22—28
187
26. καὶ εἰ 6 Σατανᾶς τὸν Σατανᾶν ἐκβάλλει, ἐφ᾽ ἑαυτὸν ἐμερίσθη - πῶς
οὖν σταθήσεται ἡ βασιλεία αὐτοῦ ;
2]. καὶ εἰ ἐγὼ ἐν Βεελζεβοὺλ y Rom. _ ix.
2 Cor.
a x 31. } ἐκβάλλω τὰ δαιμόνια, οἱ υἱοὶ ὑμῶν ἐν tive ἐκβάλλουσι ; διὰ τοῦτο x. 14. Phil.
αὐτοὶ ὑμῶν ἔσονται κριταί.ῖ 28, εἰ δὲ ἐγὼ ἐν Πνεύµατι Θεοῦ” ἐκβάλλω τὰ δαιμόνια, dpa 7 ἔφθασεν ep Spas ἡ βασιλεία τοῦ Θεοῦ.
1$SBD have κριται εσονται vpwv.
iii. 16.
1 Thess. ii. 16(inall= to reach).
3 Most uncials have eye after εν Πνευµατιθεου, on which the emphasis ought to lie.
So Schanz. Whether the Pharisees believed this theory may be doubted. It was enough that it was plausible. To reason with such menis vain. Yet Jesus did reason for the benefit of disciples. Vv. 25-30. The theory shown to be absurd.—Ver. 25. εἰδὼς τὰς ἐνθυ- pyoes. Jesus not only heard their words, but knew thew thoughts, the malicious feelings which prompted their words, and strove so to present the case as to convict them of bad faith and dis- honesty.—_waoa βασιλεία, etc.: state- ment of an axiom widely exemplified in human affairs: division fatal to stability in kingdoms and cities. — σταθήσεται: Ist future passive with an intransitive sense, vide Winer, § 38, 1.—Ver. 26 applies the axiom to Satan. ¢, intro- duces a simple particular supposition without reference to its truth.—épepio8y : the aorist has the force of a perfect. Satan casting out Satan means self- stultification ; ipso facto, self-division re- sults. Against the argument it might be objected: Kingdoms and cities do become divided against themselves, re- gardless of fatal consequences, why not also Satan? Why should not that happen to Satan’s kingdom which has happened even to the Christian Church? Jesus seems to have credited Satan with more astuteness than is possessed by states, cities, and churches. Satan may be wicked, He says in effect, but he is not a fool. Then it has to be considered that communities commit follies which individuals avoid. Men war against each other to their common undoing, who would be wiser in their own affairs. One Satan might cast out another, but no Satan will cast out himself. And that is the case put by Jesus. Some, e.g., De Wette and Fritzsche, take 6 Σατανᾶς 7. Σ. ἐκβάλλει as = one Satan casting out another. But that is not Christ’s meaning. He so puts the case as to make the absurdity evident. Ex hypothesi He had a right to put it so; for the theory was that Satan directly empowered and enabled Him to deliver
men from his (Satan’s) power.—Ver 27. To the previous convincing argument Jesus adds an argumentum ad hominem, based on the exorcism then practised among the Jews, with which it would appear the Pharisees found no fault.—ot viol ὑμῶν, not of course Christ’s disciples (so most of the Fathers), for the Pharisaic prejudice against Him would extend to them, but men belonging to the same school or religious type, like-minded. By referring to their performances Jesus put the Pharisees in a dilemma. Either they must condemn both forms of dis- possession or explain why they made a difference. What they would have said we do not know, but it is not difficult tc suggest reasons. The Jewish exorcists operated in conventional fashion by use of herbs and magical formula, and the results were probably insignificant, The practice was sanctioned by custom, and harmless. But in casting out devils, as in all other things, Jesus was original, and His method was too effectual. His power, manifest to all, was His offence.— κριταῖ. Jesus now makes the fellow- religionists of the Pharisees their judges. On a future occasion He will make John the Baptist their judge (xxi. 23-27). Such home-thrusts were very inconvenient. Ver. 28. The alternative: if not by Satan then by the Spirit of God, with an inevitable inference as to the worker and His work.—év πνεύματι θεοῦ. Luke has ἐν δακτύλφῳ ϐθ. The former seems more in keeping with the connec- tion of thought as defending the ethical character of Christ’s work assailed by the Pharisees. If, indeed, the spirit of God were regarded from the charismatic point of view, as the source of miraculous gifts, the two expressions would be synonymous. But there is reason to believe that by the time our Gospel was written the Pauline conception of the Holy Spirit’s influence as chiefly ethical and immanent, as distinct from that of the primitive apostolic church, in which it was charismatic and transcendent, had gained currency (vide my St. Paul's