Matthew 12


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.

Matthew 12:1-14

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.

Matthew 12


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."

Matthew 12:15-21

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).

Matthew 12


Lord

Matthew 12:22-50

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.