THERE are three movements in chapter twelve, all of them dealing with the subject of the conflict between Jesus and the rulers. First, the conflict concerning the Sabbath, in verses one to twenty-one (Mat 12:1-21). Then, the conflict concerning His power, where He obtained it, and what its nature was; in verses twenty-two to thirty-seven (Mat 12:22-37). Finally, the conflict concerning a sign; they asked for some sign, and He refused it; in verses thirty-eight to fifty (Mat 12:38-50).

At the beginning of His ministry the rulers were not only interested in Jesus, they were attracted by Him, and admired Him. They invited Him to dinner. They propounded their questions to Him. This did not last long; and we saw in chapter nine that they really broke with Him when He claimed authority in the moral realm, and claimed the right to forgive sins. This was the first outward break; but the first waning of admiration of Jesus on the part of the rulers was born of the fact that He made Himself the friend of sinners, and so violated all their conceptions of righteousness and purity; their conceptions being that righteousness and purity consisted in external separation from sinners, and from their sin. Now we approach that period in His propaganda when hostility became evident, positive. It never ended until they folded their arms across their breasts satisfied because they had encompassed His death.

In these twenty-one verses the subject is the Sabbath; first, the Sabbath in the corn-fields, verses one to eight (Mat 12:1-8); secondly, the Sabbath in the synagogue, verses nine to twenty-one (Mat 12:9-21). In the first eight verses dealing with the Sabbath in the corn-fields, we have the King's claim of authority; in the second division, the Sabbath in the synagogue, we have the King's activity upon the basis of that authority.

Before proceeding to the examination of these two passages, it is well to specially notice that the Sabbath question was that which led the rulers to determine on the death of Jesus. They opposed and criticized Hun before; they wanted to find some method of dealing with Him; but each of the Evangelists refers to this fact,-though in each Gospel it is stated in different setting, under different circumstances, that it was because of our Lord's attitude toward the Sabbath that these men decided to kill Him. If this is established it reveals the importance of the Sabbath question, and forbids any superficial exposition of the verses we are studying. For instance, it has been very commonly said that the attitude of Jesus to the Sabbath was a protest against the Rabbinical view of the Sabbath. It has been generally said that when He defended His disciples for plucking ears of corn, and when He Himself healed on the Sabbath, He was setting the Sabbath free from false methods of observance. There is an element of truth in all this, but to leave the subject there is to miss the profoundest values of this wonderful section, in which the King, claiming authority for the Sabbath, and prosecuting His activity on the Sabbath, aroused the ire of the rulers so that they begin to plot to take His life. Probably these men would not have plotted to take the life of Jesus simply because He attempted to broaden men's views concerning the Sabbath. We must read more closely if we would find out what Jesus did both in the cornfields, and in the synagogue. The Sabbath was the most sacred symbol of the real nature of Judaism; indeed the only symbol peculiar to Judaism. We think of other things in the Hebrew economy of the past; for instance their sacrifices, the rite of circumcision, the peculiarity of the Temple in which God was supposed to dwell. But all these things were found amongst heathen people in some form or other. Burnt sacrifices were found among all the Semitic peoples. Circumcision was a common rite among other peoples as well as Jews. Temples in which the gods were supposed to dwell were common things. But the Sabbath was peculiar to the Jew, the setting apart of one day upon which men were to give themselves wholly to, and exclusively to, the cultivation of the spiritual within them, in recognition of their perpetual and underlying relationship to the eternal things. The Sabbath as a physical blessing provided for men by God is as old as the human race, though not the peculiar quality of the Sabbath as the symbol of separation to God, the seal of God set upon all the phases of life. The Sabbath according to the Hebrew economy was not one day given to God, while men were permitted to keep six for themselves; it was rather the peculiar sign and symbol of the deepest things in the life of the people.

Now both in the corn-fields, and in the synagogue, and on other occasions, Jesus said things about the Sabbath, and claimed relationship to the Sabbath, which the keen critics of His own day perfectly understood, and upon which they came to the decision that the only thing they could do with Him was to disprove the claim He made by killing Him. In no relationship or application of His teaching did Jesus make more remarkable claims for Himself than in the words He uttered about the Sabbath, and in our present study there are revealed both His claim, and the reason of their objection to that claim, in two movements.

Let us attempt to look at them with simplicity and naturalness, that we may see what Jesus really said, and understand the claim that He made in the matter of the Sabbath; and discover why it so stirred the hatred of these men.

First, the Sabbath in the corn-fields, the King's claim of authority. He was walking through the corn-fields on the Sabbath day with His disciples, prosecuting His work, journeying from one place to another to preach the Kingdom, to heal, to bless to call men back again to God; and on the journey the disciples were hungry. There is a very wonderful teaching in that very fact; it is a revelation of the poverty of these men. And there is a very strange teaching in it, too. He, the King, was so poor in earthly things that He was not able to feed the men who followed Him. At the time they were hungry-to use the language of to-day they were doing missionary work, they were going somewhere to proclaim the evangel of the Kingdom. As these hungry men passed through the corn-fields they plucked the ears, and fed themselves with the corn. It was a perfectly simple and natural action of the disciples, and reveals very clearly their estimate of their Lord's heart. They did not for a moment imagine that He would rebuke them. They knew, as members of the Hebrew nation, that they were doing things that the Pharisees would object to, but they were with Him, and familiarity with Him, and a consciousness of His attitude towards the Sabbath, set them free to pluck the ears, to rub them, to eat, and so to satisfy their hunger. It is a revelation of the relationship existing between Christ and His disciples. There was no hesitation, no appeal, no fear. This action the Pharisees at once criticized. They began to pluck the ears of corn. They began, that is all. Criticism was dogging the footsteps of Jesus and waiting to blaze forth, and immediately the Pharisees raised their objection.

Again notice how the familiarity between Christ and His disciples is brought out in the fact that the Pharisees did not criticize the disciples; they criticized Christ, they put the responsibility for all the disciples were doing upon Him. The appeal which they made was an appeal to Him. "The Pharisees, when they saw it, said unto Him, Behold, Thy disciples do that which is not lawful to do upon the Sabbath." They knew right well that the disciples' action revealed the attitude of their Master, that either by express teaching, or evident example, He had set these men free from certain traditional obligations.

Now we come to that which is of supreme importance, our Lord's answer to His critics. First, His answer assumed responsibility for their action. There is not the faintest suggestion of defence of what they were doing, as though it were something apart from Him. He reminded them of what David did, and so identified Himself with the action of His disciples.

Moreover, He justified their action, and He did so by illustration. Not so much in the actual words He used as in the peculiar illustrations He selected, do we touch the deepest heart of this defence. He first reminded them of David, that is, He took as an illustration of the rectitude of His conduct the action of the one king of all their history who was after God's own heart notwithstanding all his failure. Solomon was the magnificent, but the name of Solomon never moved the heart of the true Hebrew as did the name of David. He passed back in their history until He came to the one king in whom the kingly ideal had been most perfectly realized, and He said, " David when he was hungry, and they that were with him . . . ate the shew-bread, which it was not lawful for him to eat, neither for them that were with him, but only for the priests." David did the thing unlawful by their standards, unlawful by the technicalities of the law as well as by the tradition of the elders. Jesus would not have said unlawful if referring to tradition merely. Christ was always careful to distinguish between the law of Moses and tradition. And yet He said that David did this, and was guiltless.

Passing from David the king He took the other personality that bulks large in the Hebrew history, and spoke of the priest. He declared that priests profaned the Temple on the Sabbath day in the very act and attitude of their worship. The priest must break the Sabbath to do his manual work of the Temple on the Sabbath. And yet the priest was guiltless. Such is the clear inference.

We miss a great deal of the force of these things unless we keep our minds upon these Pharisees. They were the rulers, the teachers of the people; and Jesus said to them in effect, You are criticizing My disciples for the breaking of the law; your criticism is not due to enlightenment, it is due to ignorance. Your objection to what you have seen is not due to your perfect understanding of the deep things of God; it is due to your blindness and misunderstanding of them. "If ye had known what this meaneth, I desire mercy, and not sacrifice; ye would not have condemned the guiltless." Hosea meant, that God looks for mercy and not sacrifice; and that if a man brings a sacrifice, and there is no mercy in his heart, his sacrifice becomes a blasphemy. If you knew, said Jesus to these men, what your own Scriptures meant. If you only understood that the hungry man must be fed Sabbath or no Sabbath! If you had known what all this meant, you would not have blamed the guiltless.

But we have yet to touch the deepest note. All that did not make the Pharisees angry enough to want to kill Him ; but this did; "But I say unto you that One greater than the Temple is here." "For the Son of Man is Lord of the Sabbath." The Sabbath is a means of grace, the Sabbath is a Divine provision by which man can have help and strength and blessing, not something by which he is to be bound, and fastened, and burdened. The Sabbath is that through which God in infinite love would cheer the drooping heart of humanity; and it is the Son of Man, the Master of men, Who is the Lord and Master of the Sabbath. He will take the Sabbath and fulfill it according to the intention of God's heart, even though He violate all the traditions of the elders, even if He seem for the moment to be breaking the external commandment of the law. The King has claimed to have the perfect right to use the Sabbath as He would. The King distinctly declared that the priest was guiltless in what would have been his profanity, because he was ministering in the Temple; and then He said, "But I say unto you that One greater than the Temple is here." And if the priest in the Temple is freed from guilt, when he appears to break the Sabbath, how much more these men journeying with Me if they satisfy this hunger by plucking ears of corn! The vindication of what I do is in Myself. The vindication of what My disciples do is in the underlying purposes of My ministry. If you do not understand what that meaneth, "I desire mercy, and not sacrifice," I understand what it means, and as I prosecute the purposes of the infinite mercy amongst men, I am Lord and Master of the Sabbath.

So, to the listening ear of the rulers, this strange young Galilean peasant claimed a prerogative which is a prerogative of Deity. He spoke with the authority of the one and only God. He said what no other man ever dared to say. He laid that right hand of His upon the most sacred symbol of national life, that Sabbath which they were desecrating in spirit, and said: I am Master of it, and the vindication of what men do in fellowship with Me on the Sabbath is to be found in the fact of their fellowship with Me.

But to pass to the next section. Here the teaching is even more remarkably and beautifully brought out. We suddenly find ourselves in the synagogue. Again it was the Sabbath day. Jesus had come into the synagogue, and somewhere in the synagogue was a man with a withered hand. These two things are supreme; the presence of Christ, and the presence of the man with the withered hand. Have you ever noticed what unconscious compliments Christ's enemies paid Him? When Jesus came into the synagogue they immediately connected Him with the man with the withered hand, and asked Him if it was lawful to heal on the Sabbath. There was malice behind the question, for we are told they asked Him " that they might accuse Hun," He had made an astounding claim about the Sabbath, and they were determined to deal with Him. They were trying to see if they could put Him into a difficult position in order to accuse Him.

He answered their question by asking another; "What man shall there be of you, that shall have one sheep, and if this fall into a pit upon the Sabbath day, will he not lay hold on it, and lift it out?" Again here is a small matter needing careful attention. He did not say, If a man see a sheep; but if he have one. He said, If your sheep fall into the pit you rescue it, and you rescue it because it is yours. "How much then is a man of more value than a sheep?" You own sheep and care for them and rescue them.

Now we have come into the new light and glory. Now the Son of Man is claiming not the Sabbath, but the man. Now the Son of Man is not only saying that He is Lord of the Sabbath, but that He is Owner of man. That man belongs to Me. I am here to rescue him, and to set him free from the limitation of the evil that is in the world. You know full well, you men that criticize, that you would violate the Sabbath and be guiltless in saving your sheep, because it is yours. Understand, for evermore, that the supreme work of the Sabbath is that of reaching man and saving him.

All the emphasis of the argument here is upon the thought of ownership. Jesus Christ is not excusing what He is going to do upon the basis of authority. It is the work of necessity. I cannot help it; this is My man. That was the great cry of His heart.

There was another occasion when they criticized Him about the Sabbath, recorded in John's Gospel, which flashes its light upon this. When He passed through the porches at the Bethesda pool, He healed a man on the Sabbath, and they criticized Him then. He answered, "My Father worketh even until now, and I work." In other words He said; Man by his sin has broken God's Sabbath, and God is fulfilling the Sabbath intention of rest by working for the rescue of man. So Jesus said to the critics in the synagogue; That man is not at rest, look at his withered hand, he is restless and suffering and limited; and I Who am Lord of the Sabbath, Who made the golden splendour of the waving corn, have claimed authority over the Sabbath; and I am now exercising that Lordship by saving My man on the Sabbath, and so fulfilling the very deepest intention of the Sabbath. Yes, He said, it is lawful to do good on the Sabbath.

When Jesus had said these things the Pharisees determined to destroy Him, for He had claimed to be Lord of the Sabbath, and Owner of man; and to have the royal kingly right to do whatever was pleasing to His heart, impulsed by the tenderest love.

Then Jesus left the synagogue and multitudes of people flocked around Him. "Jesus . . . withdrew . . . and many followed Him; and He healed them all." Oh what virtue coming out of Him! Oh what a stream of life and health! It was still the Sabbath, "and He healed them all!"

He charged the people that they should not tell of this healing at the time, "that it might be fulfilled which was spoken by Isaiah the prophet." The prophet of the past saw that this supreme Servant, Whom he described, would overstep all the boundaries of mere prejudice, and nationality, and go out to those that lay farther away-the Gentiles. It is generally said that this passage from Isaiah teaches Christ's meekness, that if a man is bruised He will not break him, and that He will not put out the smoking flax, but that He will help it. But it really teaches Christ's restraint from judgment during His ministry of grace. He withdrew in order that He might not smite them for their hypocrisy; for a bruised reed is weakness weakened, and smoking flax has the element of destruction in itself, and Christ said of these enemies, they are bruised reeds, they are smoking flax, I cannot break or quench until I send forth judgment to victory, and then the bruised reed will be broken, and the smoking flax fanned into a flame for its own quenching.

This is not to deny that He is very gentle with weakness, but to recognize that it is not the teaching here.

It is the great King that we see, claiming the Sabbath, claiming the ownership of man, and restraining judgment which might have proceeded in fire against the blasphemers, in order that He may accomplish His work in His own way, and send forth the message of health to the Gentiles also. He restrained judgment because the day of His mercy was not perfected, and accomplished.

The outstanding matter of this study is that of the claims of Christ. Greater than the Temple, Lord of the Sabbath, Owner of man, Restrainer of judgment until He please. Let us kiss His sceptre anew, and bow the knee in the presence of His supernal majesty, and say, "All hail the power of Jesus' name."

IN this study we shall consider the second movement in the opposition of the rulers. We have already seen how the answers of Jesus to the different positions of the attack of the rulers varied; indeed there was a progress in His method. In the first, when their complaint was concerning His claim in respect of the Sabbath, Jesus stood on the defensive. In the second of these movements, the one which we are now to examine, He defended Himself against the charge they made, but He added to the defence words terrifically solemn as He warned these men concerning the peril which threatened them. In the last movement, which we have yet to consider, He denounced and condemned, refusing absolutely to give them evidence when they asked for it.

Let us first break up the section which we are to study into its component parts, and then consider them. In verses twenty-two and twenty-three we have the occasion of this outbreak of conflict.

"Then was brought unto Him one possessed with a devil, blind and dumb: and He healed him, insomuch that the dumb man spake and saw. And all the multitudes were amazed, and said, Can this be the Son of David?"

Then in verse twenty-four, brief and yet forceful, we have the account of the attack which the rulers made on Him, in the presence of this miracle which He had performed in their sight, and in the sight of the people.

All the remaining part of the paragraph is devoted to Christ's answer to the attack.

Let us look, then, first, at the occasion; secondly, at the attack; and principally and particularly, at Christ's answer.

The occasion was that of the healing of a demoniac. A man possessed with a demon was brought to Him, a man in whose physical life the demon had wrought sad havoc, a man who was both blind and dumb; and with a word of power, with no incantations, with none of the methods of the exorcists of that particular time, the man was healed; and the fact that the demon had been exorcised was made evident by the man seeing and speaking. It was one of the wonders that Jesus wrought habitually.

The effect produced by this particular miracle upon the crowd reveals the real meaning of the Pharisees' complaint and attack. When the crowds saw what Jesus did with this man, they are reported to have exclaimed, "Can this be the Son of David?" They did not say, "Is not this the Son of David?" If the question had been in that form it would have suggested a stronger conviction that Jesus was the Son of David than the question actually did suggest. It was the question of the perplexed crowd. They had been watching Him, and listening to Him, and beholding the wonders that He wrought, and at last in the presence of this wonderful miracle, wrought with absolute ease, simply by the uttering of a word, they cried out in perplexity, "Can this be the Son of David?" They meant to say, We cannot make up our minds. To insert a phrase for the sake of exposition it was as though they had said, "Is this, after all, the Son of David?"

When we hear the question, and see what it indicated, we know why the Pharisees said what they did. It was a perpetual fear among the Pharisees and rulers that they might lose their hold on the people. Upon occasion they said, "What do we?" . . . "The world is gone after Him." They saw very clearly that if His line of teaching was accepted, their power would be absolutely gone; and when they heard this wavering, hesitating question, " Can this be the Son of David?" they attempted to account for the wonder that had produced the question by this declaration: " This Man doth not cast out demons, but by Beelzebub the prince of the demons." What they said was either a lie and they knew it; or else it was the result of their degenerate moral nature, so that they were unable to distinguish between good and bad, between heaven and hell, between purity and pollution. Whichever alternative is chosen, this at least remains true, they were attempting to turn the people from the Christ, by attributing the wonders that He wrought to diabolic influence.

The King's answer proceeded along two lines. First, that of refutation; and, secondly, that of declaration. He refuted their argument by appeal to logic. This was one of the rare occasions when Jesus by argument answered attacks upon Himself. As a rule, a man who criticized Him He let severely alone, or replied to his question briefly and finally. It would be a very profitable and interesting study to take the Gospels and collect the questions men asked, and the answers He gave. The wonder of the answers of Jesus is revealed in the fact that we hardly ever find that men asked Him two questions consecutively; and now, nineteen centuries later, no man can improve on any answer Jesus gave as to the philosophy revealed, the method adopted, or the purpose gained.

But here, so terrible was the thing the rulers had said that Jesus, first of all, refuted by argument what they said.

The charge made against Him was that He wrought His wonders by complicity with evil; that by Beelzebub, Satan, He cast Satan out. In His refutation, our Lord attacked and denied their suggestion; and then proceeded to state and defend the truth concerning His method; He affirmed that He wrought by the Spirit, and defended His affirmation.

He revealed in His answer, first, the folly of their suggestion; secondly, the inconsistency thereof; thirdly, the willful rebellion that induced it; fourthly, the blindness which caused it; and, finally, their complicity with Satan as the secret of it. So that commencing by denying His own complicity with Satan logically, and in such a way that they could not reply, He ended by inferentially charging upon them complicity with Satan.

Let us trace these movements one by one. First. He showed the folly of their suggestion in a simple and logical statement. He told them that by common knowledge a house divided against itself cannot stand, a "Kingdom divided against itself is brought to desolation." Therefore if He in complicity with Satan were casting Satan out, then Satan was working for his own destruction.

He next revealed the inconsistency of their position, as He said, "If I by Beelzebub cast out demons, by whom do your sons cast them out? Therefore shall they be your judges." There was abundant evidence that there were exorcists abroad, men who in one way or another, were casting our evil spirits. Christ did not defend them or attack them, but simply referred to them in His argument with their fathers, the rulers of the people.

Mark the final words of the argument, "But if I by the Spirit of God cast out demons, then is the Kingdom of God come upon you." There was but one alternative to their suggestion; if not by Satan, then by the Spirit of God is Satan cast out; and in such action men were brought face to face with the Kingdom of God, not only as to its claim, but as to its power.

In a moment the deeper truth began to burn and flame before the eyes of these men as to Christ's intention. Not only was their charge false and inconsistent; it was of the nature of rebellion against the Kingdom of God. It was because they were living in rebellion against the Kingdom that they had attempted to attack Him.

Now follow a step further. He now took for granted that complicity with Beelzebub on His part could no longer be maintained; and that His claim that He cast out devils by the Spirit must be conceded. Taking these things for granted, mark the progress of His argument. "Or how can one enter into the house of the strong man, and spoil his goods, except he first bind the strong man?" In effect He thus said to them; You charge Me with casting out demons by the prince of demons; have you not eyes with which to see that when I cast out demons it is a proof that I have already laid My conquering hand upon the master of demons; that instead of working by his power I am working as the result of having overcome his power; that I have entered into the house of the strong man and bound him, and therefore am able to spoil his house? The binding of the strong one was wrought out by the perfection of the Christ. Not merely by virtue of the death of Jesus, but by the virtue of His pure humanity did He bind the strong one, and so was able to spoil his house. As Man He overcame the enemy in personal temptation, bound him, and thereby made Himself able to spoil his house. God's children, who have entered into His victory by the Cross, also know something of what it is to bind the strong one. His Cross is the force that sets us free to spoil the house of the strong one, and rescue other souls.

He said one other thing by way of refutation, "He that is not with Me is against Me, and he that gathereth not with Me scattereth." That was a statement containing principles of perpetual application. Carefully note its setting. "He" refers first to Satan, and. in that verse, flaming with light, the two great personalities are brought into contact, the One the Gatherer, and the other the scatterer; and they are for ever against each other. The truth about Satan is not that the King was in complicity with him. The truth is that He was in antagonism to everything he did. He had cast the demon out of a man, and so had gathered him back into unified and balanced life; had gathered him back to His family, and to the family of God. It was Satan that had scattered, it was he that had spoiled.

Thus as the King commenced by showing the folly of saying that Satan was working with Him, He ended His refutation by declaring the absolute antagonism between them; He was the Gatherer; Satan was the scatterer. There are but two forces at work, the force that gathers and the force that scatters. And Jesus said in effect; Do not confuse the Person Who stands at the centre of the gathering force with the person who stands at the centre of the scattering force. A distinction must be maintained between good and evil in all logical thinking.

But the "he" of our Lord's statement has also personal application to every life. It is as though Jesus had said to these men, all life is centripetal or centrifugal. I am gathering. What are you doing? He meant to say that they were scattering; that it was not He Who was with Satan, but they.

Thus by one sweeping statement, true as God is true and-every man knows it is true in his deepest heart-that the Gatherer is against the scatterer, Jesus marked a. clear line, dividing all He does from all the devil does, and that line is His dividing line between men. That line is the Judgment Throne. We are with Him or against Him; and we may know which by asking, Are we gathering or are we scattering?

We now reach those awe-inspiring words with which the paragraph closes. For searching solemnity they are unsurpassed in the records of the things Jesus said. We tremble as we read them. Jesus Christ opens here before the mind a sphere into which if a man ever enter, his case is absolutely hopeless. The One Who proclaimed, as the supreme meaning of His mission, that He had come to seek and to save the lost; the One Who declared that He was able and willing to save and remake men and women whom others had cast out as hopeless, is the One Who here declared that there is an attitude of the human soul which is hopeless. Such solemn words as these demand our careful attention for two reasons; first, in order that we may place no untrue emphasis on them; and, secondly, that we may by no means minimize their terrible meaning. We are in danger of making both these mistakes. We may read into them meanings which He never intended; or we explain away the most solemn words Jesus Christ ever uttered. The only way in which we can hope to understand, is by taking them in the simplest way possible.

The whole statement falls into three parts. The first is a solemn warning. The second is the chronicle of the appeal He made to His traducers. Then, finally, we have what seem to be the most awful words of all, because in them it would appear as though Jesus Christ Himself had become almost hopeless of the men to whom He spoke.

First, the warning. In order that there may be no undue emphasis put upon the solemn words, let us carefully observe that they constituted a warning, and not a sentence. We are not warranted in believing that the Pharisees had committed the unpardonable sin, but that they had come near to its committal; so near that presently, in the final lament, Jesus, usually so full of hope for men, in one brief, wailing complaint makes it evident that they had almost crossed the boundary line. But, at the moment when these words were uttered, they had not crossed that awful boundary line, and the words were for warning, and not for sentence. Therefore we are not true to the context, when we say that the blasphemy against the Holy Ghost is that of attributing to the Son of Man complicity with Satan. That is blasphemy against the Son of Man, and He distinctly said that such may be forgiven.

What, then, is the nature of the warning? The Lord had said, "If by the Spirit I cast out demons, then is the Kingdom of God come upon you;" and in those words He evidently intended to teach that there are only these alternatives; exorcism of demons is either by Satan or by the Spirit of God. They said that He had wrought by Satan. In so doing they had denied that He wrought by the Spirit, which according to His interpretation meant that they were refusing the Kingdom of God. In the presence of the claims of that Kingdom, in the presence of the demonstration of the power of that Kingdom, they were refusing it. That, if it be ultimately and finally persisted in, is the sin against the Holy Ghost which has no forgiveness. The sin against the Holy Ghost is the ultimate refusal to believe on the testimony of the Spirit concerning Jesus Christ. The sin against the Holy Ghost is persistent, determined, and final rejection of the Spirit's demonstration of the meaning of the Kingdom, and of the power of the King.

In the final words of the King this statement is found; "Out of the abundance of the heart the mouth speaketh." Notice that principle. Speaking against the Holy Ghost does not consist in a theory advanced; nor in a sentence that drops thoughtlessly from the lips. When a man says I will not believe the testimony, he does so because in his heart he is refusing the King. That is the unpardonable sin. There is no sin under heaven that may not be put away by infinite mercy, through the Cross, except the sin which declines to receive the mercy, to receive the grace, because it declines to submit to the sceptre of the King.

These men were very near that sin. He declared that sin can be forgiven so far as it is a slight and insult to Him ; but if men persist in refusal to obey, if they will have none of His grace, then they cannot be forgiven. The sin against the Holy Ghost is willful, personal, final rejection of the Spirit's testimony, by words of the mouth which express the decision of the heart.

Then He made His appeal to them; "Either make the tree good, and its fruit good, or make the tree corrupt and its fruit corrupt." Say that you know the tree is corrupt because its fruit is corrupt; or dare to say that the tree is good, because its fruit is good. There is in these words the touch of a great pity, of a great desire to help these men. He appealed to them not to attribute good fruit to a corrupt tree. That is what they were doing. They said that the good result, of a man freed from demon possession, was wrought by Satan. He appealed to them to be consistent; to believe on Him for the very works' sake.

Then finally He uttered the most Awe-inspiring words of all; "Ye offspring of vipers, how can ye, being evil, speak good things?" The severity of that consists in His evident pity for them. It seems as if even the hopeful spirit of Christ was almost hopeless about these men. He said, How can ye speak a true thing? How can ye say the tree is good because its fruit is good? How can you tell the truth? You are the offspring of vipers; you are morally degenerate; you have lost your moral discrimination.

It is impossible to undertake a study like this, without feeling its searching force and power in one's own heart and life. The power of Christ is as evident to-day as ever. The works that He is doing in our time are far more wonderful than the works that He did in the days of His flesh. There are multitudes of witnesses who can tell of moral change in their lives, that cannot be produced in any other way than by His power; men who were mean and dastardly, and to-day are victorious and noble. On every hand evidences of His power abound, as mighty, and mightier, than any wrought in the material realm. They are the moral victories of Jesus To-day. J. Cotter Morrison, in his book, The Service of Man, in which he professes not to believe in Christ, says, "The Christian doctrine has the power of elevating and developing saintliness which has had no equal in any other creed or philosophy." How do we account for that? The answer to this question will depend upon what we are in ourselves. If in our heart there is simple honesty, there is but one answer-He Who flings out impurity is pure; He Who saves man from the power of passion is in Himself a Master of the tides of passion; He Who lifts a man from degradation is Himself noble and honest. To see these present-day miracles in the realm of morals, is to be compelled, unless the heart' be utterly depraved, to crown Him Lord of all, kiss His sceptre, and bow in reverential worship in the presence of His glory.

IN this paragraph we have the last phase of this particular conflict of our Lord with the rulers. Concerning the Sabbath He had assumed the defensive attitude, claiming to be Lord of the Sabbath and Possessor of men. In me second phase of the controversy, when His power was under discussion, He defended Himself against the charge they made of complicity with Satan, and then in some of the most solemn words that ever fell from His lips, warned them of the awful peril that threatened them when they made such a charge and thus revealed their inability to distinguish between good and bad.

The time-note "Then" with which this section begins shows us that this demand for a sign followed immediately upon the King's solemn words of warning. That is in itself significant and partly accounts for the answer they received. That answer was a positive and emphatic refusal to give them a sign such as they asked, followed by words of direct and searching denunciation and condemnation.

In Matthew's account of this event we have first the request of the Scribes and Pharisees; and secondly the careful and revealing answer of the King; both .of which demand our very careful consideration in the light of the whole of the surroundings, and especially that process of controversy which we have been considering.

The tone and temper of these men is revealed in all that has gone before, and we must take tune to consider this if we are to understand their request, and the King's answer. If we glance back in the chapter to the fourteenth verse, we have at once a revelation of their underlying motive. Then Matthew tells us that after Jesus had answered their question as to the legality of healing a man on the Sabbath, by appeal to them, and by healing the man with the withered hand; "The Pharisees went out, and took counsel against Him, how they might destroy Him." That purpose was still in their heart when they accused Him of casting out demons by Beelzebub; and after His stern rebuke and solemn warning; it was the inspiration of this request. They were not honestly seeking for a sign, as men who really desired to know the truth about Him. The request was in itself malicious. They had come to definite conclusion as to what their line of action toward Him should be. They were set upon His destruction; and their request was inspired by their malice.

Its tone was that of satire, "Teacher, we would see a sign from Thee." This is self-evident in the light of the record of what they had already said concerning Him which we find in the twenty-fourth verse, "This man doth not cast out demons, but by Beelzebub the prince of the demons." If that statement did not express honest conviction, it certainly revealed their attitude toward Him personally, and out of such an attitude the request for a sign could not be honest. They were not really prepared to receive a sign. If they had been, the casting out of the demons was in itself sufficient to have proved His co-operation with the Spirit of God, as He had declared. Thus when a sufficient sign had been given they had refused it by attempting to account for it in the most terrible way. Yet these men, already hardened against convincing signs, asked for one; and the asking was satirical, the asking of men who were not prepared to accept as sufficient any sign He could give, because of their personal hatred of Him. That is exactly what He meant when He declared in words of the sternest, "Ye generation of vipers, how can ye, being evil, speak good things? for out of the abundance of the heart the mouth speaketh." Their use of the word "Teacher" was in itself an insult, as they refused to accept Him or His teaching. Their spirit was exactly that of the men who mocked at Isaiah, saying, "Whom will He teach knowledge?" (xxviii. 9) [Isa 28:9). They despised and rejected the Teacher and were determined not to accept His teaching; yet they called Him "Teacher"! They came to Him with this request, while they were filled with willful and wicked unbelief. They had seen many of His mighty works, but under the impulse of a deep and growing hatred they discounted them all; and their demand now was for a sensual and spectacular proof, such as He never gave, and such as, even had He given, they would no more have yielded to as proving the divinity of His mission than they had done in the case of the signs of His beneficent and mighty operations in the relief of human suffering both physical and mental.

The paragraph is occupied mainly with the King's answer. This answer is remarkable in every way, but the first matter which is impressive is that, refusing definitely and in so many words, to give them the sign they asked, He lifted the matter out of the then present surroundings, and spoke wholly of the future. For the purpose of careful consideration we may divide this answer into three parts. The first had to do with the Last Sign which would be given; and suggested another opportunity which would be created for that generation (39-40) [Mat 12:39-40]. The second dealt with the Last Judgment; and solemnly declared the nature of the verdict which would be found concerning the generation (41-42) [Mat 12:41-42]. The third described the Last State of the generation, and was of the nature of a sentence pronounced (43-45) [Mat 12:43-45]. Thus, in the presence of men who represented their generation, the King now spoke as One Whose testimony was rejected, and Whose signs had been ignored; and dealt with the future, foretelling an opportunity, a verdict, and a sentence.

While refusing a sign He promised a sign; and thus in the presence of their malicious hostility foretold the new opportunity which would be created for them by the carrying out to completeness of His divine work in the world. His purpose was that of saving and redeeming. Therefore He refused the sign they asked, which would have had no effect; and promised them the only sign that could by any means arrest and constrain them, that namely of His own Resurrection from the dead after their malice had encompassed that death. The giving of that sign would afford them a new and final opportunity.

The awful solemnity of the occasion is revealed in the words in which the King uttered His estimate of these men, and of the generation which they represented in their hostility to Him. That estimate is revealed in the two words which He employed, "evil," and "adulterous." The first described what they were in themselves. The second described their failure in relationship to God.

The word "evil" really means harmful, hurtful; and thus was two-edged as the King used it. It described the influence these men were exerting, and thus revealed their true character. In spite of all their external observances of religion they were essentially evil, wicked of heart; and therefore in spite of all their teaching of the formulae of religion and morality, they were exerting and influence that was hurtful; and thus the generation which they influenced was as evil as they were in themselves.

The word "adulterous" is a terribly searching one, and the more so in that here it is certain that the King used it, not in its material or physical sense, but in its spiritual significance. This was a method of use not unfamiliar to these men, in that they knew at least the letter of their own Sacred Scriptures. The figure implicated is that most sacred one o the Old Testament in which Jehovah speaks of His people as betrothed to Him; and the sin described is that most terrible sin of spiritual harlotry which Hosea had dealt with. The word, as the King used it, was a charge made against these men of disloyalty, infidelity to the sacred and holy covenant between them and Jehovah. They were adulterous, unfaithful to their vows. The one burning word was a condensation of the complaint of Hosea; "Jehovah hath a controversy with the inhabitants of the land, because there is no truth, nor goodness, nor knowledge of God in the land;" which was the prophet's interpretation of his figure of adultery and harlotry in the spiritual realm.

Such was the King's estimate of these men, and of the generation of which they were the spokesmen when they requested a sign. And in this hour of their malicious, satirical unbelief, He told them of the one full and final sign which would presently be given to them. That sign would in all essentials be similar to one with which they were perfectly familiar. They knew how Jonah had been a sign to Nineveh in its sin by virtue of the fact that he had appeared in the city a preacher of Jehovah, after he had been cast out to death. That is the only possible solution of the words of the King here, for in that is the only parallel between Jonah and Jesus. In every other way they stand in contrast. That throws some light upon the book of Jonah, but that is not now our subject.

Thus our Lord declared to these men that His final sign would be that after their hatred had encompassed His death, He would return out of death, and the demonstration of the truth of His teaching, and the divinity of His mission would be found in that return. How all this was verified we know full well. To men in evil mood asking a sign, the King spoke of the only sign which would be sufficient for such demonstration, the sign which would be the last possible. They had refused every other sign possible. They must now wait for that.

From that foretelling of a last sign, the King passed to the uttering of His last verdict on these men and their generation. This He did illustratively by instituting two comparisons, and uttering a two-fold condemnation. His first comparison was between the men of Nineveh and the men and generation with which He was personally dealing. The men of Nineveh were honest. They received the sign, heard the preaching and yielded to it in repentance. The men of His own generation would fail in that particular. The accuracy of the prediction we know. After the resurrection the truth was proclaimed with all the signs o Pentecostal power following therefrom, and with what results we know.

His second comparison was between the Queen of the South and the generation. She had come from the ends of the earth in diligent determination to hear the wisdom of Solomon, while their diligence had been that of persistent determination to silence the speech of the King.

The condemnation which the King announced was the result of the comparisons He made. He claimed to be greater than Jonah under whose preaching Nineveh had repented, and greater than Solomon to receive whose teaching the Queen of the South had shown such diligence. The comparison has another application also. They were children of the Covenant, familiar with the Divine Economy, versed in the great prophetic Scriptures; while Nineveh was a city outside the Covenant, and without the advantages which Israel had possessed, and the Queen of the South was of another nation and people, and so had not the privileges of the chosen and peculiar people.

Thus less enlightened people had obeyed less enlightening preaching and teaching; and in that fact the patent condemnation of those to whom He spoke, and who were to receive His final sign was declared.

The last part of the answer of the King was a very remarkable and inclusive summing up of the whole situation, and pronouncement of sentence. This takes the form of an illustration drawn from individual experience in the matter of demon possession; and if we examine that with care we shall be prepared for the application which the King made when He said, "Even so shall it be also unto this evil generation."

The illustration begins at the point of dispossession. An unclean spirit is cast out of a man. The Lord shows the activity of that spirit. It needs some medium through which to act; it is restless and dissatisfied, unable to find what it seeks, for lack of such material medium. That in itself is a most remarkable revelation throwing light on a dark subject. It does not, however, come within the purpose of the present consideration to follow it up. For us it leads up to the return of the evil spirit to the man, and to the discovery of what condition the man was in. That condition is described in the words, "Empty, swept, and garnished." The arresting word is the first, "empty" The man was improved in certain ways, "swept and garnished;" but not possessed, empty! The result was that the improvements were of no avail. Seeing there was no indweller, possessing, holding, mastering, the unclean spirit re-entered, taking others with him, and all the improvement was swept away, and the last state of the man was worse than the first. To cast out the unclean is of no lasting value, unless there follow new possession by the clean.

That is in itself a wonderful revelation of what is necessary to the remaking of a man and of society; and the King applied it immediately to His generation, that is to the men with whom He was dealing and to those whom they represented.

Thus inferentially He claimed that His presence and mission had loosed the power of evil. All His casting out of demons, which they had criticized, had but illustrated this wider fact, that while He was among them,, the whole underworld of evil was within His government, and for a period He had held it in check and given men and the age an opportunity for better things. At this point human responsibility began. It was not enough that men should be loosed from the powers of evil. They must be submitted to the good. He Who had cast out the evil spirits was Himself the King, able to possess the swept and garnished houses, so that they should be no longer empty, but held in possession by purity and power stronger than all the power of the enemy. This they had refused in their rejection of Him, and therefore the house though improved, "swept and garnished," would sink to a lower level as more and worse evil spirits took possession. It was a solemn but carefully explained sentence; every word of which was fulfilled so far as that generation was concerned; and every word of which is fulfilled in the case of all men who are brought into contact with the King.

In the course of this study we have incidentally noticed, and it should now be directly recognized, that the King treated the opposition of the rulers as being the expression of the dominant spirit of the age; and therefore while dealing with those men, He constantly addressed Himself to the " Generation." "An evil and adulterous generation" (39); "The men of Nineveh shall stand up in the judgment with this generation" (41); "The Queen of the South shall rise up in the judgment with this generation" (42). "This evil generation" (45). The lessons therefore are peculiarly applicable to an age, while having, of course, an immediate application to individuals.

Our generation lives in the light of the ultimate sign. The supreme vindication of the Christian Evangel, and demonstration of the Kingship of Jesus is that of the Resurrection; and that resurrection attested by the fact of the moral and spiritual changes wrought in the lives of countless multitudes of men and women. The Kingship of Christ is more than that of One Who casts out unclean spirits. It is that of One Who takes possession, and holds for purity against all opposing forces. This is proven, as we have said, in all those who have proved His power.

The teaching of His verdicts is that judgment will be according to opportunity. Therefore seeing that the Resurrection thus attested, proves Him the greatest Prophet, the greatest King, those who refuse His teaching and rebel against His rule will merit the severest condemnation.

The warning of His sentences is patent and pertinent. Christ's presence always loosens the bonds of evil. Men always are conscious of that, whether they confess it or yield to it or no ! Sometimes in the sense of that possibility we sweep and garnish our houses! We are great on cleanliness and decoration! Let us beware! Such swept and garnished houses are attractive to demons. Unless they are possessed and held by the King through His Spirit, the last state may be worse than the first.

IN our last three studies we have been considering the opposition of the rulers to the King as it manifested itself along three lines of attack. The first was that of their criticism of His attitude toward the Sabbath; the second that of their attempt to account for His power; and the third that of their request for a sign.

His attitude toward the Sabbath He defended. His power, He declared to be that of co-operation with the Spirit of God, and solemnly warned these men of the peril they were running in refusing to recognize this fact. As to a sign, He refused what they asked in the material realm, and foretold the ultimate sign of His own resurrection.

We now come to a brief paragraph which at first does not seem to have any relation to this movement of opposition, giving as it does the account of the coming to Him, at this period, of His mother and His brethren.

As a matter of fact, the story is vitally and intimately related to all that has preceded it, and is the account of opposition of the most subtle and powerful kind, proceeding from an entirely different motive.

In the incident recorded, interpreted in the light of the words of the Bang called out thereby, we have a superlative revelation of the most subtle form which opposition to the work of the establishment of the Kingdom of God ever takes. In this story therefore we also find a revelation of the reason why the Master, in the prosecution of His work, did not depend upon purely human affection, or trust Himself to those who were united to Him merely by the ties of earthly relationship.

In order that we may understand the passage, we shall consider the significance of the coming of Mary, and the consequent meaning of the words of the King.

Matthew simply records the fact that while He was speaking to the multitudes, His mother and His brethren stood without, seeking to speak with Him. If we turn to Mark's account of the same incident, we have some explanation of the reason why they came to Him at this time. The multitudes were so eager to be near Him, and to hear Him, that He and the disciples had neither time nor room to eat bread;" and when His friends heard it, they went out to lay hold on Him; for they said, He is beside Himself" (Mar 3:21).

It is evident that His mother and His brethren were not with Hun at this time, but in all probability were in Nazareth, where the news reached them of His persistent and laborious toil, and of the fact that He was coming into conflict with the rulers of the people. The news filled them with alarm, and they came to the conclusion that He was beside Himself, and immediately started on their journey to Him, in order to take Him away, and prevent His continuing this kind of work. Between the time when this rumour reached them and their arrival, His conflict with the rulers had continued concerning His power, and evidently concerning the sign also, although Mark does not chronicle that in the same connection.

At last His mother and His brethren arrived in Capernaum, where He probably then was (Mar 3:31).

Thus Mary's journey from Nazareth to Capernaum was the result of her great love for Him, and was taken because she thought He had lost His reason, and she would fain save Him from the results of His own folly.

If that was the reason of the coming of Mary, we at once have a revelation which accounts for the attitude of the King when He was informed of her arrival. It is a clear and superlative illustration of the fact that the Kingdom of God cannot be established on natural lines. His mother was, as to all earthly relationship, His nearest of kin, and yet she was evidently entirely unable to understand His method. His foes had said that the works He wrought were the result of co-operation with Beelzebub. His lovers declared that He had lost His reason. This is a startling revelation of how near hatred and love may be in the conclusions at which they arrive, when neither is familiar with the deepest secret prompting the activity of those who are working in fellowship with God.

In the light of this consideration of the significance of the coming of Mary, we may now consider more particularly the meaning of the words of Jesus. In the question He asked, and the declaration He made, He gave fresh evidence of the fact that the supreme passion of His heart was that of the accomplishment of the will of God. Such accomplishment He made the standard of His judgment, and the gauge of His relationships. Every other interest, however near, or however sacred by all the laws of human interrelationship, He counted secondary, and without hesitation or tremor, broke with them completely when they threatened in any measure to interfere with that supreme matter.

This is not to say that He lost His affection for His brethren, or failed in love to His mother. In the last and awful hours of His intensest suffering, He still thought of her, and with tender solicitude entrusted her to the care of John. His brethren, moreover, according to the flesh, we find eventually numbered among His disciples. But in this hour, when unable to understand Him, they sought from the motive of a true affection to hinder Him in His work, He resolutely refused to yield to their desire, and by His words revealed the fact that He counted earthly relationships as nothing compared to those spiritual relationships which were born of a common loyalty to the will of God.

Thus we see the King Himself entering into the experience to which He referred when He declared that "a man's foes should be they of his own household;" and that He "came not to send peace, but a sword."

It is impossible thus carefully to consider the story of the mother and the brethren of Jesus without feeling that this was a phase of opposition more subtle than any which had preceded it. In so far as it is permitted us to interpret His experience by our own, we should certainly be inclined to say that it was easier to resist the definite hostility of those who were in open rebellion, than to stand firm against suggestions which came from those who loved Him, and who, according to the measure of their light, were acting in His interest. Nothing other than the clearest vision of the will of God, and the most perfect acquiescence therein, would be equal to victory in such an hour of crisis.

The words of Jesus on the positive side are full of beauty and of encouragement for all those who share His devotion to the accomplishment of the Divine will. Conscious of the mistake made by His mother and His brethren, He pointed to the disciples, and declared that they were His next of kin. It is a truth not easy to believe, and yet witness is borne to it in every department of life. The highest and closest comradeships are always the result of spiritual affinity. That is the basis of true marriage. It is moreover, the ground of all high fellowship, such as that of art, or music, or literature. Those who come into communion upon the basis of a common capacity for the higher things of the spiritual life, find closer kinship than those united by ties of blood where there is no such spiritual affinity. And supremely this is true of those who are one in their vision of the Kingdom of God, in their passion for its realization, and in their devotion to the King Himself.

It is an amazing word when we think of the frailty of these disciples. Under the stress of all that lay before them, they were presently scattered like chaff before the wind; but notwithstanding all that, the history of the Christian Church has vindicated this gracious word of the King. When presently by the way of His resurrection, and the coming of the Spirit, the vision of these men was clarified, and their understanding of the true meaning of His mission was perfected, they were welded together with each other and with Him in a unity far mightier than that of flesh and blood relationship, and as they went forth to the fulfillment of His purposes in the world, like their Master they were enabled to count all the ties of human kinship as of no moment when in any measure they interfered with their loyalty to Him.

Such a meditation as this compels the inquiry as to how nearly those of us who profess to follow in His train are really related to the King. If we not only admire, but do the will of His Father, we are, according to His own most gracious words, related to Him as brethren, sisters, mother; that is, we are His next of kin.

As we have already inferred, in the case of the disciples who were gathered about Him, His words were prophetic rather than descriptive. In measure they were even then devoted to the will of God, but He knew how they, too, ere long would falter and fail. Nevertheless, they had made their choice, had left all to follow Him; and therefore it was possible that His power should operate in them, in order to their perfect conformity to that will. The sequel we know. That power won its victory eventually, and they became actually co-operative with Him in the carrying out of His purposes.

Through such next of kin in spiritual relationship and loyal devotion to the will of God, His Kingdom is set up.

The principle revealed in this story is one of very solemn present application. We prove our distance from Him when in the fellowship of Mary and His brethren in the days of their limited understanding, we attempt to dissuade those who are in closest fellowship with Him, from such sacrificial service as demonstrates their nearness to Him.