifies him as a stonemason who sought healing so he could work with his hands and not have to beg for food (cf. M. R. James, The Apocryphal New Testament, pp. 4–5). Both Mark and Luke say that those in the synagogue “watched him carefully” (Gk. paratēreō) to see if Jesus would heal on the Sabbath so they could accuse him (Mark 3:2; Luke 6:7). In Matthew they ask Jesus the leading question, Is it lawful to heal on the Sabbath? The implication of course is that healing is work and would therefore violate the Sabbath ordinance (cf. Exod. 20:8–10).

Though rabbinic law permitted medical help to a person whose life was in danger (m. Yoma 8.6; Mek. Exod. 22:2; 23:13), it was obvious that in the case of a shriveled hand the cure could wait until the next day. It is important to realize how precise Jewish custom was when it came to keeping the Sabbath. It was the reason Pompey was able to conquer Jerusalem; he built up his offensive position outside the city on Sabbaths, when the Jews simply looked on but would do nothing to stop him (Josephus Ant. 14.58–63). It was not the purpose of those who baited Jesus to get a theological answer to their query but to goad him into action that they assumed was against the law.

Jesus counters their question with another question (a normal gambit in rabbinic debate). If you have a sheep that falls into a pit on the Sabbath (v. 11), will you not lay hold and help it out? Is it not taken for granted that any reasonable person (even the most conscientious Pharisee) will lend a hand in such a case, even on the Sabbath? Some have noted that this premise would not have been accepted universally: the Essenes at Qumran prohibited the rescue of even a newborn animal on the Sabbath (CD 11.13–14). The people to whom Jesus was speaking would not hesitate to help an animal in need, otherwise Jesus’ argument would be without force. What angered Jesus (cf. Mark 3:5; he looked around met’ orgēs, “with anger”) was that they would come to the aid of livestock on the Sabbath but would deprive one of their own countrymen of the miracle of healing.

Jesus goes on to point out the obvious: How much more valuable is a man than a sheep (v. 12), and therefore it is perfectly appropriate to perform this act of mercy on the Sabbath. He then tells the man to stretch out his hand. The man stretched it out, and it was made as sound as the other hand. Instead of rejoicing over an act of human kindness, the Pharisees withdrew to plot how they might be able to do away completely with Jesus. The Pharisees were beginning to realize that not only was their prestige at stake but also their basic understanding of true religion. The freedom with which Jesus acted was a serious threat to their traditional point of view. What they could not grasp was that freedom from ritual commandment need not lead to moral chaos but within the kingdom of God imposes a responsibility far greater than any law could demand. Jesus’ person was so authoritative and his reasoning so persuasive that those who would not agree had but one option—get rid of him. What began as name-calling (e.g., 9:34) ended in crucifixion.

12:15–16 / When Jesus learned that the Pharisees were plotting to take his life, he moved on to another area. Matthew’s use of ginōskō rather than oida (as in v. 25) suggests that he received a report of their intentions rather than knowing it by intuition. Many followed him, and he healed all their sick. There is no particular reason to conclude that since he healed them all, the many who followed him were all sick people needing help (see Filson, p. 148).

Why Jesus would warn his followers not to make him known has been the subject of considerable scholarly debate. Matthew records five occasions on which Jesus commanded silence (8:4; 9:30; 12:16; 16:20; 17:9). It may have been that he wanted to avoid further trouble with the Pharisees. No sense in antagonizing those who are already bent on doing you in. Some have felt that Jesus wanted to direct attention away from himself and to his message. Phillips translates, “that they should not make him conspicuous by their talk.” Many have explained the injunctions to silence as a way of discouraging a following based on misguided messianic enthusiasm. He came as Messiah but not the kind of nationalistic messiah they had chosen to expect.

In Mark’s parallel account, the order not to make him known is directed to the unclean spirits who fell before him confessing that he was the Son of God (Mark 3:11–12; cf. Luke 4:41). This, along with other observations, led Wilhelm Wrede around the turn of the century to develop a critical view known as the “messianic secret.” He held that belief in Jesus as Messiah came as a result of the church’s post-Easter faith. The church then put out the story that Jesus had secretly told his disciples of his messiahship and charged them not to let it be known. Thus the “messianic secret” is an attempt to read back Jesus’ messiahship into the life of Jesus (see the article by Colin Brown in NIDNTT, vol. 3, pp. 206–11). Tasker says of this theory, “It is one of the more pervasive features of a certain type of modern Gospel criticism that it regards these injunctions of Jesus to keep silent about Himself as a literary device of Mark, followed by Matthew and Luke, to explain why Jesus was not more widely recognized as Messiah in His lifetime” (p. 126).

12:17–21 / Matthew himself states why Jesus charged those whom he had healed not to tell others about him. He says, This was to fulfill what was spoken through the prophet Isaiah. Then follows a quotation from chapter 42 of the prophet Isaiah, verses 1–4 (the first of the Servant Songs). The quotation is the longest of Matthew’s formula quotations and diverges from not only the Hebrew and the Septuagint, but also from any of the known Targums (Aramaic paraphrases). Green (p. 124) suggests that the alterations are due to apologetic use in the church (Lindars), to the work of the “school” of interpretation behind Matthew (Stendahl), or to the editorial work of Matthew himself (Barth). Though the original reference may have been to Cyrus, the Persian king who conquered the Near Eastern world of his day, the passage is messianic and points forward to the coming Redeemer. The quotation itself summarizes the ministry of God’s Servant, who came quietly to carry out his assigned role and ultimately to bring about universal justice.

The first two lines of the quotation are connected with the voice from heaven at both the baptism of Jesus and his transfiguration (3:17; 17:5). He is God’s servant (Gk. pais, “child” or “son”), chosen and loved by the Father and anointed by the Spirit to proclaim justice to the nations. The Greek verb in v. 19a (erizō, “to argue or wrangle”) does not come from the Isaiah text but serves to explain Jesus’ quiet withdrawal from controversy with the Pharisees (v. 15) The Greek verb for cry out (v. 19) can be used for the barking of a dog. That his voice is not heard in the streets could perhaps be intended to contrast with the hypocrites who pray standing in open public areas (cf. 6:5). The bruised reed and the smoldering wick refer to those who have been worn down by the difficulties of life. Jesus comes as a gentle Messiah (cf. 11:29). He will continue “until the time when he crowns his judgment with victory” (Knox), and in him the nations of the world will rest their hopes. Matthew’s universal hope for the gospel is nowhere seen more clearly than here.

12:22–24 / A demoniac who was blind and unable to speak was brought to Jesus, who restored him to health. This brief narrative repeats a healing also recorded in chapter 9 (vv. 32–33). In the earlier account the man’s blindness was not mentioned. The purpose of the story is not to call attention to Jesus’ miracle but to emphasize two widely differing responses to the person and work of Christ. All the people that pressed around to see the miracle were dumbfounded at what Jesus had done (existamai means “to be beside oneself”; in Mark 3:21 the same word is used of Jesus by his family: “He is out of his mind”). They kept saying (elegon in v. 23 is imperfect), “This man could not possibly be the Son of David, could he?” The Greek construction expects a negative response but allows for the possibility that the answer could be yes.

Matthew uses Son of David eight times as a title for Jesus. It has solid roots in the Old Testament (2 Sam. 7:13–15; Amos 9:11) and had become a popular messianic title by the time of Christ. The title is quite often connected in the Gospels with healings and exorcisms. Howard Marshall suggests that this connection could have resulted from the title’s being understood particularly in terms of the character of Solomon, who had a reputation for power over evil spirits (NIDNTT, vol. 3, p. 651).

When the Pharisees heard the crowds entertaining messianic ideas about Jesus, they said, with scorn, “This man expels demons only because Beelzebub the ruler of the demons gives him the power. He can control demons in others only because he himself is controlled by the chief of demons.”

12:25–28 / Jesus is well aware of their way of thinking. It is incredible that learned men, trained in the art of skillful debate, would not realize the full implications of their position. Jesus points out that kingdoms divided are bound to collapse, and that if demons are cast out by the power of Beelzebub then their own disciples are as demonic as he is (vv. 25–27). The argument is called reductio ad absurdum (showing that the consequence is impossible or absurd when carried to its logical conclusion). Kingdoms engaged in civil war are on the way to destruction. Cities and households divided by internal conflict cannot stand. So if one part of Satan’s kingdom is expelling another, there soon will be nothing left.

The second part of the argument (vv. 27–28) is even more damaging. Let us say for the sake of argument that I cast out demons by Beelzebub’s power. Tell me, by what power do your disciples do the same? What your own followers do proves you are wrong.

Jewish exorcists were widely known in the first century. Acts 19:13–20 relates the story of the seven sons of the Jewish high priest Sceva, who, attempting to cast out demons in the name of Jesus, were attacked by the man with the evil spirit. Josephus supplies information about how the Jewish exorcists went about their trade (War 7.178–189).

Jesus continues: if, on the other hand, it is by the Spirit of God that I drive out demons, then it follows that God has taken up his reign in your midst. Luke’s use of “the finger of God” in the parallel passage (Luke 11:20) reflects the term as it is used in the Old Testament for such things as the plague of gnats (Exod. 8:19) and the writing of the Ten Commandments on tablets of stone (Deut. 9:10). Only here and in 19:24; 21:31, 43, does Matthew use kingdom of God rather than kingdom of heaven. Perhaps this particular saying was so well established in the tradition that he was hesitant to rephrase it. A great deal has been written on ephthasen in verse 28 (cf. G. E. Ladd, The Presence of the Future, pp. 138–45). It is best to take it to mean that the kingdom has arrived but not necessarily in its fullness.

12:29 / Verse 29 is a short parable that makes the point that in order to rob a strong man’s house it is necessary first to tie him up. This is normally interpreted to mean that Satan (the strong man) has been overpowered by Jesus and is therefore unable to prevent him from plundering his goods (exorcizing those possessed by demons and thereby belonging to Satan). According to popular Jewish thought, Satan would be bound in the end times (Ass. Mos. 10.1; Test. Levi 18.1; cf. Rev. 20:2). Jesus’ miraculous deeds prove that Satan is powerless to resist, and therefore the eschatological kingdom has begun. Gundry holds that Matthew turns the saying to another end. Jesus is the “strong man,” and his “goods” are his disciples. Since Satan cannot bind Jesus, those who would persecute Jesus’ disciples will not prevail (p. 236). The argument is not persuasive.

12:30–32 / With the Pharisees in mind, Jesus says that all who are not with him (helping to gather the lost sheep of Israel; cf. 10:6) are against him (they scatter the sheep; cf. 10:16). The saying does not contradict Mark 9:40 (“For whoever is not against us is for us”), which was Jesus’ response to his disciples concerning a man casting out demons in Jesus’ name. In that case, it can be properly said that those who do mighty works in Jesus’ name are not able afterwards to speak evil against him (Mark 9:39). In the situation referred to in Matthew the religious opponents of Jesus are guilty of blasphemy (12:30–32). The exorcism of verse 22 that cured a blind mute elicited from the Pharisees the charge that it had been done by the power of Beelzebub. Jesus now responds with the harshest words in the Gospels. To blaspheme against the Spirit is different from any other kind of sin—it will not be forgiven. Even speaking against the Son of Man will be forgiven but not speaking against God’s Holy Spirit.

There has been a great deal of speculation about the “unpardonable sin.” Some have been haunted by the possibility that they have committed this sin and are therefore no longer able to be forgiven. Jesus is saying to his antagonists that to attribute to Satan that which has been accomplished by the power and Spirit of God is to demonstrate a moral vision so distorted that there is no longer any hope of recovery. It would be possible to speak against the Son of Man and be forgiven because at that time in Jesus’ ministry there was a hiddenness about his person. Not so with the mighty works wrought by the Spirit. They were clear demonstrations that the kingdom (power and reign) of God was present in the world. Denial of this was not the result of ignorance but of a willful refusal to believe. Therefore it is unforgivable. The only sin that God is unable to forgive is the unwillingness to accept forgiveness. Thus the “unforgivable sin” is a state of moral insensitivity caused by continuous refusal to respond to the overtures of the Spirit of God.

12:33–37 / Four centuries before Christ the Greek dramatist Menander noted that a person’s character reveals itself in the spoken word. Jesus put the same truth in the image of a tree and its fruit. A good tree bears good fruit, but a diseased tree bears unusable fruit. The quality of the fruit tells you what kind of tree you have. Matthew applies the saying of Jesus to the Pharisees who have just claimed that Jesus has exorcized a demon by the power of Beelzebub. People show by the fruit they produce what they are really like. Verse 34 indicates that Jesus denounces the Pharisees for their evil conclusions regarding his activity. A few writers suggest that Jesus is calling upon the Pharisees to be consistent in their judgment about him: that is, either he is used by the Spirit to do a good work in casting out demons or he is in league with the devil and his deeds are evil. In other words, “Make up your mind.” Phillips translates, “You must choose between having a good tree with good fruit and a rotten tree with rotten fruit.” The problem with this interpretation is that the Pharisees had already decided what kind of a “tree” Jesus was.

When John the Baptist saw the religionists of his day coming out to be baptized, he called them a “brood of vipers” who thought they could escape the coming judgment by joining the crowd (3:7). Jesus applies the same designation to the Pharisees who now oppose him. You brood of vipers, how would it be possible for you who are evil to say anything good? What the mouth speaks flows from the heart. Good people have stored up goodness, and evil people have stored up evil. Thus when they speak they cannot but disclose what they are. In New Testament terminology the heart stands for the inner person, thus the mouth in this case simply expresses what a person is really like. No amount of religious pretension can conceal that those who have aligned themselves against Jesus are basically evil.

On the day of judgment people will have to account for every idle word they have spoken (v. 36). The Greek argos (“idle”) is a compound that means “produce nothing” (ergon, “a deed,” and a, an alpha privitive). A careless word is one that would have been better left unspoken. Offhand remarks serve the purpose of judgment in that they are better indicators of character than carefully designed statements. Plummer notes that carefully spoken words may be a “calculated hypocrisy” (p. 181). Rabbinic tradition held that not only a person’s deeds but also his or her words were recorded in a heavenly record (Str.-B., vol. 1, pp. 639–40). Out of our own mouths will come the words that condemn or acquit us.

12:38–42 / Some of the scribes and Pharisees respond (the Greek verb in v. 38 is apokrinomai, “to answer”) to Jesus by challenging him to demonstrate in some conclusive way that he has the power and authority he claims. “Teacher (the title normally used in Matthew by those who were not followers of Jesus), let us see some spectacular sign,” they request. The Greek sēmeion occurs regularly in the Fourth Gospel, with the meaning of a “miracle of divine origin” (BAGD, p. 748). In the Synoptics, miracles are dynameis, “mighty works.” What the Pharisees wanted was something like the signs performed by Moses to convince Israel that God had appointed him to his mission (Exod. 4:1–9). They had witnessed his healings and exorcisms, but now they wanted irrefutable evidence that defied natural explanation. Paul speaks of exactly that attitude in 1 Corinthians 1:22, “Jews demand miraculous signs.” Such an attitude does away with faith. It originates not in a desire to know but in the decision not to believe.

You are a wicked and adulterous people, responds Jesus. You insist (the NIV’s ask does not do justice to the intensive compound epizēteō) on a miraculous sign as a prerequisite for believing. The only one you will get is the sign of the prophet Jonah. Just as he spent three days and three nights in the belly of the sea monster (following the LXX; Hebrew has “large fish”), so the Son of Man will be three days and three nights in the realm of the dead (heart of the earth is not a specific reference to the tomb; cf. Eph. 4:9). Commentators differ on what the sign actually is. Hill says the death of the Son of Man is the only sign given (p. 220). Most believe that the sign refers to the resurrection of Jesus. Tasker remarks that there was to be no sign except the supreme sign, the resurrection, which was the Father’s unmistakable vindication of his Son (p. 131).

The term adulterous generation takes the adjective in a metaphorical sense to mean “unfaithful” or “apostate.” Ezekiel speaks of Israel and Judah as two women (Oholah and Oholibah) who “became prostitutes in Egypt” (Ezek. 23:1ff.; cf. Isa. 57:3; Hos. 2:2–13). The Jews of Jesus’ day had broken their covenant relationship with God and were therefore “unfaithful in marriage.” Associating the three days and three nights in the heart of the earth with Jesus’ death and resurrection has troubled some. He was crucified on Friday and rose on Sunday—three days counting inclusively, but not three nights. To press the time frame is to misunderstand the nature of a recognized figure of speech. Mention of Jonah leads to a comparison of the Jews of Jesus’ day with the pagan city of Nineveh (v. 41). Jesus says that in the final judgment the repentance of the Ninevites when they heard the preaching of Jonah will rise to accuse those who have been privileged to hear someone even greater. The neuter gender of pleion has led some to take the word to mean “something greater,” but Gundry is correct in saying that it emphasizes quality as distinct from personal identity (p. 246; as NIV: one greater). The reference is to Jesus. The Queen of the South (cf. 1 Kings 10:1–13) will join with the Ninevites in leaving the Jews “without excuse” (Knox), because she came all the way from Arabia to listen to the wise teaching of Solomon, whereas Jesus’ opponents have refused to accept the word of One who is greater than Solomon. It is not Jesus’ purpose to praise the heathen as much as to shame the Jews. Advantage carries responsibility. Later, Paul speaks favorably of the Gentiles, who sometimes “do by nature things required by the law” (Rom. 2:14).

12:43–45 / Jesus now tells the parable of an evil spirit who returns from wandering in the desert and, finding its former house put back in order, moves in again with seven other spirits more wicked than itself. Jesus concludes, “And that is just what will happen to this evil generation” (v. 45c, Phillips).

The verb exerchomai (“to go out”) does not necessarily mean “to be cast out.” Why the unclean spirit leaves is not stated, although it travels through the wilderness in search of a resting place (in Matt. 11:29 anapausis has the sense of “deep satisfaction/refreshment”). It was commonly held that the arid regions of Palestine were favorite haunts of demonic spirits (cf. Tob. 8:3, where the demon fled to “the remotest parts of Egypt”), It was while Jesus was in the desert that he was tempted by the devil (4:1ff.).

Finding no rest in the desert, the demon returns to its house. There was nothing to harm or destroy in the desert, so it might as well go home. Upon arriving, it discovers its house swept clean, redecorated, and standing empty. So it invites seven other demons (and these worse than itself) to move in with it. Little wonder that the man (the house) was worse off than before!

The parable has to do with the spiritual condition and destiny of Jesus’s hearers. Jesus had come to his people with the message of messianic deliverance (cf. Luke 4:17–19). The kingdom of heaven had come, and the power of evil was being broken. In the parable this is the time when the demon was elsewhere looking for rest. But the repentance of Israel was far from complete. The house was swept and set in order, but the new resident (the Spirit of God) had not been invited to move in. Reformation without regeneration is fraught with danger. So the forces of evil return, and the final state of the nation is worse than at first (Heb. 6:4–6 is somewhat parallel). The reference is not simply to final judgment: it describes the existing condition of the Pharisees in Jesus’ day.

12:46–50 / While Jesus is still talking with the crowds, his mother and brothers arrive and try to get through to speak to him. Mark 6:3 names the four brothers as James, Joseph, Judas, and Simon. Although one segment of scholarship has held from about the fourth century on that Jesus’ brothers were either half-brothers (sons of Joseph by a previous marriage) or cousins (sons of a sister of Mary), it is best to take the Greek adelphos in the normal sense of a regular brother. In Mark’s account, Jesus’ mother and brothers had come to take charge of him because they thought that he had gone mad (Mark 3:21). John 7:3–5 clearly indicates that his brothers did not believe in him. The absence of any reference to Jesus’ “father” Joseph supports the conjecture that he was an older man when he married and had probably died by this time. Not only the Jewish religionists but Jesus’ own family as well failed to grasp his mission and message.

Verse 47 is missing in a number of the older and better manuscripts of the New Testament (Sinaiticus, Vaticanus, earliest Latin and Syriac versions), probably because an early scribe skipped from the final word of verse 46 (lalēsai) to the same word where it also completes verse 47 (scholars call this homoeoteleuton). It supplies a transition from verse 46, which tells of the arrival of Jesus’ family, to the he replied to him of verse 48.

To the message that his family is outside wanting to talk with him, Jesus responds with the rhetorical questions, Who is my mother, and who are my brothers? Pointing to his disciples, he declares, Here are my mother and my brothers. On what basis? Whoever does the will of my Father in heaven is my brother and sister and mother. Doing God’s will is accepting the mighty deeds of Jesus as heralding the arrival of the messianic kingdom. The author of Hebrews writes that, since all those purified from their sins have the same Father, “Jesus is not ashamed to call them brothers” (Heb. 2:11).