Mark 3:22

I. Here is, The impudent impious brand which the scribes fastened upon Christ's casting out devils, that they might evade and invalidate the conviction of it, and have a poor excuse for not yielding to it. These scribes came down from Jerusalem, Mar 3:22. It should seem they came this long journey on purpose to hinder the progress of the doctrine of Christ; such pains did they take to do mischief; and, coming from Jerusalem, where were the most polite and learned scribes, and where they had opportunity of consulting together against the Lord and his Anointed, they were in the greater capacity to do mischief; the reputation of scribes from Jerusalem would have an influence not only upon the country people, but upon the country scribes; they had never thought of this base suggestion concerning Christ's miracles till the scribes from Jerusalem put it into their heads. They could not deny but that he cast out devils, which plainly bespoke him sent of God; but they insinuated that he had Beelzebub on his side, was in league with him, and by the prince of the devils cast out devils. There is a trick in the case; Satan is not cast out, he only goes out by consent. There was nothing in the manner of Christ's casting out devils, that gave any cause to suspect this; he did it as one having authority; but so they will have it, who resolve not to believe him.

II. The rational answer which Christ gave to this objection, demonstrating the absurdity of it.

1. Satan is so subtle, that he will never voluntarily quit his possession; If Satan cast out Satan, his kingdom is divided against itself, and it cannot stand, Mar 3:23-26. He called them to him, as one desirous they should be convinced; he treated them with all the freedom, friendliness, and familiarity that could be; he vouchsafed to reason the case with them, that every mouth may be stopped. It was plain that the doctrine of Christ made war upon the devil's kingdom, and had a direct tendency to break his power, and crush his interest in the souls of men; and it was as plain that the casting of him out of the bodies of people confirmed that doctrine, and gave it the setting on; and therefore it cannot be imagined that he should come into such a design; every one knows that Satan is no fool, nor will act so directly against his own interest.

2. Christ is so wise, that, being engaged in war with him, he will attack his forces wherever he meets them, whether in the bodies or souls of people, Mar 3:27. It is plain, Christ's design is to enter into the strong man's house, to take possession of the interest he has in the world, and to spoil his goods, and convert them to his own service; and therefore it is natural to suppose that he will thus bind the strong man, will forbid him to speak when he would, and to stay where he would, and thus show that he has gained a victory over him.

III. The awful warning Christ gave them to take heed how they spoke such dangerous words as these; however they might make light of them, as only conjectures, and the language of free-thinking, if they persisted in it, it would be of fatal consequence to them; it would be found a sin against the last remedy, and consequently unpardonable; for what could be imagined possible to bring them to repentance for their sin in blaspheming Christ, who would set aside such a strong conviction with such a weak evasion? It is true, the gospel promiseth, because Christ hath purchased, forgiveness for the greatest sins and sinners, Mar 3:28. Many of those who reviled Christ on the cross (which was a blaspheming of the Son of man, aggravated to the highest degree), found mercy, and Christ himself prayed, Father, forgive them; but this was blaspheming the Holy Ghost, for it was by the Holy Spirit that he cast out devils, and they said, It was by the unclean spirit, Mar 3:30. By this method they would outface the conviction of all the gifts of the Holy Ghost after Christ's ascension, and defeat them all, after which there remained no more proof, and therefore they should never have forgiveness, but were liable to eternal damnation. They were in imminent danger of that everlasting punishment, from which there was no redemption, and in which there was no intermission, no remission.

Matthew Henry's Commentary on the Whole Bible (1708–1710) — public domain (CC PDM 1.0). Text via the HelloAO Bible API.

Mar_3:22-26

And the scribes which came down from Jerusalem said, He hath Beelzebub.

Scribes-a literal knowledge of Scripture vain

These men were learned in the law of Moses, having great knowledge and skill in the letter of it; and yet they were wicked men, and blasphemers of Christ. How vain a thing it is, then, for any to glory in their literal knowledge of the Scriptures, as if this alone could make them good Christians. The Jews boasted of this-that they knew the will of God, and were instructed in the law; and thereupon they thought themselves very religious: yet for all that they were wicked hypocrites, living in manifest breaches of the law. So it is with many nowadays. They think themselves very religious, because they have knowledge in the Scriptures, and can discourse of them in company, and make a great show of acquaintance with Gods precepts. To these I say, it is well that they have knowledge, and I wish that many had more than they have. Yet know withal, that if it be but an historical or literal knowledge, without a sanctified heart to embrace what thou knowest, it shall do thee no good; thou mayest, notwithstanding all thy knowledge, be void of all truth of sanctifying grace. Beware, then, of resting in this. Labour not only to know the Word of God, but for a sanctified heart to yield obedience to it. Everyone has so much saving knowledge, as he has grace and affection of heart to embrace and act upon what he knows; and without this, all knowledge is ignorance in Gods reckoning. The smallest measure of knowledge with a sanctified heart is more pleasing to God, and more available to thy salvation, than all the learning and knowledge of the scribes without sanctifying grace. Look to thy knowledge, therefore, that it be such as not only floats in the head but goes down to the heart, and causes it to yield obedience to the things thou hast learned out of the Word of God. Get this wisdom above all possessions, and thou shalt be rich and learned indeed. (G. Petter.)

Interested lying

From the accounts of Matthew and Luke we learn that Jesus had been casting out a deaf and dumb devil. The work was one of Divine goodness and mercy. The religious world of the period looked on and called it bad. He cast out devils, they said, through Beelzebub, the prince of the devils. Let us beware of thus giving the lie to the moral sense, for it is the very sin against the Holy Ghost, and we may be terribly near it without knowing it. The tendency is a common one. If goodness, or truth, or mercy touch my pocket, or my honour, or my interest, my pleasures, or even my prejudices, I will destroy and deny them, when and how I can. That is the tendency. These are spots in our feasts of charity, blots on our professions. I have known medical men deny cures not wrought by the accredited methods. The disease has been cast out by fraud, by quackery, or not cast out at all, say they. When I was in Italy, and the regular Piedmontese army arrived at Naples after Garibaldi and his irregular volunteers had done all the work down south, one heard nothing but abuse of Garibaldi and his men by the kings officers. They hated them, they cheapened their valour, they sneered at their sacrifices, even denied their exploits, attributing all to chance, luck, even to mistake. General Garibaldi had won, well, in spite of his stupidity. Such interested lying is not confined to the doctor or the soldier; it is found in the Church. I have heard clergymen deny the good work and righteous fruits of congregations opposed to them. I have seen in the country war between the orthodox rector, who could not fill his church, and the dissenting baptist, whose church over the way was crowded. The fruits of the Spirit were there, the devils were defeated; but the rector still stood out that it was by Beelzebub, the prince of the devils. (H. R. Haweis, M. A.)

Opposition from foes and from friends

I. The opposition.

1. From friends.

2. From foes.

II. How he met the opposition.

1. The opposition of foes.

(1) He shows how unreasonable their words are.

(2) He makes them reflect who He must really be.

(3) He warns them of the danger of so blaspheming.

2. The opposition from friends (verses 33-35). Conclusion: On which side are we? For Christ, or against Him? Are we His open enemies? Are we His half-hearted friends? Are we His faithful disciples? For and against-see what the end of both will be (Mat_10:32-33). (E. Stock.)

For or against

I. Those who are not Christs friends are to be esteemed his foes: He that is not with Me is against Me (Mat_12:30).

1. The issue is clear. Our Lord begins with saying that oven Beelzebub would fall if he suffered his kingdom to be divided against itself.

2. The decision must be clear.

3. If anyone refuses this issue, and defers this decision, it must be because he is not Christs friend, but His foe. One would think that human hearts would welcome such an offer, and would stand to it with a joyous acceptance unfalteringly to the end. Alexander the Great was once asked how it was that he had conquered the world; and he answered, By not wavering. If men had only held the faith as Jesus has held His covenant, the whole world would have been converted long ago.

II. Those who are not Christs foes are His friends; So He says: He that is not against us is on our part (Mar_9:40).

III. The enemies of Christ are evidenced by their enmity. At first sight this would seem to be a truism: let us see.

1. An enemy of Christ hates the notion of Gods being.

2. An enemy of Christ hates the notion of Gods character. Holiness is the most unpopular of all the Divine attributes.

3. An enemy of Christ hates the notion of Gods law. It perplexes, restrains, and condemns him.

4. An enemy of Christ hates the notion of Gods plan of redemption. He is not willing to admit his need, and take his pardon as a lost sinner.

5. An enemy of Christ hates the notion of Gods service.

6. An enemy of Christ hates the notion of Gods sovereignty.

IV. The friends of Christ are evidenced by their obedience-Ye are My friends, if ye do whatsoever I command you. This wonderful verse (Joh_15:14) will bear an analysis.

1. Obedience to Christ will be active in its nature. The word here is not feel, but do.

2. Obedience to Christ will be universal in its reach.

3. Obedience to Christ will be submissive in its temper.

4. Obedience to Christ will be affectionate in its spirit. An old divine says the obedience of the heart is the heart of obedience.

V. It is wise foe all immortal beings to settle at once whether they are friends or enemies of Jesus Christ.

1. No neutrality is permitted during these war times in the universe. No negative moral state is possible before God.

2. Those who teach truth must urge immediate decision on all around them.

3. Any enemy of Christ can become a friend in an instant, if he will. (C. S. Robinson, D. D.)

Satan not self-destructive

When the Netherlanders broke away from the bondage of Spain, they still professed to be loyal subjects of King Philip, and, in the kings name, went out to fight against the kings armies. That was a kind of loyalty which King Philip refused to recognize. The Pharisees professed to believe that the devil was content with loyalty like this-that, in fact, he hugely enjoyed the destruction of his own works by Jesus, and supplied our Lord with all the help he wanted in that line. A sane man does not burn his insurance policy, and then set fire to his house as a means of providing for his family, A loyal soldier will not undermine his own camp and blow it into the air as a means of increasing the strength of that camp. The captain who is anxious for the safety of his ship will not step down into the hold and bore a hole through the ships bottom. Nor will Satan join in destroying his own kingdom. That Christ came and destroyed the works of the devil shows that He is Satans enemy and Satans conqueror.

The Biblical Illustrator, edited by Joseph S. Exell (c. 1880s–1900s) — public domain. Text from a community e-Sword module.

Mar 3:22. The scribes (and Pharisees, Mat 12:22) who had come down from Jerusalem, &c. — Purposely, on the devil’s errand; and not without success. For the common people now began to drink in the poison from these learned, good, honourable men! He hath Beelzebub — At command; is in league with him: And by the prince of the devils casteth he out devils — How easily may a man of learning elude the strongest proof of a work of God! How readily can he account for every incident, without ever taking God into the question! See note on Mat 9:34; Mat 12:22-32, where this passage occurs, and is explained at large.

Joseph Benson's Commentary on the Old and New Testaments (1811–1818) — public domain. Text from a community e-Sword module.

Mark

THE MISTAKES OF CHRIST’S FOES AND FRIENDS

Mar 3:22 - Mar 3:35.

We have in this passage three parts,-the outrageous official explanation of Christ and His works, the Lord’s own solution of His miracles, and His relatives’ well-meant attempt to secure Him, with His answer to it.

I. The scribes, like Christ’s other critics, judged themselves in judging Him, and bore witness to the truths which they were eager to deny.

Their explanation would be ludicrous, if it were not dreadful. Mark that it distinctly admits His miracles. It is not fashionable at present to attach much weight to the fact that none of Christ’s enemies ever doubted these. Of course, the credence of men, in an age which believed in the possibility of the supernatural, is more easy, and their testimony less cogent, than that of a jury of twentieth-century scientific sceptics. But the expectation of miracle had been dead for centuries when Christ came; and at first, at all events, no anticipation that He would work them made it easier to believe that He did.

It would have been a sure way of exploding His pretensions, if the officials could have shown that His miracles were tricks. Not without weight is the attestation from the foe that ‘this man casteth out demons.’ The preposterous explanation that He cast out demons by Beelzebub, is the very last resort of hatred so deep that it will father an absurdity rather than accept the truth. It witnesses to the inefficiency of explanations of Him which omit the supernatural. The scribes recognised that here was a man who was in touch with the unseen. They fell back upon ‘by Beelzebub,’ and thereby admitted that humanity, without seeing something more at the back of it, never made such a man as Jesus.

It is very easy to solve an insoluble problem, if you begin by taking the insoluble elements out of it. That is how a great many modern attempts to account for Christianity go to work. Knock out the miracles, waive Christ’s own claims as mistaken reports, declare His resurrection to be entirely unhistorical, and the remainder will be easily accounted for, and not worth accounting for. But the whole life of the Christ of the Gospels is adequately explained by no explanation which leaves out His coming forth from the Father, and His exercise of powers above those of humanity and ‘nature.’

This explanation is an instance of the credulity of unbelief. It is more difficult to believe the explanation than the alternative which it is framed to escape. If like produces like, Christ cannot be explained by anything but the admission of His divine nature. Serpents’ eggs do not hatch out into doves. The difficulties of faith are ‘gnats’ beside the ‘camels’ which unbelief has to swallow.

II. The true explanation of Christ’s power over demoniacs.

Jesus has no difficulty in putting aside the absurd theory that, in destroying the kingdom of evil, He was a servant of evil and its dark ruler. Common-sense says, If Satan cast out Satan, he is divided against himself, and his kingdom cannot stand. An old play is entitled, ‘The Devil is an Ass,’ but he is not such an ass as to fight against himself. As the proverb has it, ‘Hawks do not pick out hawks’ eyes.’

It would carry us too far to deal at length with the declarations of our Lord here, which throw a dim light into the dark world of supernatural evil. His words are far too solemn and didactic to be taken as accommodations to popular prejudice, or as mere metaphor. Is it not strange that people will believe in spiritual communications, when they are vouched for by a newspaper editor, more readily than when Christ asserts their reality? Is it not strange that scientists, who find difficulty in the importance which Christianity attaches to man in the plan of the universe, and will not believe that all its starry orbs were built for him {which Christianity does not allege}, should be incredulous of teachings which reveal a crowd of higher intelligences? Jesus not only tests the futile explanation by common-sense, but goes on to suggest the true one. He accepts the belief that there is a ‘prince of the demons.’ He regards the souls of men who have not yielded themselves to God as His ‘goods.’ He declares that the lord of the house must be bound before his property can be taken from him. We cannot stay to enlarge on the solemn view of the condition of unredeemed men thus given. Let us not put it lightly away. But we must note how deep into the centre of Christ’s work this teaching leads us. Translated into plain language it just means that Christ by incarnation, life, death, resurrection, ascension, and present work from the throne, has broken the power of evil in its central hold. He has crushed the serpent’s head, his heel is firmly planted on it, and, though the reptile may still ‘swinge the scaly horror of his folded tail,’ it is but the dying flurries of the creature. He was manifested ‘that He might destroy the works of the devil.’

No trace of indignation can be detected in Christ’s answer to the hideous charge. But His patient heart overflows in pity for the reckless slanderers, and He warns them that they are coming near the edge of a precipice. Their malicious blindness is hurrying them towards a sin which hath never forgiveness. Blasphemy is, in form, injurious speaking, and in essence, it is scorn or malignant antagonism. The Holy Spirit is the divine agent in revealing God’s heart and will. To blaspheme Him is ‘the external symptom of a heart so radically and finally set against God that no power which God can consistently use will ever save it.’ ‘The sin, therefore, can only be the culmination of a long course of self-hardening and depraving.’ It is unforgivable, because the soul which can recognise God’s revelation of Himself in all His goodness and moral perfection, and be stirred only to hatred thereby, has reached a dreadful climax of hardness, and has ceased to be capable of being influenced by His beseeching. It has passed beyond the possibility of penitence and acceptance of forgiveness. The sin is unforgiven, because the sinner is fixed in impenitence, and his stiffened will cannot bow to receive pardon.

The true reason why that sin has never forgiveness is suggested by the accurate rendering, ‘Is guilty of an eternal sin’ {R.V.}. Since the sin is eternal, the forgiveness is impossible. Practically hardened and permanent unbelief, conjoined with malicious hatred of the only means of forgiveness, is the unforgivable sin. Much torture of heart would have been saved if it had been observed that the Scripture expression is not sin, but blasphemy. Fear that it has been committed is proof positive that it has not; for, if it have been, there will be no relenting in enmity, nor any wish for deliverance.

But let not the terrible picture of the depths of impenitence to which a soul may fall, obscure the blessed universality of the declaration from Christ’s lips which preludes it, and declares that all sin but the sin of not desiring pardon is pardoned. No matter how deep the stain, no matter how inveterate the habit, whosoever will can come and be sure of pardon.

III. The attempt of Christ’s relatives to withdraw Him from publicity, and His reply to it.

Mar 3:21 tells us that His kindred sent out to lay hold on Him; for they thought Him beside Himself. He was to be shielded from the crowd of followers, and from the plots of scribes, by being kept at home and treated as a harmless lunatic. Think of Jesus defended from the imputation of being in league with Beelzebub by the excuse that He was mad! This visit of His mother and brethren must be connected with their plan to lay hold on Him, in order to apprehend rightly Christ’s answer. If they did not mean to use violence, why should they have tried to get Him away from the crowd of followers, by a message, when they could have reached Him as easily as it did? He knew the snare laid for Him, and puts it aside without shaming its contrivers. With a wonderful blending of dignity and tenderness, He turns from kinsmen who were not akin, to draw closer to Himself, and pour His love over, those who do the will of God.

The test of relationship with Jesus is obedience to His Father. Christ is not laying down the means of becoming His kinsmen, but the tokens that we are such. He is sometimes misunderstood as saying, ‘Do God’s will without My help, and ye will become My kindred.’ What He really says is, ‘If ye are My kindred, you will do God’s will; and if you do, you will show that you are such.’ So the statement that we become His kindred by faith does not conflict with this great saying. The two take hold of the Christian life at different points: the one deals with the means of its origination, the other with the tokens of its reality. Faith is the root of obedience, obedience is the blossom of faith. Jesus does not stand like a stranger till we have hammered out obedience to His Father, and then reward us by welcoming us as His brethren, but He answers our faith by giving us a life kindred with, because derived from, His own, and then we can obey.

It is active submission to God’s will, not orthodox creed or devout emotion, which shows that we are His blood relations. By such obedience, we draw His love more and more to us. Though it is not the means of attaining to kinship with Him, it is the condition of receiving love-tokens from Him, and of increasing affinity with Him.

That relationship includes and surpasses all earthly ones. Each obedient man is, as it were, all three,-mother, sister, and brother. Of course the enumeration had reference to the members of the waiting group, but the remarkable expression has deep truth in it. Christ’s relation to the soul covers all various sweetnesses of earthly bonds, and is spoken of in terms of many of them. He is the bridegroom, the brother, the companion, and friend. All the scattered fragrances of these are united and surpassed in the transcendent and ineffable union of the soul with Jesus. Every lonely heart may find in Him what it most needs, and perhaps is bleeding away its life for the loss or want of. To many a weeping mother He has said, pointing to Himself, ‘Woman, behold thy son’; to many an orphan He has whispered, revealing His own love, ‘Son, behold thy mother.’

All earthly bonds are honoured most when they are woven into crowns for His head; all human love is then sweetest when it is as a tiny mirror in which the great Sun is reflected. Christ is husband, brother, sister, friend, lover, mother, and more than all which these sacred names designate,-even Saviour and life. If His blood is in our veins, and His spirit is the spirit of our lives, we shall do the will of His and our Father in heaven.

Alexander MacLaren, Expositions of Holy Scripture (1904–1910) — public domain. Text from a community e-Sword module.

3:22 The teachers of religious law (see study note on 1:22) from Jerusalem attributed Jesus’ apparent madness to his being possessed by Satan (Greek Beelzeboul; see study note on Matt 10:25). Jesus’ opponents credited his miracle-working ability to Satan (as in the rabbinic work, Sanhedrin 3:43a, where miracle-working is ascribed to sorcery).

Tyndale Open Study Notes — © Tyndale Open Resources, licensed CC BY-SA 4.0. Text via the HelloAO Bible API.

Mar_3:22-30. See on Mat_12:24-32, who narrates more completely from the collection of Logia and historical tradition. Comp. Luk_11:15-23; Luk_12:10.

And the scribes, etc., asserted a still worse charge.

Mar_3:23. προσκαλεσόμ. αὐτούς] De Wette is of opinion, without warrant, that this could only have taken place in the open air, not in the house (Mar_3:20). They were in the house along with, but further away from, Jesus; He calls them to Him to speak with them.

σατανᾶς σατανᾶν] not: one Satan … the other, but: Satan … himself; see on Mat_12:26. Comp. ὁ σατανᾶς … ἐφʼ ἑαυτόν, Mar_3:26. The want of the article with the proper name is not opposed to this.

Mar_3:24. Now, in order to make good this πῶς δύναται, (i.e. οὐ δύναται κ.τ.λ.), there come, linked on by the simple and (not γάρ), two illustrative analogues (ἐν παραβολαῖς), after which at Mar_3:26, but likewise by the simple and, not by a particle of inference, is added the point, quod erat demonstrandum. This symmetrical progression by means of καί is rhetorical; it has something in it impressive, strikinga feature also presenting itself in the discourse as it proceeds asyndetically in Mar_3:27-28.

Mar_3:28. The order of the words: πόντα ἀφεθ. τοῖς υἱοῖς τῶν ἀνθρώπων τὰ ἁμαρτήματα, places them so apart, as to lay a great emphasis on πάντα. See Bornemann and Herbst, ad Xen. Mem. ii. 10. 2. The expression τοῖς υἱοῖς τ. ἀνθρ., not a singular reminiscence from Mat_12:32 (Weiss), is rather a trait of Mark, depicting human weakness.

αἰωνίου ἁμαρτ.] namely, in respect of the guilt, nunquam delendi, Beza.

Mar_3:30. ὅτι ἔλεγον: (He spake thus) because they said. Comp. Luk_11:18.

πνεῦμα ἀκάθαρτον] not again as at Mar_3:22 : Βεελζεβοὺλ ἔχει, because of the contrast with πνεῦμα τὸ ἄγιον. The less is it to be said that Mark places on a par the blasphemy against the person of Jesus (Mat_12:31 f.) and that against the Holy Spirit (Köstlin, p. 318), or that he has already given up the former blasphemy (Hilgenfeld). It is included, in fact, in Mar_3:28.

Meyer — Critical and Exegetical Commentary on the New Testament — English translation by Peter Christie, edited by Frederick Crombie (T&T Clark, 1880) — public domain. Text from a community e-Sword module.

Mar 3:22-30 . Pharisaic theory as to the cures of demoniacs wrought by Jesus (Mat 12:22-37 , Luk 11:17-23 ).

Mar 3:22 . οἱ γραμ . οἱ ἀπὸ Ἱ ., the scribes from Jerusalem . The local Pharisees who had taken the Herodians into their murderous counsels had probably also communicated with the Jerusalem authorities, using all possible means to compass their end. The representatives of the southern scribes had probably arrived on the scene about the same time as the friends of Jesus, although it is not inconceivable that Mk. introduces the narrative regarding them here because of the resemblances and contrasts between their theory and that of the friends. Mt. sets the incident in different relations, yielding a contrast between Pharisaic ideas and those of the people respecting the cure of demoniacs by Jesus (Mar 12:22 f.). Βεελζεβοὺλ ἔχει , He hath Beelzebub, implying that Beelzebub hath Him, using Him as his agent. The expression points to something more than an alliance, as in Mt., to possession, and that on a grand scale; a divine possession by a base deity doubtless, god of flies (Beelzebub) or god of dung (Beelzebul), still a god, a sort of Satanic incarnation; an involuntary compliment to the exceptional power and greatness of Jesus. ἐν τῷ ἄρχοντι τ . δ .: the assumption is that spirits are cast out by the aid of some other spirit stronger than those ejected.

The Expositor's Greek Testament, edited by W. Robertson Nicoll (1897–1910) — public domain. Text from a community e-Sword module.

Verse 22. He hath Beelzebub] See Clarke on Mt 12:24-26.

Adam Clarke's Commentary on the Bible (1810–1826) — public domain. Text from a community e-Sword/MySword module.

(22-30) He hath Beelzebub.—See Notes on Mat_12:24-32.

A Bible Commentary for English Readers, edited by Charles John Ellicott (1878–1897) — public domain. Text from a community e-Sword module.

22. And the scribes] The hostile party from Jerusalem, noticed above, consisting of Scribes and Pharisees, still lingered at Capernaum.

He hath Beelzebub] St Matthew tells us of the miracle, which was the occasion of this blasphemy, the cure of a man not only possessed with a demon, but also blind and dumb (Mat_12:22). Beelzebub or rather Beelzebu-l was the title of a heathen deity, to whom the Jews ascribed the sovereignty of the “evil spirits.” (a) Some would connect the name with zebûl = habitation, so making it = the Lord of the dwelling (Mat_10:25), in his character of “prince of the power of the air” (Eph_2:2), or of the lower world, or as occupying a mansion in the seventh heavens. (b) Others would connect it with zebel = dung, and so make it = the lord of dung or the dung-hill, a term of derision amongst the Jews for the lord of idols, the prince of false gods. This fearful blasphemy was repeated more than once. See Luk_11:17 sq.

The Cambridge Bible for Schools and Colleges (gen. ed. J. J. S. Perowne; Cambridge University Press, 1878–1918) — public domain. Text from a community e-Sword module.

And he called them unto him,.... The Jerusalem Scribes, to come nearer to him, and attend to what he had to say in defence of his character and miracles:

and said unto them in parables: similitudes, and proverbial expressions, as the following seem to be,

how can Satan cast out Satan? or one devil cast out another? how unreasonable is it to suppose it? can it ever be thought that such, whose interest it is to unite, would ever oppose and dispossess one another? if therefore, as if he should say, I am Beelzebub, or have him, and he is in me, and I am in confederacy with him; was this the case, can any think I should ever cast him out of others, as I do?

John Gill's Exposition of the Whole Bible (1746–1763) — public domain (CC PDM 1.0). Text via the HelloAO Bible API.

22 And the scribes which came down from Jerusalem said, He hath Beelzebub, and by the prince of the devils casteth he out devils.

Ver. 22. By the prince of devils, &c.] A devilish blasphemy, occasioned perhaps by the former calumny of his kinsmen. What advantages make our adversaries of our smaller differences! Every subdivision is a strong weapon in the hand of the contrary party.

John Trapp, A Commentary or Exposition upon All the Books of the Old and New Testament (1647–1656) — public domain. Text from a community e-Sword module.

And the scribes ... - See the notes at Mat 12:24-32. The occasion of their saying this was, that he had healed a man possessed with a devil. The scribes, who came from Jerusalem to watch his conduct, charged him with having made a compact or agreement with the prince of the devils.

Albert Barnes' Notes on the Bible (1834–1885) — public domain. Text from a community e-Sword/MySword module.

From St. Matthew xii. 22. et dein. we learn that it was on the occasion of the delivery of a possessed person, this blasphemy was uttered.

George Leo Haydock (1774–1849), Haydock's Catholic Family Bible and Commentary, 1859 edition — public domain. Excludes Psalms (Douay-Rheims chapter numbering differs from Protestant) and Deuterocanonical books (Catholic canon only).

Here is no passage in all this piece of history, but what the reader will find opened these notes:

See Poole on "Mat 9:34","Mat 12:24", and following verses to Mat 12:32. To which I refer the reader.

Matthew Poole's English Annotations on the Holy Bible (1683–1685) — public domain. Text from a community e-Sword/MySword module.

22. Scribes which came down from Jerusalem — Of course these great scribes from Jerusalem would be very wise, and be able to state the case with perfect learning!

Daniel D. Whedon (gen. ed.), Commentary on the Old and New Testaments (1874–1909) — public domain. Text from a community e-Sword module.

The scribes which came down from Jerusalem said, He hath Beelzebub, etc. These scribes had apparently been sent down by the Sanhedrim, on purpose to watch him, and, by giving their own opinion upon his claims, to undermine his influence. They gave as their authoritative judgment, "He hath Beelzebub." One of the most prominent characteristics of the public works of our Lord was the expulsion of evil spirits. There was no questioning the facts. Even modern scepticism is here at fault, and is constrained to admit the fact of sudden and complete cures of insanity. So the scribes were obliged to account for what they could not deny. "He hath Beelzebub," they say; that is, he is possessed by Beelzebub, or "the lord of the dwelling," as a source of supernatural power. They had heard it alleged against him," He hath a devil;" and so they fall in with this popular error, and give it emphasis, by saying, Not only has he a devil, but he is possessed by the chief of the devils, and therefore has authority over inferior spirits. Observe the contrast between the thoughts of the multitude and of those who professed to be their teachers, the scribes and Pharisees. The multitude, free from prejudice, and using only their natural light of reason, candidly owned the greatness of Christ"s miracles as wrought by a Divine power; whereas the Pharisees, filled with envy and malice, attributed these mighty works which he wrought by the finger of God, to the direct agency of Satan.

The Pulpit Commentary (1880–1919), ed. H.D.M. Spence-Jones & Joseph S. Exell — public domain. Text from a community e-Sword module.

The scribes and Pharisees, Matt. xii, 22; who had come down from Jerusalem - Purposely on the devil's errand. And not without success. For the common people now began to drink in the poison, from these learned, good, honourable men! He hath Beelzebub - at command, is in league with him: And by the prince of the devils casteth he out devils - How easily may a man of learning elude the strongest proof of a work of God! How readily can he account for every incident without ever taking God into the question. Matt. xii, 24; Luke xi, 15.

John Wesley, Explanatory Notes Upon the Whole Bible (1754–1765) — public domain. Text via the GEBible commentary corpus.

Discourse on the Casting Out of Devils.

The pharisaic theory and the defense of Jesus:

v. 22. And the scribes which came down from Jerusalem said, He hath Beelzebub, and by the prince of the devils casteth He out devils.

v. 23. And He called them unto Him, and said unto them in parables, How can Satan cast out Satan?

v. 24. And if a kingdom be divided against itself, that kingdom cannot stand.

v. 25. And if a house be divided against itself, that house cannot stand.

v. 26. And if Satan rise up against himself, and be divided, he cannot stand, but hath an end.

v. 27. No man can enter into a strong man’s house and spoil his goods except he will first bind the strong man; and then he will spoil his house.

The work of Jesus had been characterized especially by the healing of demoniacs, a cure both difficult and pronounced. It was for this reason that the enemies of Jesus took occasion to attack above all these signs of healing. The scribes from Jerusalem they were, both Pharisees and elders, since it became evident that the local rabbis could not cope with the situation. They literally came down from the capital city, for Jerusalem is situated at an elevation of 2,800 feet, while the Sea of Galilee is 620 feet below the level of the Mediterranean. The leaders of the Jewish Church were deeply troubled over the fact that this unknown rabbi, who had received neither His instruction nor the sanction for His teaching from them, should have such marvelous success; hence the delegation. An expressive and comprehensive term: they said. They made it their business, continually, and wherever an opportunity presented itself, to influence the people against Jesus. And their most malignant slander was this: He has Beelzebub, or Beelzebub; this prince of the devils gives Him the power to cast out demons. Beelzebub was the name of the patron idol of Ekron, a city of the Philistines. It meant "the god of flies"; but the Israelites changed one consonant, and had it read Beelzebub, "the god of dung," to ridicule the false god. In this way the word gradually came to designate the devil. The intention is plain. The meaning is: If this man were not in league with the devil, if He did not possess His power by authority and gift of the devil, the demons would not obey Him in going forth from the demoniacs. But Jesus has an answer ready to confound them. Knowing their thoughts, He assumes the offensive. He cites them to appear before Him and proposes to them a number of questions. Is it reasonable to suppose that Satan would cast out Satan? Would he be so foolish as to destroy his own kingdom by permitting divisions in the midst of his own armies! Would he permit the members of his own household to be at loggerheads with each other! Satan is far too keen and too prudent to bring harm upon himself and to destroy his own kingdom, for he knows that such a proceeding would signify and foretell the end of his reign. In a positive form, the defense of Christ was: Not by Beelzebub, but by the Spirit of God, I cast out devils. And this Spirit of God that spoke through Him and manifested Himself through Him, bore witness to the heart and minds also of the Pharisees. And yet they blasphemed and exhibited the poison of their heart by labeling the work of God as the work of the devil and hindering the spread of the Gospel. Similar blasphemies occur in the very midst of the so-called Christian Church to this day. The doctrine of Christ, the way of salvation as taught by Him, is blasphemed as a dangerous, harmful doctrine, and those that adhere to it in simple faith are adjudged undesirable neighbors and citizens. But the word of Jesus at this point may still be applied.

Over against the slanderous, blasphemous explanation of the Jews, Jesus now places His simple and true explanation. The devil is strong and mighty, indeed, but in Christ he has found more than his match, he has met Him whom he must acknowledge, without question, as his Master. Christ, the Son of God, has entered into the house of the strong one, Satan; He has taken with Him the spoil which fell to His lot at the time of His great victory. The demons, all the evil angels, had to confess Him and bow before Him as the Son of God; they were obliged to obey, even against their will, for all things have been put under His feet, Eph 1:22. By His life, Passion, and death, by His active and passive obedience to His heavenly Father’s will Christ has conquered the devil and delivered all men from his power. Thus it is that Christ can now seize the spoils taken from Satan, tear from him his possessions, also those poor people whom he has possessed. This our Lord does even today through the Word, by which the souls of men are delivered from the power of the devil.

Paul E. Kretzmann, Popular Commentary of the Bible (1921–1924) — public domain. Text from a community e-Sword module.

22. The scribes … said. For notes on the charge of the scribes, Beelzebub, and the sin of blasphemy against the Holy Spirit, see Matt. 12:22–37. Compare Luke 11:14–23. From Jerusalem. The men who were leaders in this effort to destroy the influence of Jesus were a delegation from the very religious bodies at Jerusalem that finally sent him to death.

B. W. Johnson's The People's New Testament with Notes (1889–1891) — public domain. Electronic text from the Christian Classics Ethereal Library (CCEL) ThML edition.

22. οἱ ἀπὸ Ἰεροσολύμων. The hostile criticism seems to have emanated from Jerusalem, and Scribes who were Pharisees (Mar 2:6; Mar 2:16; Mar 2:18; Mar 2:24, Mar 3:6) dogged His footsteps to collect evidence against Him. Emissaries from Jerusalem appear as His deadliest foes (Mar 7:1), a presentiment, as Bede remarks, of the fact that it was the inhabitants of Jerusalem who were to put Him to death. Mk does not tell us what gave His critics an opening on this occasion. Mt. and Lk. say that it was the healing of a demoniac who was dumb and blind. Some suggested that the Healer must be the Messiah; and then His foes gave this explanation.

Βεελζεβοὺλ ἔχει. Like Βοανηργές (Mar 3:17), Βεελζεβούλ is an unsolved problem as regards orthography and derivation. Other forms are Βεεζεβούλ and Βεελζεβούβ. The last is found in no Greek MS., but has prevailed through the influence of Vulg.; but even there some MSS. have beelzebul. “Lord of the habitation” and “Lord of dung” are the more approved conjectures as to the meaning; but all that is certain is that it is a term of reproach and abomination. Syr-Sin. has “B. is in Him,” and again in Mar 3:30, “an unclean spirit is in Him.”

Ἐν τῷ ἄρχοντι τῶν δαιμονίων. In the power of the prince of the demons. It is not known whether the Jews regarded Beelzebub as the same as Satan or as an inferior evil power. There is the same use of ἐν in Mt. and Lk., and a similar use of ὁ ἄρχων in Joh 12:31; Joh 14:30; Joh 16:11; Eph 2:2.

This charge is recorded in all three Gospels here, in Mt. also in Mar 10:24. Jn has it Joh 7:20, Joh 8:45; Joh 8:52; cf. Mat 11:18. No doubt it was made on various occasions. It has an important bearing on Christ’s “mighty works.” There must have been some very marvellous works, and they must have been notorious at the time, or the Pharisees would not have propounded so desperate an explanation. A little later it was said that Jesus had learned magic in Egypt.

Cambridge Greek Testament for Schools and Colleges (Cambridge University Press, 1896; 21 vols, various authors incl. Carr, Maclear, Plummer, Farrar, Lumby, Moule, M. R. James, Simcox) — public domain. Text from a community e-Sword module.

22.] οἱ γρ. οἱ ἀπὸ Ἱερ.…, peculiar to Mark: see note on Matt. ver. 24. Here Matt. has οἱ Φαρις.—Luke τινὲς ἐξ αὐτῶν, i.e. τῶν ὄχλ.

ὅτι Β. ἔχει] This addition is most important. If He was possessed by Beelzebub, the prince of the dæmons, He would thus have authority over the inferior evil spirits.

Henry Alford, The Greek Testament (1849–1861) — public domain. Text from a community e-Sword module.

22. Καταβάντες—It was down from Jerusalem, which was situated on high land, to most other parts of the country. This is the first mention of the presence of Scribes from Jerusalem, and it is an indication of an increased activity and hostility of the religious leaders against Jesus.

Βεελζεβοὺλ ἔχει—he has Beelzebul. This is a modification of a Heb. name, and is one of their names for Satan.1 One is said to have a demon, or here, the prince of demons, as he is said to have a disease, that is, to be afflicted with it.

The particular form of this charge, that he is possessed, not with an ordinary demon, but with the devil himself, is in order to account for his power over demons, as representing their prince. But we may suppose that they took a malicious pleasure in making his an exaggerated case. ἐν τῷ ἄρχοντι τῶν δαιμονίων—in the prince of the demons. The preposition has the same force as in the phrases in Christ, in the Holy Spirit. It is a local designation of intimate union, as if the two were so absorbed in each other, that they dwelt, one in the other. The charge is, that Jesus cast out demons by virtue of this connection with their prince. It is not merely an attempt to explain these miracles, so as to do away with the effect of them, but a distinct charge on the strength of them. They said, this man is in collusion with the devil. It is evident all through his course, but this assumed miracle is distinct proof of it. How else does this insignificant person coming among us without any credentials, get this extraordinary power over demons, unless there is some connection between him and their ruler. The devil has power to order them round, and has authorized this man to act for him, and so further the dangerous delusion about himself which is spreading among the people. There is no connection between the attitude of the religious leaders, and of Jesus’ own family here. Rather, the hostility of the Scribes was one of the dangers of the situation, to which Jesus himself seemed rashly indifferent, and which led his family to seek to restrain him.

Mat 12:22, Mat 12:23 and Luk 11:14 give us a more immediate occasion for this charge in their account of the casting out of a demon at this time. In this Gospel, the connection is general, the charge being occasioned by Jesus’ frequent performance of this most prominent of all his miracles.

International Critical Commentary — older volumes (1896–1929), various authors — public domain. Text from a community e-Sword module.

Beelzebub. See on Mt 10:25.

And. Not connecting two parts of one accusation, but two accusations, as is evident from the two otiv, which are equivalent to quotation marks.

Marvin R. Vincent, Word Studies in the New Testament (1887–1900) — public domain. Text from a community e-Sword/MySword module.