But the Pharisees, having heard [it], said, This [man] does not cast out demons, but by Beelzebub, prince of demons.
Jesus had just healed a blind and mute man, and the crowd asked aloud whether He was the Son of David — the promised Messiah. The religious leaders could not deny the healing, so they said His power came from hell.
Writers disagree about what the name Beelzebul means. The leaders' own explanation of it is clear.
The meaning of the word Beelzebul is much disputed. Some connect it with Baal-zebub, "lord of the fly," in the Old Testament, but others believe it is a term of contempt meaning "lord of dung." The Jews blasphemously charged the Lord with casting out demons by Beelzebul (that is the right spelling). They call him "the prince of the demons." That plainly shows their meaning: the one who was head of those demons enabled the Lord to cast them out.
Older English translations blur a distinction here.
We must distinguish between the instruments of Satan's power and the devil himself. The word "devils" mixes up the two things. It should say "demons."
This is not simple doubt. The healing was public and undeniable. The only way to resist it was to blame another source — and the men who did that had the strongest reputation for godliness.
It was not unbelief only, but its darker form — when no one can dispute that the power at work is God's kind power, and men credit it to the evil one as its source. Such is the inevitable lot of those who enjoy a religious reputation as orthodox and righteous without living faith. If they encounter Christ, as here, they must either submit to the testimony given to His person, or attribute the power of God's Spirit that He wields to the arch-enemy. The more people know of divine things, the more fatally they sin against the truth when they defy it in unbelief. Their sin then takes the shape of blasphemy against the Holy Spirit, which will not be forgiven in this age or in the age to come.
Either way the charge exposes the men who made it. They were the nation's teachers, and this tested their judgment.
If they truly could not tell the hand of God from the hand of Satan, they were utterly unfit to teach God's people. If instead they saw God's power and deliberately called it the working of hell, because it did not come through official channels, the wickedness of it is almost too awful to think about. No evil is worse than religious evil.
They had said this before. What drove them to repeat it, and where they said it, exposes them.
Jealousy, anger, malice and Satanic hatred against Him moved them to say it. They had made the accusation before (9:34), and the Lord passed it over then. But now, after the repeated displays of His power, after their hatred reached the point of seeking His life, He rebukes the awful blasphemy. They were cowards: they did not dare bring the accusation to His face. How could they dare to stand before Him? So He reads their very thoughts again — a miracle in itself, which should have startled them.
The Lord answers from what they themselves believed about Satan's kingdom.
Whether for kingdom, city, or house, to divide against itself is ruin. If Satan therefore casts out Satan, as they said, he is divided against himself: how then shall his kingdom stand? But no Jew doubted for a moment that Satan's kingdom would last until the Messiah comes in power and glory to judge and destroy it. So their plea refutes itself as inconsistent and false.
Here the rejection of the King becomes open and final.
The Pharisees showed their unyielding spirit of rejection in the most unmistakable way. They traced the miraculous power He displayed to a Satanic origin (Matt. 9:34; Matt. 12:24). No manner of sin or blasphemy could exceed this. It struck not only at the Son of Man but against the Holy Spirit, who always empowered Him. The Lord could not let it pass (Matt. 12:31). So in the next chapter He begins to teach in parables the new form the kingdom would take because of this irreconcilable opposition.
- The name. Beelzebul may mean "lord of the fly," or the mocking "lord of dung." The accusers themselves called him the head of the demons, so their charge was that Satan's chief supplied Christ's power.
- The motive. They could not deny the miracle, so they credited it to hell. That is unbelief in its darkest form, and it came from men with a religious reputation but no living faith.
- The absurdity. A kingdom, city or house divided against itself falls. No Jew believed Satan's kingdom had fallen, so their theory destroyed itself.
- The exposure. They would not say it to His face. He read their thoughts and answered them — a miracle in itself that should have made them bow.
- The result. Calling the Spirit's work Satan's becomes blasphemy against the Holy Spirit, which will not be forgiven in this age or the next. From here the King is rejected, and the kingdom takes a new form, taught in parables.
But he, knowing their thoughts, said to them, Every kingdom divided against itself is brought to desolation, and every city or house divided against itself will not subsist.
The Pharisees had just seen a man set free from a demon, and they called the power behind it the work of the prince of demons. Jesus answered their unspoken charge with a rule anyone could test: whatever is divided against itself falls apart.
The accusation was never brought to Him openly. Commentators note that His reply to an unspoken charge was itself a claim about who He is.
Of course Jesus knew their thoughts, though they had not dared to speak to Him in this way. But His answer to their thoughts should have convinced them that His knowledge is divine.
Earlier in the same chapter He knew because He heard the report. Here His knowing is of a different kind.
In Matthew 12:15, Jesus knew (that they were plotting to destroy Him) having heard it. And in Matthew 12:25 Jesus knew their thoughts — had the conscious knowledge of it.
The Lord does not appeal to Scripture here. He appeals to something every hearer already knew from ordinary life.
All experience in the world proves that division and faction in a community end in break-up. That unity is strength is a universal rule.
He states it at three scales — kingdom, city, house — so the argument cannot be dodged by saying the case is special.
Here the Lord pronounces the mind of God. Consciously knowing their thoughts He exposes their malicious absurdity. Whether for kingdom, city, or house, to divide against itself is ruin… No Jew doubted for a moment that Satan's kingdom would last until the Messiah came in power and glory to judge and destroy it. So their charge refutes itself as inconsistent and false.
Apply the rule to their charge and it collapses. If Satan were driving out Satan, he would be dismantling his own realm.
He who could attribute what cast out Satan to Satan himself was self-condemned. It would make Satan more foolish than the most foolish man. A kingdom divided against itself cannot stand: that principle holds everywhere. Can it be thought that Satan deliberately destroys his own kingdom and himself? Is he really suicidal?
The argument carries a piece of teaching alongside it.
Satan casting out Satan would divide his dreadful domain, and that would mean complete ruin and overthrow. So it is unthinkable that the devil could supply the power to destroy the kingdom he controls. The passage is full of meaning apart from the argument it contains. He who knows all things in perfect knowledge tells us that Satan is a person and a king. He has a kingdom, and he rules it.
They were not confused; they were cornered. The way out cost them their ability to tell good from evil.
They could not deny the power that was so obvious. If they would not submit and own God in it, one terrible option was left: to blame this on Satan… But to say so would only confuse good with evil, and lose the power of discernment altogether.
Note who said it: men with a reputation for being orthodox and upright.
It was not unbelief only, but its darker form. That form appears when no one can dispute the kind power of God, and people credit it to the evil one as its source. This is the unavoidable end for people who have a religious reputation as orthodox and upright but no living faith.
He might have ignored it. That He did not is itself instructive about when a charge must be met.
There are times when one may leave objections unnoticed. We have an example of this in Mark 3:21, when the friends of the Lord said He was out of His mind. It seems He took no notice of that. But there are times when the enemy must be met head on, and his suggestions or accusations clearly refuted… Experience teaches how easily sound without substance leads a crowd away — that is, foolish statements that will not stand up to examination.
- Known. He replied to a charge they never voiced aloud — knowledge of the heart that belongs to God alone.
- Principle. Kingdom, city, house — division against itself is ruin at every scale.
- Absurd. Satan does not raid his own house; the accusation would make him more foolish than the most foolish man.
- Motive. They could not deny the power. Refusing to own God in it, they confused good with evil.
- Answer. He answered slanderers, because a crowd will follow any claim that sounds good but cannot bear examination.
And if Satan casts out Satan, he is divided against himself; how then shall his kingdom subsist?
The Pharisees could not deny that a demon had just been driven out. So they said the power came from Satan himself. The Lord answers the thought behind their words with a question they cannot escape: a kingdom at war with itself is already finished.
The charge was never made to His face. That He replied to it at all was itself evidence of who He was.
Of course Jesus knew their thoughts, though they had not dared to speak to Him in this way. But His answering their thoughts ought to have impressed them with the fact of His divine knowledge. He answers them that every kingdom or city or house divided against itself cannot continue. But Satan's kingdom had lasted for centuries and was still fighting. Satan did not win his gains by casting himself out. The very idea that he would do this was nonsense. Of course the Pharisees knew there was supernatural power in Christ's casting out of demons. Since they wanted to deny it was God's power, their only other option was this foolish dodge.
The principle holds at every scale — nation, town, family. The Pharisees themselves believed Satan's rule would last until the Messiah came to break it. So their own belief disproved their charge.
He knew their thoughts, and He exposes the malicious absurdity in them. For a kingdom, a city, or a house, to be divided against itself means ruin. So if Satan casts out Satan, as they said, he is divided against himself. How then will his kingdom stand? But no Jew doubted for a moment that Satan's kingdom would last until the Messiah came in power and glory to judge and destroy it. So their claim refutes itself. It is inconsistent and false, and there is no way to defend it.
The Lord's words do more than win an argument. They tell us what kind of enemy stands behind the demons.
He who knows all things in perfect knowledge tells us that Satan is a person and a king, for he has a kingdom over which he rules. The demons are in his kingdom, one with the head in thought and purpose.
If the accusation were true, the enemy would be working his own downfall. That makes him the biggest fool alive.
Man had already been tested by this power. Anyone who could credit the power that cast out Satan to Satan himself stood self-condemned. It would make Satan more foolish than the most foolish man, because it is a universal rule that a kingdom divided against itself cannot stand. Can anyone think that Satan sets out to destroy his own kingdom and himself? Is he really bent on his own ruin?
Their claim was not that one evil had simply replaced another. They admitted the man was free, and then called the power that freed him evil.
No — they admitted that Satan's power was broken and gone. Satan really had been cast out. So Satan had not done this. To say he had would be to confuse good with evil, and to lose the power to tell them apart at all.
Having shown the absurdity, the Lord gives the true explanation. Two powers are at work, and one of them is stronger.
The compassionate Saviour came down to reason with His evil critics. He asked them how Satan could cast out Satan... Here was the true position. Satan, the strong one, had long kept his captives in peace. Now a Stronger One had come, with power to overcome him and to divide the spoils... He has met the enemy in his last stronghold, death, and has defeated him, putting away sin at the same time. Every child of Adam may be set free from Satan's slavery at once by appealing to the Saviour's grace.
Israel itself had become Satan's territory, and the Lord had walked into it.
He had entered the territory of Satan's power — that is what Israel had become! — and He was plundering his goods, after first tying up the strong man. This was a time of direct conflict between Christ and Satan, and people had to take sides.
- Thought — The accusation was never spoken aloud. The Lord answered what was in their hearts, and that alone should have told them who He was.
- Kingdom — Every kingdom, city or house divided against itself collapses. If Satan drove out Satan, his rule would already be over.
- Absurdity — The charge makes the enemy more foolish than the most foolish man, out to destroy himself. It refutes itself.
- Discernment — They admitted Satan's power was broken, and still called the rescue satanic. That confuses good with evil and destroys the ability to tell them apart.
- Stronger — The real explanation is a Stronger One entering the strong man's house. He has since met the enemy in death and won. Anyone who appeals to His grace can go free.
And if *I* cast out demons by Beelzebub, your sons, by whom do they cast [them] out? For this reason *they* shall be your judges.
The Pharisees could not deny the power at work in Jesus, so they said it came from Beelzebul, the prince of demons. Here He turns their own charge on people they had never accused.
The accusation Jesus answers was not honest doubt. It came from men with a religious reputation to protect.
It was not only unbelief, but unbelief in its darker form. That is what happens when no one can dispute the good and generous power of God, and people trace it to the evil one instead. This is always where people end up if they enjoy a religious name for being sound and righteous, but have no living faith. If they meet Christ, as here, they have only two choices. Either they accept the testimony given about who He is, or they say that the power of God's Spirit He uses belongs to the arch-enemy. The more people know of divine things, the more deadly their sin against the truth if they brazen it out in unbelief. It then takes the shape of blasphemy against the Holy Spirit, which will not be forgiven in this age or in the one to come.
Jesus points to a fact His critics had already accepted elsewhere. Other people were driving out demons, and the Pharisees never accused them. So their rule about the source of that power had to cover those cases too.
Besides, their sons claimed to cast out demons. How could that be, if they admitted this — as they did admit it? Was it an opposite power working in the same way? Or how did they tell the difference? These, then, would be their judges.
The verse ends by handing the Pharisees over to a verdict. Either way you read their charge, it exposes the men who made it.
If they truly could not tell the hand of God from the hand of Satan, they were in no way fit to teach God's people. If instead they saw God's power and called it the work of hell on purpose, because it did not happen to come through official channels, the wickedness of it is almost too terrible to think about. No evil is worse than religious evil.
Commentators differ on the identity of these sons. One reading takes them as exorcists from the Pharisees' own circle. Exorcists claimed the power to drive demons out.
The Lord certainly did not mean His own disciples. He had given them the power to cast out demons in His name. He meant the school of Pharisees, who practised, or claimed to practise, exorcism. The question our Lord put to them demanded an answer they did not care to give, for it would have condemned them.
Another reading turns it the other way. The Pharisees knew where the disciples came from; Christ Himself was the one they could not place.
Matthew 12:27 is often quoted to show that the Lord admitted such people were able to cast out demons. Is it not more likely that in that passage the Lord was referring to His disciples? The Lord was a mysterious person they could not understand, and they charged Him with casting out demons by the prince of demons. But the Lord said, By whom do your sons — whose origin you do know — cast them out?
A third reading takes the words as a real acknowledgement. God had worked among the Jews before Christ came, and the Lord says so even while they slander Him.
Before this, God had at times given power to Jews to cast out demons. God always honours faith. Even on the darkest day the Lord kept the holy fire burning, so that His light would not go out on the earth altogether. No unbelief on their part ever irritated the Lord. Far from it. He could calmly acknowledge what had been of God among them. Even so, they went on denying God Himself present among men.
- Power admitted. The Pharisees never disputed that demons were leaving. They could not deny the good in front of them, so they blackened its source instead.
- Power tested. Jesus applies their own rule to their own people. If the same result proves Satan in His case, it proves Satan in theirs.
- Power identified. Commentators differ. "Your sons" may mean Jewish exorcists, or Christ's disciples. Either way, the Pharisees knew of demons cast out that they had never blamed on Satan.
- Power judged. Their double standard makes those sons their judges. Men who cannot tell God's hand from Satan's are unfit to teach, and men who can tell and lie about it are worse.
- Power honoured. Slander never stirs the Lord. He still owns what God had done among that people. He defends the truth without defending Himself.