Matthew 10:24-25

8. Christ has suffered Persecution before His disciples, and they only suffer along with Him. Second warning and comfort. Matthew 10:24-25

24The [A] disciple is not above his [the] master, nor the [a] servant above his lord. 25It is enough for the disciple that he be as his master, and the servant as his lord. If they have called [surnamed]32 the master of the house Beelzebub [Beelzebul],33 how much more shall they call34 them of his household?

EXEGETICAL AND CRITICAL

Matthew 10:24. The disciple is not, etc.—A proverb. See the corresponding passages in rabbinical writings in Schöttgen.

Matthew 10:25. This is enough for the disciple, in order that (ἵνα) he may be (treated), etc.; i. e., the subordination of the disciple to his teacher implies that he must share his fate. The same remark applies to the servant in reference to his lord. So Meyer, against the common explanation of the word ἵνα in this passage.

Βεελζεβούλ.—The Syrian Codd., the Itala, the Vulgate, and the Latin Fathers have Beelzebub. This, then, may be regarded as the first explanation of the term—as equivalent to בַּעַל זְבוּב (2 Kings 1:2), the fly-god. The second explanation is furnished by Winer as follows: “By a Jewish pun, this name was, by the change of a letter, converted into &בַּעַל זְבוּל בְּעֵל, Chaldee), i. e., dominus stercoris, lord of dung, in a manner analogous to that in which Συχέμ was turned into Συχάρ. It is very natural that the later Jews, in their burning hatred of heathenism, transferred the name of a celebrated idol in their neighborhood on Satan.” Accordingly, Lightfoot, Buxtorf, and most modern critics explain it as the name of Satan, being the prince of all impurity. A third interpretation renders זְבוּל by habitation, and Beelzebul by dominus domicilii. This means,—a. according to Gusset, Michaelis, and Meyer: lord of the kingdom of darkness, where the evil spirits dwell; b. according to Paulus: lord of Tartarus; c. according to Jahn: prince of the power of the air (Ephesians 2:2); according to Movers: Saturn as holding a castle in the seventh heaven.—With reference to the first interpretation, it is enough to say, that most of the readings are opposed to the form Beelzebub. It is evidently an exegetical explanation of the name Beelzebul from Beelzebub, the god of the Philistines, to whom the chasing away of flies was imputed.—Against the second explanation it is urged, that the word for mud or dirt is זֶבֶל, not זְבוּל. Winer indeed, suggests that uncommon forms are occasionally used in a play upon words. Still, they must have some warrant in the use of the language. Besides, Meyer rightly calls attention to the fact, that the word Βεελζεβούλ bears reference to the expression οἰκοδεσπότης, which Christ had here chosen. Hence, “lord of the habitation.”35 Perhaps, then, this designation of Satan may refer to the habitation of demons in the possessed. The parallel passage in Matthew 12:0, where the Pharisees say ( Matthew 10:24): “This fellow doth not cast out devils but by Beelzebul, the prince of the devils,” seems in favor of this view. The Lord Himself afterward characterizes the rule of the demons over the possessed under the biblical expression of “dwellers in a house” ( Matthew 10:25; Matthew 10:29; and especially Matthew 12:45, “They enter in and dwell there”). If this be the correct interpretation of the term, it will also explain how it does not otherwise occur in Jewish writings. The enemies of the Lord charged Him with casting out devils through the prince of the devils, whom they in derision called Beelzebul (Matthew 9:34; Matthew 12:24). Jesus comments upon this in the following manner: The Pharisees designate as the prince of the devilish possession the Master of the house, who rightfully claims the heart of man as His dwelling (Matthew 12:29), and casts out the usurper, who occasionally performed cures of demoniacs, for the purpose of blinding his victims. Hence the expression Beelzebul would refer only to the prince of devils who take possession of men on earth, not to the prince of evil spirits generally. Christ paraphrased the fact, that they stigmatized Him as acting under the inspiration of Beelzebul, by saying that He had been called Beelzebul because His enemies asserted that Satan had virtually devolved on Him the supremacy over demons. The expression is used in a sense similar to that in which the terms Satan and Antichrist occur in 2 Thessalonians 2:0. This may serve as a sufficient answer to those who ask, When the Jews had called Christ Beelzebul. Comp. Matthew 12:24; John 8:48. Similarly, it explains the inference drawn by the Lord: How much more them of His household? If the Jews had designated Christ as the prince of devils absolutely, that name could not have been applied to His household. But if they meant that He was the author and patron of demoniac possession, they might apply this even more boldly to His Apostles. Undoubtedly, however, the term bears also some reference to the god of the Philistines. Perhaps the connection may be traced in the following manner: As Beelzebul was supposed to banish, but also to bring, the plague of flies, so Jesus was accused of expelling demons, because He was the lord of their habitation.

DOCTRINAL AND ETHICAL

Christ, the Lord of the kingdom of heaven, who sends the Holy Ghost, the rightful Master of the human heart, is characterized by His enemies as prince of the kingdom of darkness, acting under the inspiration of Satan, the chief of the demons, or as Antichrist. Similarly, the disciples of Jesus cannot expect other than that their activity shall be characterized as demoniacal and antichristian.

HOMILETICAL AND PRACTICAL

“The disciple is not above his Master:” this the watchword of Christ’s faithful witnesses: 1. As to their conduct. They are subordinate in everything to Christ. 2. In their sufferings. Every true disciple must be willing to share the rejection of his Master.—“The disciple is not above his Master, nor the servant above his Lord:” this is sufficient comfort when misunderstood or misrepresented: 1. As a disciple, he feels that if the Master’s work has been calumniated, he need expect no better; 2. as a servant, he feels that if the Lord of the house was stigmatized as a diabolical destroyer, he need not wonder if his service in the Church or to individuals is traduced.—It is a sad, yet an effectual, consolation to the witnesses of Christ when they are calumniated, that their Lord and Master was called Beelzebul.—Christ passes through the blasphemies of His enemies unharmed, as through a mist; let His people follow Him joyously.—Satan condemning himself even when he blasphemes. He must,—1. call that devilish which is divine; 2. he must represent as divine what is devilish.

Starke:—What comfort and honor, that Christ is the Master of the house, and His people its members!—Cramer: Ministers must, in the discharge of their office, have regard to God and the truth of the gospel, not to the threats of men.

Heubner:—The example of Christ is the most blessed encouragement.

Footnotes:

[32] Matthew 10:25.—̓Ε π εκάλεσεν, B., C., [Cod. Sinait.] Lachmann, Tischendorf, [Alford, Wordsworth. Meyer regards the εκάλεσεν of the Elzevir text as an arbitrary substitution of the more usual verb.—]

[33] Matthew 10:25.—[Βεελζεβούλ is the true reading, adopted by Tischendorf, Lachmann, Meyer, Alford, Wordsworth, Conant, Lange. The E. V. notes it in the margin. Comp. Exeg. Notes.—P. S.]

[34] Matthew 10:25.—[This interpolation is unnecessary.—]

[35][For this reason Alford, also, adopts Meyer’s derivation, while Wordsworth adheres to Winer’s interpretation: dominus stercoris.—P. S.]

[36] Matthew 10:28.—[Lachmann and Tischendorf read: μὴ φοβεῖσθε (imper. præs. pass.) nolite timere, metuere ab iis, on the authority of Codd. B., C., (to which may be added Cod. Sinait., which reads twice. in Matthew 10:28; Matthew 10:31 : φοβισθε, a mere writing error for φοβεῖσθε). But Cod. B. or Vatieanus, as published by Angelo Mai, reads: μὴ φοβηθῆτε (conjunct. aor. i. pass.), and in the more correct edition of Buttmann, with different accentuation: μὴ φοβήθητε (imperat. aor. i. pass.). So also Cod. Alexandrinus, as published by B. H. Cowper, Lond., 1960 (φοβηθῆτε), Origen, and, of modern critics, Alford (φοβήθητε), Fritzsche and Conant (φοβηθῆτε). Meyer explains φοβηθῆτε from Matthew 10:24 and reads also in Matthew 10:31 φοβεῖτθε with B., D., L., Cod. Sinait, Lachmann, and Tischendorf. The main point for the sense, however, is the difference in the construction, the ἀπό after the first φοβεῖσθε and the acc. τόν after the second, concerning which the critical authorities are all agreed. In English this difference can be best reproduced by translating in the first case: be not afraid of, and in the other: fear him. See Exeg. Notes.—P. S.]