Visit our new blog. It lists all the new things that we are doing and what new material has been added to our site. We even list new missionaries who sign up with us for technical support so you can pray for them. FCM News
Lord of the Sabbath
1At that time Jesus went through the grain fields on the Sabbath.
His disciples were hungry and began to pick some heads of grain
and eat them. 2When the Pharisees saw this, they said to him, "Look!
Your disciples are doing what is unlawful on the Sabbath."
3He answered, "Haven't you read what David did when he and
his companions were hungry? 4He entered the house of God, and he
and his companions ate the consecrated bread--which was not lawful
for them to do, but only for the priests. 5Or haven't you read in
the Law that on the Sabbath the priests in the temple desecrate
the day and yet are innocent? 6I tell you that one greater than
the temple is here. 7If you had known what these words mean, 'I
desire mercy, not sacrifice,' you would not have condemned the innocent.
8For the Son of Man is Lord of the Sabbath."
9Going on from that place, he went into their synagogue, 10and a
man with a shriveled hand was there. Looking for a reason to accuse
Jesus, they asked him, “Is it lawful to heal on the Sabbath?”
11He said to them, "If any of you has a sheep and it falls
into a pit on the Sabbath, will you not take hold of it and lift
it out? 12How much more valuable is a man than a sheep! Therefore
it is lawful to do good on the Sabbath."
13Then he said to the man, "Stretch out your hand." So
he stretched it out and it was completely restored, just as sound
as the other. 14But the Pharisees went out and plotted how they
might kill Jesus.
Explanation: Increasing Conflicts (12:1-50)
Matthew's plot, like that of the other Gospels, focuses on conflict.
In the context of promises of persecution for disciples engaging
in mission (Mt 10), Matthew reveals the hostility that had already
begun (9:3, 11, 14, 34) but was now growing.
Conflicting Approaches to the Bible (12:1-14)
Matthew writes to disciples who believe their principles of biblical
interpretation differ radically from those of the Pharisees (5:20;
9:13), and he has a crucial hermeneutical point to make in this
narrative (12:7). He uses two of Mark's Sabbath controversy stories
to illustrate the conflict between Jesus' rest and the Pharisees'
rest (11:28). This conflict over the nature of the Sabbath further
illustrates two entirely different approaches to the law (5:20);
because Jesus is himself the embodiment of divine Wisdom, his yoke
brings rest (11:28). These Pharisees illustrate the principle that
Jesus was "hidden . . . from the wise and learned" (11:25);
may we who fancy ourselves wise choose to learn from the humble.
Some culturally conservative churches today interpret the Bible
the way the Pharisees in this passage do, building an ever tighter
fence around the strictest interpretation of the law to keep from
breaking it. Thus, for example, I have known firsthand of some that
misconstrue Scripture to condemn all divorced people, women's wearing
slacks to church, music relevant to youth, and anything else that
violates their tradition. Conservatives can dishonor God's Word
through abuse and neglect just as liberals can dishonor it through
neglect and rejection. Jesus instead pursued the point of biblical
texts in the situation in which they were written (19:8). The principles
of God's Word actually demand far more from us than extrapolated
rules: they demand the absolute integrity of our hearts before God,
summoning us to devote all our actions and thoughts to his glory
(5:17-48). Perhaps some Christians take refuge primarily in legal
debates because we lack the courage to pursue a genuine relationship
with the Father through faith in Jesus Christ. This narrative illustrates
various points about biblical interpretation.
Jesus' Opponents Interpret the Law Narrowly
(12:1-2)
These Pharisees provide a good example if one wants to extrapolate
the letter of the law; what they miss is the law's intention. Moses
explicitly forbade work on the Sabbath (for example, Ex 31:13-14;
35:2; Ezek 20:20), and gleaning from another's field (normally permissible-Deut
23:25; Ruth 2:2) could certainly be regarded as work, as a form
of "reaping" (prohibited in m. Sabbat 7:2). Essenes (probably
the strictest Jewish Sabbath keepers) forbade so much as scooping
up drinking water in a vessel (CD 11.1-2).Yet just as Pharisees
could disagree among themselves on some details of Sabbath law (t.
Sabbat 16:21-22), a Jewish teacher who rejected Pharisaic tradition
could have interpreted the law quite differently from the Pharisees,
as Jesus did. Whereas the law forbade preparing food on the Sabbath
(Ex 16:22-30; 35:3; Jos. War 2.147; CD 10.9), it certainly did not
forbid eating it, and Jewish tradition prohibited fasting on the
Sabbath (CD 11.4-5; Jub. 50:12-13). Here Jesus is not a lawbreaker.
Rather, that his opponents wish to kill him by the end of the narrative
indicates their own unfaithfulness to the law (see comment on 12:14)!
Jesus' Ethics Are More Biblically Sensitive
(12:3-8)
Because Jesus differed with their tradition, these Pharisees apparently
assumed that he differed with Scripture (the way some people today
identify Scripture with their tradition, calling even fellow Bible
believers "liberals"). As these Pharisees well knew, a
challenge to the behavior of the disciples was a challenge to the
teacher who was responsible to train them in proper behavior (compare
Goodman 1983:79; Daube 1972:4-6). Yet in his honor-dominated culture,
Jesus was quite able to respond to their challenges and defeat them
at their own game. Haven't you read . . . ? (compare 19:4; 21:16,
42; 22:31) is a strong insult against those who claim to be Scripture
experts.
Jesus' first example is the story of a breach of the law for David
in an emergency-the man of God and his companions were hungry (12:3-4;
see 1 Sam 21:1-6). Although Jesus' opponents may have insisted on
beginning with an explicit legal text, he appeals instead to inspired
narrative-a Bible story-to show how God expected legal statements
to be qualified in practice. Jesus thus challenges his opponents'
entire method of legal interpretation. When we fail to take into
account the nature of many of Jesus' teachings (radical, succinct
statements usually unqualified) by comparing them with the narratives
(such as Jesus' relative patience with his disciples in not repudiating
them), we repeat the mistake of Jesus' opponents (except that Jesus'
opponents were more justified in their mistake, since we often treat
as law texts that are not even legal statements).
Jesus' second example is the law's explicit allowance for Sabbath
activity of priests in the temple (Mt 12:5-8; see Num 28:9-10).
After making his argument by example, Jesus proceeds with a traditional
Jewish "how much more" argument. Others constructed similar
arguments; for instance, an early-second-century rabbi contended
that saving a human life takes precedence over the Sabbath, for
even the temple service overrides the Sabbath (t. Sabbat 15:16).
Others reasoned similarly from the biblical fact that the temple
service overrode Sabbath regulations (compare m. `Erubin 10:11-15).
The way ancient lawyers argued for exceptions was by showing that
at least one exception was already implicit in the law (Quint. 7.6.5).
Yet Jesus ranks not saving a life but his own authority above the
temple: if the temple service warrants suspension of the Sabbath,
how much more the presence of one greater than the temple (12:6,
41-42). For Jesus as Son of Man is Lord of the Sabbath. Jesus' self-claim
was veiled enough to prevent legal charges of blasphemy but obvious
enough to enrage his opponents (see v. 14).
Jesus' third argument to validate his interpretation method is an
appeal to the prophets' proclamation: the law's principles take
precedence over its rituals (v. 7; compare Hos 6:6). Everyone acknowledged
that an emergency need, such as a human life endangered (CD 11.16-17),
warranted an exception to any ritual; but Jesus makes such exceptions
the rule. Not merely human life but human need in general takes
precedence over regulations. Kindness in response to others' genuine
need-such as disciples' hunger-precedes rules whose purpose is to
please the God who values such kindness more highly (compare 9:13).
(As a modern example, many Christians today would look with disfavor
on another Christian who, having only her tithe money and finding
that her neighbors had no food, would use it to feed them.) With
this third argument Jesus has appealed to all three sections of
the Old Testament, treating them with equal authority: the Law,
the Prophets and the Writings. (Later rabbis also liked to produce
proofs from all three divisions-for example, b. `Aboda Zara 19b.)
A Healing Vindicates Jesus on the Sabbath
(12:9-13)
Accounts of the healing of withered or paralyzed hands always suggested
great power both in Jewish (1 Kings 13:6; Test. Simeon 2:12-13)
and pagan (F. Grant 1953:56) texts. Jesus heals partly to attest
God's endorsement of his ministry (Mt 9:4-7); would God heal through
him on the Sabbath if God disapproved of his Sabbath ministry?
But before healing the man, Jesus offers another "how much
more" argument by analogy. In contrast to the stricter Essenes
(CD 11.13-14; compare F. Bruce 1969:73), Pharisees and most Jewish
people accepted the necessity of rescuing an animal on the Sabbath
(compare Theissen 1978:82). Yet how much more important is a person
than a sheep (see comment on 6:26)! Jesus concludes with a summary
principle: Therefore it is lawful to do good on the Sabbath (v.
12).
Violating Religious Custom in Favor of God's
Will (12:14)
That God's law was not genuinely written in these Pharisees' hearts
is clear from their hostile response to Jesus' violation of their
tradition (vv. 10, 14). Blatant breaches of Sabbath law were punishable
by public execution (Ex 31:14; 35:2; Num 15:35), but Rome prohibited
its subjects from executing criminals directly. Even the ultra-strict
Essenes in practice punished even intentional Sabbath infringements
only with detention (see E. Sanders 1990:18-19).
Jewish teachers disagreed among themselves to what extent physicians
might work on the Sabbath if life was not in danger. But Jesus acted
as a man of prayer, not a pharmacist, and this time he does not
even lay hands on the man, which some might have considered work.
Instead he simply orders the man to stretch forth his hand, an act
that was not considered work; God alone performs "work"
in this scene (v. 13). Even the strict majority Pharisaic school
in this period, the Shammaites, would have violated their own standards
of ethics to have punished Jesus harshly. Although they prohibited
prayer for the sick on the Sabbath, they never sought to kill the
minority school at the time, Hillelite Pharisees, who permitted
such prayer on the Sabbath (t. Sabbat 16:22; see E. Sanders 1993:268).
If these Pharisees are upset-contradicting their own Sabbath beliefs-this
says more about them than it does about Jesus.
Further, even if these Pharisees are sure that Jesus is wrong, his
appeal to Scripture should convince them that his "transgression"
is "unintentional." No sect in early Judaism had rules
that would have mandated Jesus' death for his Sabbath practices.
Most would have agreed that plotting to kill someone who disagrees
with you is premeditated murder, which the law forbids under penalty
of death (Gen 9:5-6; Num 35:29-34; Deut 21:1-9). Thus these Pharisees
are so enraged with Jesus that they resort to a heinous and obvious
breach of the very law they purport to uphold (12:14). In the same
vein, one can recollect numerous examples of religious people today
who, defending dogmas true or false, display attitudes toward their
opponents that hardly commend their faith in the Bible's law of
love.
Perhaps the biggest problem with Jesus was that he was growing popular
(9:33-34; 12:23-24)-a situation that might allow his teaching to
attract some of the Pharisees' own populist base of support. Perhaps
they were like some pious ministers today who grow jealous of others'
ministries.
These Pharisees undoubtedly felt they had good reason to reject
Jesus' claims. If someone were working miracles without God's approval-and
how could he have God's approval if he disagreed with God's Word?-then
they could only conclude that he was doing supernatural feats as
a magician by the devil's power (12:24). Many Christians today defend
doctrines or ideas that they insist are scriptural even though they
have never seriously examined them in the Scriptures for themselves;
they merely pass on what they have learned from others. Unlike those
Christians, the Pharisees were at least biblically literate.
God's Chosen Servant
15Aware of this, Jesus withdrew from that place. Many followed him,
and he healed all their sick, 16warning them not to tell who he
was. 17This was to fulfill what was spoken through the prophet Isaiah:
18"Here is my servant whom I have chosen,
the one I love, in whom I delight;
I will put my Spirit on him,
and he will proclaim justice to the nations.
19He will not quarrel or cry out;
no one will hear his voice in the streets.
20A bruised reed he will not break,
and a smoldering wick he will not snuff out,
till he leads justice to victory.
21In his name the nations will put their hope."
Explanation: The Spirit-Anointed Humble Servant (12:15-21)
Rather than contending with the Pharisees further, Jesus withdrew
(v. 15) and warned those who were beginning to recognize his power
not to tell others about it (v. 16). Jesus would not risk extinguishing
a wick on the verge of going out, and so far would he go in not
breaking a reed (v. 20) that he would offer his cheek to those smiting
him with one (27:30; compare Mic 5:1-2). Thus Jesus demonstrated
that he preferred not to fight others when it was not necessary
(Mt 12:19-20; compare 10:23; Gen 26:14-22). His opponents thought
him a youthful upstart, but Jesus knew his identity and his destiny
(Mt 12:21). When we recognize our identity and destiny as his followers,
we may also be less concerned with what the misinformed think of
us.
The quotation from Isaiah 42:1-4 in this passage especially looks
forward to the conflict in the following narrative: whereas Jesus'
opponents misinterpret his identity, his empowerment by the Spirit
demonstrates that he is the chosen one of Isaiah's prophecy (Mt
12:18, 28). Matthew quotes more of the passage than the "Spirit-endowed"
or "chosen servant" part, however, to emphasize the meek
character of Jesus' first coming (21:5) and especially the final
line, which reinforces Matthew's theme of the Gentile mission (2:1-12;
24:14; 28:19): Gentiles will hope in Jesus.
In this passage Matthew reads Jesus as Isaiah's "servant of
Yahweh." In context Isaiah 42:1-4 refers to "Israel"
(44:1, 21; 49:3), but it is not hard to see how Matthew interprets
the text; in contrast to some of his modern critics, Matthew read
the whole context (compare Mt 8:17; 20:28). God's servant Israel
failed in its mission (Is 42:18-19), so God chose one person within
Israel to restore the rest of his people (49:5-7); this one would
bear the punishment (compare 40:2) rightly due his people (52:13-53:12).
The mission of Isaiah 42 is thus applicable to Jesus.Translating
freely from the Hebrew, Matthew conforms the language of Isaiah
42 to God's praise of his Son in Matthew 3:17 ("my Son, whom
I love; with him I am well pleased"!). As Matthew pointed out
repeatedly earlier in his Gospel (1:1; 2:15, 18; 3:15; 4:1-2), Jesus'
mission is not a wholly new event but is rooted in the history of
his people. This passage may provide one window into Matthew's method
of interpretation, which allowed him to draw the integral connection
between Jesus and the history of his people. From this text Matthew
reminds his readers that Jesus was not a political or warrior Messiah
for the present time; he humbled himself as a suffering servant
until the time when he would lead justice to victory (12:20).
Explanation: Which of Us Is for the Devil? (12:22-45)
Convinced that Jesus is not God's agent and annoyed by the popular
response to him (v. 23; compare 7:28; 8:27; 9:8), the Pharisees
resort to the only other possible explanation for his supernatural
power over demons (12:22; compare 9:32-34): it comes from the devil
himself (12:24). In a lengthy response, Jesus not only refutes their
charge but turns it back against them (vv. 25-45). Matthew's portrayal
of Jesus here is also significant for our own day in a number of
ways.
God's Enemies Challenge the Way God Attests His Servants (12:22-24)
Whereas ancient Jewish teachers normally characterized as a prophet
or pious man one who could know others' thoughts (as in t. Pisha
2:15), Jesus' opponents attribute his knowledge here to the same
source to which they attributed his exorcisms.
People often thought magicians performed their acts through the
help of spirit agents (compare PGM 1.88-89, 164-66, 181-85, 252-53;
2.52-54), hence the charge here is that Jesus was a sorcerer (compare
Aune 1987:56). This is no small charge: magic was a capital offense
(Meier 1980:134). Unable to deny Jesus' miracles, later Jewish sources
continued to charge him with sorcery; these sources also complained
that Christians, who were still working miracles well into the second
century, were working them by Satan's power (Dalman 1973:37-38;
Herford 1966:211-15; Bagatti 1971:95-96).
Those Who Work Against the Devil's Purposes Are Doing God's Work
(12:25-30)
Jesus presents a world sharply divided into God's kingdom and the
devil's kingdom, and indicates through various arguments that one
cannot be working for both kingdoms at the same time.Jesus first
asks why the devil would work at cross-purposes with himself (vv.
25-26). Perhaps the devil might permit a few exorcisms to bring
fame to a sorcerer and gain ground in the long run; Jesus' widespread
expulsion of demons, however, constitutes no minor strategic retreat
but a wholesale assault on Satan's kingdom on earth. The necessity
of concord or harmony for survival represents common wisdom in ancient
society (unfortunately sometimes ignored by Christians today).
Jesus next questions why his opponents single out his ministry of
exorcism while approving exorcisms performed by their own disciples
(v. 27). Jewish exorcists were common and employed a variety of
magical techniques (see comment on 8:17; compare Meier 1980:134-35),
quite in contrast to Jesus, whose mere command the demons obeyed
in fear (see also Taylor 1935:129).
Third, if Jesus was driving out demons by God's Spirit, this action
constituted proof that the time of the kingdom was upon them (12:28).
Most Pharisees apparently believed that the prophetic Spirit had
been quenched when the last biblical prophets died and that the
Spirit would be restored only in the time of the kingdom (Keener
1991b:77-84). Although many Pharisees apparently rejected miracles
as proof of truth (Bonsirven 1964:16), Jesus summons them to consider
an alternative explanation for his miracles, namely, that the promised
time of the Spirit has come. Indeed, the Greek construction here
could be rendered "since I drive out demons by the Spirit,
the kingdom has come on the scene." Matthew rightly interprets
"finger of God" (Lk 11:20 and probably Q) as God's Spirit,
showing that Jesus is the promised harbinger of the Spirit (12:18),
the first agent of God's kingdom. This makes good sense: as the
climax of history approaches, the forces of God's kingdom and the
devil's are arrayed in battle against one another.
Fourth, Jesus had defeated the strong man, "binding" him
(tying him up) so that he could plunder the possessions in the strong
man's house (v. 29). That is to say, Jesus invaded Satan's domain
and defeated him so he could recapture the human hearts that Satan
had enslaved through demon possession or other means. Far from being
authorized by the demons' ruler, Jesus had authority over the devil-one
spirit that no mere magical incantation could thwart (compare Test.
Sol. 6:8)! Since Jesus claims a specific act of binding prior to
his ministry of exorcism, he probably refers back to his defeat
of Satan at the temptation (using language from Is 49:24-25). Jesus
is saying that his integrity before God in defeating temptation
has given him power over Satan.
In some modern circles, attempts at exorcism dabble in imaginary
demons or recite formulas taken out of context from Scripture. Although
God honors faith regardless of the formula used, exorcists do not
need to say "I bind you" to demons before expelling them;
they just need to make sure they are walking in integrity before
God (Acts 19:11-20). In establishing the first stage of his kingdom,
Jesus already defeated the devil, and he has delegated his authority
over evil spirits to those who are truly his followers, those who
submit to his reign. The final "binding" of Satan awaits
his future defeat (compare 13:30; Rev 20:2; Twelftree 1986:391-92);
thus it is possible that his binding before the end of the age may
have caught him by surprise (see 8:29).
Finally, this list of arguments concludes with Jesus' warning that
whoever was not on his side was on the other side (12:30). This
saying also reflects common wisdom in both Greek (compare Suet.
Julius 75) and Jewish (compare Flusser 1988:510-11) life. Jesus
allows no would-be disciples to straddle the fence: one either follows
him or opposes him, just as one does with the devil.
A Heart Can Become Too Hard (12:31-32)
Jewish teachers acknowledged that deliberate sin against God's law
("sin with a high hand" or "defiantly"-see Num
15:30-31; Deut 29:18-20; CD 8.8), such as deliberate blasphemy against
God, was normally unforgivable (Jub. 15:34; 1QS 7.15-17, 22-23).
Even such a sin as Peter's denial of Jesus (Mt 26:69-75) clearly
does not count in the unforgivable category (28:10, 16-20); the
context of blaspheming against the Spirit here refers specifically
to the sin of the Pharisees, who are on the verge of becoming incapable
of repentance. The sign of their hardness of heart is their determination
to reject any proof for Jesus' divine mission, to the extent that
they even attribute God's attestation of Jesus to the devil.
The equivalent today would be someone who remained so committed
to rejecting Christ that she determined to find alternative explanations
for any obvious proof (such as miracles) attesting him. Even in
what seems to be that case, however, Paul exhorts one of his students
and coworkers to remember that we humans cannot judge who has forever
crossed that line (1 Tim 1:12-20). Not uncommonly young Christians
read about the "unforgivable sin" and fear they have committed
it. We therefore must reiterate the point in this context: the sin
is unforgivable only because it reflects a heart too hard to repent.
Those who desire to repent, troubled by the fear that they may have
committed this sin, plainly have not committed it!
Our Words About God's Purposes Reveal Our
Character (12:33-37)
That one's speech reveals one's heart may represent conventional
Jewish wisdom (compare Dalman 1929:227); Jesus here indicates that
even the most careless words spoken without thought will testify
concerning one's character in the judgment day. God does not listen
only to what we say during Sunday-morning church services.
In this context Jesus is saying that one expects people like these
Pharisees to blaspheme the Holy Spirit because their hearts are
so corrupt. Because the Pharisees appeared righteous to most other
observers (compare Lk 16:15), Jesus' harsh condemnation of their
behavior sounds an even greater warning to those today who reject
the truth of Christ yet sit in churches.
Those Who Repent with Less Evidence (12:38-42)
Because God has already provided the world with sufficient evidence,
he has the right to expect faith from those who have heard the truth.
It is important to be ready to respond to people's objections to
the faith, but sometimes we must also point out where the challengers
ignore evidence already available to them. Jesus had already been
providing signs, and his opponents were disputing their validity
(vv. 22-24). The demand for a sign may recall Pharaoh's challenge
to Moses for a sign (Ex 7:9; Allison 1993b:236).
The whole of Matthew 12:39-45 constitutes Jesus' response to his
opponents' charges (wicked . . . generation in vv. 39, 45 frames
the section). Jesus explains that his generation needs no greater
sign that he is from God than his own message.
He first insists that the only sign the sign seekers would be given
was the sign that God supplied to the Ninevites: Jonah's restoration
after three days on the edge of death (vv. 39-40). One should keep
in mind, however, that the Ninevites did not witness Jonah's resuscitation
for themselves; indeed, there is no evidence he even recounted it
to them (Jon 3:1-4; compare 3 Macc 6:8; Justin Dial. 107). The Ninevites
experienced the effects of a divine sign they never recognized,
and this may be Matthew's point (not clear in Lk 11:29, 32): the
Ninevites repented without recognizing a sign, whereas Jesus' opponents
were too hardhearted to repent despite the many signs he had been
giving them (compare Mt 11:20-24; Jon 1:16; 4:2). All the Ninevites
needed was Jonah's preaching of the truth, yet Jesus was greater
than Jonah (Mt 12:41; compare v. 6).
Jesus' second example is that Solomon's wisdom was enough to prove
his divine appointment, and that a distant queen heard and came
to him (as some Gentile seekers had done with Jesus-2:1-12; 1 Kings
10:1-13). Yet one greater than Solomon was there. The images of
the Ninevites and the queen of Sheba condemning Jesus' generation
in Israel at the judgment would have horrified Jesus' hearers, many
of whom expected Israel's final vindication against the nations
on judgment day (compare Amos 5:18).At least part of the point of
the story of the queen of Sheba in context is Solomon's witness
to the nations, and God's concern for Gentiles stands at the heart
of the book of Jonah as well. By appealing to two repentant Gentiles
in the Hebrew Bible, Matthew reemphasizes the Gentile mission: those
who know little about Israel's God (like the Ninevites or the queen
of Sheba, or the Magi earlier in his Gospel) are often least arrogant,
hence most responsive to the gospel.
Jesus' Opponents End Up Worse Than They Started (12:43-45)
Matthew specifically places this paragraph within the discussion
of this wicked generation (vv. 39, 45) and uses it (unlike Luke)
to conclude Jesus' response to his opponents. Whatever else the
parable might say about exorcism, Jesus' point is what it says to
that generation: although Jesus was exorcising the generation, its
evil leaders were setting it up to be demonized all the more by
rejecting Jesus' reign (compare Jeremias 1972:106; Argyle 1963:99).
If one translates the passage literally, a key sentence may be conditional:
the demons will return if the house is left empty (Jeremias 1971:154).
Were Jesus' opponents accusing him of being in league with Satan
through his exorcisms (v. 24)? Jesus here returns the charge: it
is they, not he, who are redemonizing their generation, for they
leave the house empty in which God, the only true alternative to
the devil, should reign (compare 23:38-39).
Jesus' True Family (12:46-50)
If you have ever felt like the whole world was against you, you
can at least empathize with some of the pain of Jesus' calling:
not only the religious leaders (vv. 24, 38) but his own family doubted
him. Family ties were paramount (compare clan ties even in Rome-for
example, Dupont 1992:106-8), and being perceived as antifamily brought
even more reproach then than it does today (see Derrett 1973:39).
Yet Jesus followed the practice he had demanded of others (8:21-22;
10:37): the kingdom of God comes first. Obedience to God's will
(7:21; 21:31; 26:42) is what makes one Jesus' true brother, sister
or mother (25:40; 28:10). When we acknowledge God as our Father,
his family becomes our family, and our allegiance to him as Father
must come before all earthly allegiances.
From this we learn both the importance of obedience and the futility
of depending on other means of access to Jesus. Those who suppose
they have some natural claim on the kingdom have no claim on it
at all. But those who obey God's will for themselves have an intimate
relationship with Jesus and can depend on him the way members of
his immediate family can. Perhaps Jesus stresses the priority of
spiritual family here because he hopes to be able to count on his
disciples too.
