Jesus and Belzebul

INTRODUCTION

The story of Jesus and Belzebul found in Matthew 12:22-30, Is a story found in the three synoptic gospels, though with some similarities and dis-similarities. This paper shall discuss in details, the background of the text, why the text is there is there in the scripture and in the three synoptic gospels, the anterior and posterior context of the text, with their relationship, Markan and Lukan version of the story, similarities and difference in the synoptics, the reason for the difference, interpretation, theology, and finally, the conclusion.

GENARAL CONTEXT

Background

The pericope of Jesus and Belzebul in Matthew 12:22-30, is basically about Jesus, the blind and dumb demoniac, and the Pharisee. In Matthews account we see how Jesus cured the blind and dumb demoniac, and how the crowd were astonished at the cure of the demoniac, which was immediately followed by the accusation of the Pharisees that Jesus drives out devils through Belzebul the chief of the devils, we equally see Jesus’ response to the Pharisees accusation, and how he was able to silence them.

Why Is The Story There

This pericope  [Jesus and Belzebul] is found in the three synoptic gospels, basically; the response to the accusation (12:25-37). A comparison of the three synoptic shows that this episode is found both in mark (3:23-30) an in Q(Luke 11:17-23;12:10), this indicates the importance this discussion had in the early church; and it is altogether probable that the composition of the passage reflects the controversies of the primitive church with the Jews.[1]

ANTERIOR AND POSTERIOR CONTEXT

The pericope has three important points; the cure of the demoniac, the astonishment of the crowd and the resistance of the Pharisees.[2]

The cure of the demoniac leads to 3 different evaluation of Jesus’ identity; from the crowd (12:23) from the religious leaders (12:24) and from Jesus (12:25-37). On the part of the crowds, it makes them wonder if Jesus may be the messiah, (‘the son of David’); on the part of the Pharisees, it brings the accusation that his power to cast out demons is given to Jesus by the ruler of the kingdom of demons.[3] Though the speculation that he may be the messiah is not itself developed, it is the immediate occasion of the pharisaic attack, that the powers which astound the crowds are not messianic, conferred by God, but demonic.[4]

The Pharisees were geared towards destroying Jesus, by first attempting to ruin his reputation[5] Jesus in reaction to their accusation, makes two argument against their analysis (12:25-26,27), explaining the significance of his action and offers a third argument (12:29), his observation that every kingdom, city or house divided against itself is laid waste, begins his counter attempt to undermine the credibility of the Pharisees.[6] His arguments are thus;

If Satan casts out Satan, he is divided against himself, how then will his kingdom stand?

If I cast out demons by Beelzebul (12:24), by whom do your own exorcists cast them out?

How can one (Jesus) enter a strong man’s house (Satan’s kingdom, 12:26) and plunder his property (those under Satan’s control) without first tying up/binding the strong man?

The three-argument lead to the warning; whoever is not with me is against me, who ever does not gather with me scatters.[7]

This was how Jesus countered the pharisaic accusation and silenced them. For if the Jewish exorcist casts out devils by the invocation of God, as seen in Mark 9:38, Luke 9:49, Acts 19:13 and the Jews admitted that their children could, by the invocation of divine power, cast out evil spirits, nothing but malice could prompt them to attribute the miracles of Jesus to anything other than divine power.[8] For if Jesus’ exorcism of the demoniac can so readily be ascribed to diabolical influence, what does this make of the exorcisms performed by the Pharisees’ own children, that is, their disciples.[9] That is why Jesus concluded by saying that they (the Jewish exorcist), shall be witnesses of the Pharisees insincerity.

SYNOPTIC ANALYSIS

Source of Matthean account of the pericope

The Matthean periscope appears as a combination of  Marcan report (3:19b-30) with the “Q” version of Beelzebul controversy, best preserved in Lk 11:17-23. Also in Luke, the cure of a demoniac (only dumb) serves to introduce the controversy, while Marks story, apparently, an independent version, is differently and inappropriately introduced.[10] Matthew can be said to have gotten his story from a combination of Marcan report with the “Q” version of Beelzebul controversy.

Distinctions in the synoptic

The three synoptic writers all have the story of Jesus and Belzebul, but with some little difference. Both Luke and Matthew gave the occasion of charge of diabolism made against Jesus in the exorcism of a man who was dumb ( in Mt 12, blind and dumb), while Mark simply notes the charge as made by scribes from Jerusalem. Mark and Matthew, however, situate the controversy within the period of the Galilean ministry, where it doubtless belongs; for Matthew this is only one of a whole series of controversies between Jesus and his adversaries.[11]

Mark didn’t mention the incident which provoked the censure by the teachers of the law, consequently, the reproof in Mark 3:22 comes immediately after the rebuke in vs. 21. According to Mark, Jesus called them and spoke to them in parables.[12]

Why the distinction

Matthew adds ‘blind’ to the ‘dumb’ of Luke. The description illustrates the current popular demonology, where Luke has a question expressing wonder, Matthew has a question whether Jesus is not the son of David, a messianic title. Matthew specifies the accusers as Pharisees; Mark has ‘the scribes’, Luke’ some’.[13]

The introductory story (22-24), not found in Mark, is a doublet of the last miracle story of chapter 9, where the restoration of speech to a dumb demoniac is followed by the double reaction of the amazement of the crowds and the hostile criticism of the Pharisees. In Mark the accusation of demon possession is preceded by a story of an attempt of his family to take charge of him, fearing that he is out of his mind (Mk 3:21; equivalent to saying that he is possessed by a demon).[14]

The Matthaean discourse on demon possession is constructed by him as an expansion of a brief group of sayings of Jesus in mark, in which he rebuts a charge brought by scribes who came down from Jerusalem (Mk 3:22) with these Markan sentences, Matthew combines other sayings on the same theme which are drawn from Q (vv.27f., 30)[15]

Matthew has ‘by the spirit of God’, Luke has the phrase ‘by the finger of God’ (Lk 11:20). This is a reminiscence of the comment of the magicians of Egypt on the miracles of Aaron (Ex. 8:19). The un usual ‘finger of God’ may be the earlier, and altered by Matthew to give it a definitely Christian tinge.[16]

Luke’s phrase according to the Jerome’s biblical commentary is probably more original; Matthew’s change to ‘spirit’ leads into the saying about blasphemy, which Lk has in a different context (12:10). The reign of God has overtaken you.[17]

INTERPRETATION AND THEOLOGY

One who has power over demons is a dangerous person and may even himself be a demon of higher power; this is the point of the accusation of the Pharisees. In the ancient world, Jewish and gentile, ailments which exhibited some unusually repulsive feature or for which there was no explanation were often attributed to demons.[18] But according to the argument Jesus presented, “a kingdom divided against itself cannot stand”, this shows that devils may be exorcised only by the power of God. Satan is the strong man. Since the fall, he had been holding mankind in bondage. In assaulting the kingdom of Satan, Jesus was showing himself stronger than Satan, was placing him in bonds. On the cross the conquest of Satan would be complete, and at the last judgment he would be completely routed.[19]

CONCLUSION

From the discussion so far, we have seen how important this pericope was in the primitive church, which reflects the controversies of the primitive church with the Jews, with that, we can understand why it appears in the three synoptic Gospels. The difference in the synoptic accounts are basically as a result of refining the story, and adding more flesh to the bone. Mark was the first writer, Matthew got his material from the combination of Markan report with the “Q” version of the Beelzebul controversy. And finally, we were able to see how Jesus cured the dumb and blind demoniac and how he was able to silence the Pharisees. From that, we can see the passage speaks of the Christology.

REFERENCE

Brother Franciscus Willett, c.s.c., Holy Cross Bible Series; St. Matthew and His Gospel. (Holy Cross Press Valatie, N.Y.) 1964

Bruce Vawter, C.m, The Four Gospels; An Introduction. (DoubleDay and Company, Inc., Garden City, New York, 1967).

Eduard Schweizer, The Good News According to Mark, translated by Donald H. Madvig. (John knox Press, Richmond, virginia).

Leopold Sabourin , s.j. The Gospel According To St Matthew, volume one; general introduction and commentary 1:1-7:27 (St Paul Publications 1982) pg 570-574

The gospel according to matthew, translation, introduction and commentary by francis wright beare. Harper and row, publishers, san Francisco 1981. Pg 275-280

The Jerome biblical commentary, Geoffrey chapman, London Dublin Melbourne 1970

The New Jerusalem Bible, (DoubleDay and Company, Inc. Garden City, New York). Pg 1628-1629

Rev. Charlse J. Callan, o.p. The Four Gospels; With A Practical Critical Commentary For Priests and Students. Third edition. (New York joseph F. Wagner (inc). London: B.Herder).

Volume II the new testament and topical articles, edited by joseph a fitzmyer, s.j. and Raymond e. brown, s.s. Page 78 or {43:61-62}

Warren Carter, Matthew and The Margins; a sociopolitical and religious reading. ( Theological Publications in India, 2007) pg 270-273

OTHER CONSULTED MATERIALS

Vincent Rose, O.P, Studies on the gospels by authorized English version by Robert Fraser, D.D. Longmans, green, and co. 39 paternoster row, London new York and Bombay, 1903

Jackson Series, Rev. Bruce Vawter, c.m, A popular explanation of the four gospels, volume II, Father Smith Instructs

The Gospels, Fred B. Craddock.  Lloyd R. Bailey, Sr. and Victor P. Furnish, Editors. Parthenon Press at Nashville, Tennesse, United States of America

Rev. John E. Steinmueller, S.T.d.,  S. Scr.L. A Gospel Harmony, Using The Confraternity Edition of the New Testament New York W.H. Sadlier. Inc. Chicago1942

The four gospels , an introduction. Volume two. Bruce vawter, c.m. (a comprehensive explanation of the background, content and meaning of the gospels. image books, a division of doubleday company, inc. garden city, new York.

The New American Bible..Translated by Members of The Catholic Biblical Association of America (Benziger a division of Glencoe Publishing Co., Inc. Encino, California)

The new Jerome Biblical Commentary, Theological Publications in India, Bangalore 1994.

---

[1] The Jerome biblical commentary, Geoffrey chapman, London Dublin Melbourne 1970

[2] Leopold Sabourin , s.j. The Gospel According To St Matthew, volume one; general introduction and commentary 1:1-7:27 (St Paul Publications 1982) pg 570-574

[3] The gospel according to matthew, translation, introduction and commentary by francis wright beare. Harper and row, publishers, san Francisco 1981. Pg 275-280

[4] The gospel according to matthew, translation, introduction and commentary by francis wright beare. Harper and row, publishers, san Francisco 1981. Pg 275-280

[5] Leopold Sabourin , s.j. The Gospel According To St Matthew, volume one; general introduction and commentary 1:1-7:27 (St Paul Publications 1982) pg 570-574

[6] Warren Carter, Matthew and The Margins; a sociopolitical and religious reading. ( Theological Publications in India, 2007) pg 270-273

[7] Warren Carter, Matthew and The Margins; a sociopolitical and religious reading. ( Theological Publications in India, 2007) pg 270-273

[8] Rev. Charlse J. Callan, o.p. The Four Gospels; With A Practical Critical Commentary For Priests and Students. Third edition. (New York joseph F. Wagner (inc). London: B.Herder).

[9]Bruce Vawter, c.m, The Four Gospels; An Introduction. (DoubleDay and Company, Inc., Garden City, New York, 1967).

[10] Leopold Sabourin , s.j. The Gospel According To St Matthew, volume one; general introduction and commentary 1:1-7:27 (St Paul Publications 1982) pg 570-574

[11] Bruce Vawter, c.m, The Four Gospels; An Introduction. (DoubleDay and Company, Inc., Garden City, New York, 1967).

[12]Eduard Schweizer, The Good News According to Mark, translated by Donald H. Madvig. (John knox Press, Richmond, virginia).

[13]

[14] The gospel according to matthew, translation, introduction and commentary by francis wright beare. Harper and row, publishers, san Francisco 1981. Pg 275-280

[15] The gospel according to matthew, translation, introduction and commentary by francis wright beare. Harper and row, publishers, san Francisco 1981. Pg 275-280

[16] The gospel according to matthew, translation, introduction and commentary by francis wright beare. Harper and row, publishers, san Francisco 1981. Pg 275-280

[17] The Jerome biblical commentary, Geoffrey chapman, London Dublin Melbourne 1970 Pg 84 and 85 or [43:79-82]

[18] Volume II the new testament and topical articles, edited by joseph a fitzmyer, s.j. and Raymond e. brown, s.s. Page 78 or {43:61-62}

[19] Brother Franciscus Willett, c.s.c., Holy Cross Bible Series; St. Matthew and His Gospel. (Holy Cross Press Valatie, N.Y.) 1964