The Pulpit Commentary — Mark — Volume 1 — Section 152

would have adopted that course; but facts are stubborn things, a.nd denil\l in the face of facts is impossible. The miracle was too plain, too palpable, and too public to admit denial. The next best thing for their nefarious purpose was depreciation or det.raction. "He casteth out devils," they say-they could not deny this; "but he bath Beelzebub, and in union (l11) with him, or by the prince of the devils casteth he out devils," or rather "demons," as we have already seen. Beelzebub was the god of Ekron, nnd got this name from the supposed power which he possessed to ward off flies, like the Latin averrunci or the Greek l£,r0Tplhr1U01, who were named averters, which those words signify, as though they possessed the power of averting disease or pestilence from their worshippers. But the name Beelzebub was changed, contemptuously and insultingly no doubt, into Beelzebul, the god of dung; nor is the affinity between the god of flies and the god of the dunghill difficult to discover, while the filth of idolatry is not obscurely implied. Now, this name was given to the evil one, whose proper name is either Satan the adversary, in Hebrew, or Diabolos the accuser, in Greek. Other names he also bears, such as "prince of darkness,"" prince of the power of the air n "the tempter,"" the God of this world," "the old serpent," "the dragon," and Beliai. A.11 of these, more or less indicate his hostility to God and man, his opposition to all good, and instigation to all evil. 2. Confutation. The Saviour refutes this charge by four different arguments. The first argument is an appeal to common sense, the second is ad absurdum, the third is ad hominem, and the fourth from human experience. The first (1) points out the fact that the stability of a kingdom, or the success of a family depends on unity and peace; as the proverb has it, "Concordia res parvai crescunt, discord.ia maximm dilabuntnr." So the kingdom or family of demons would perish by dissensions. Again (2), "if Satan cast out Satan "-not "if one Satan cast out another Satan," which is the rendering of some, but," if Satan cast himself out," his policy is sui- cidal He had by his demons taken possession of men's bodies, and thereby exercised his power over his victims; but if he countenu.ced or combined with the Saviour in casting out these demons, he was destroying his own subjects and diminishing his own power. Thus his kingdom, like many another and many a better, "could not stand," or rather " could not be made to stand " ( rrcoeij1141), or, as the other synoptists express it, "it is brought to desolation" ( l(J'flp.oirT,u) ; and, in that case, " house falleth against house," ac- cording to Meyer's rendering of the parallel expression in St. Luke, or, as it stands in the Authorized Version, " a house divided against a house falleth." The conditional propo- sition in reference to kingdom and house is of that kind which denotes probable contingency, not a mere supposition; but that applied to Satan rising up against himself implies possibility without any expression of uncertainty. Why is this? How can we account for this somewhat striking difference? Because in the former case civil commotions may distract a kingdom, and an unhappy feud may divide a family or household. Such things have occurred; and it is likely enough that they may occur again, and so their occurrence comes within the limits of probability. But, according to the supposition or imputation of the scribes, the thing has already actually occurred, and Satan has risen up against himself, and is divided. Such suicidal policy it would be utterly absurd to attribute to a power so subtle as Satan, unless, indeed, he be supposed to be possessed of less than ordinary worldly prudence. He now turns (3) to another line of argument which comes home to them more closely. This argument, though omitted by St. Mark, is found in both St. Matthew and St. Luke, and is the following:-" And if I by Beelzebub cast out devils, by whom do your children [' l!Ons,' in St. Luke] cast them out?" This they assumed to do, as we learn from Acts xix. 13, 14, "Then certain of the vagabond Jews, exorcists, took upon them to call over them which had evil spirits the name of the Lord Jesus, saying, We adjure you by Jesus whom Paul preacheth. A.nd there were seven sons of one Sceva, a Jew, and chief of the priests, which did so." Our Lord, in his reasoning and for the purpose of his argument, employs the fact of the assumption which they made, without necessarily admitting the reality of their accomplishing what they pretended. If they were asked by what power or whose aid their sons cast out or took upon them to .::ast out devils? by Beelzebub or by the Spirit? he knew well what their answer would be, and that they would not acknowledge their children to be leagued with Satan in casting out devils, but that they would contend for the co-operation of Divine power. If, then, our Lord would say, you impute that power which I exert to Beelzebub, anJ cm. m. 1-85.] THE GOSPEL ACCORDING TO ST. MARK. 14:7