Online Resource Library
Commentary Index | Return to PrayerRequest.com | DownloadLange Commentary - Matthew 10:24 - 10:25
(Show All Books | Show All Chapters)
This Chapter Verse Commentaries:
Mat_10:25. This is enough for the disciple, in order that ( ἵíá ) 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 ἵíá in this passage.
Âååëæåâïýë .—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 áַּòַì æְáåּá (2Ki_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 áַּòַì æְáåּì ( áְּòֵì , Chaldee), i. e., dominus stercoris, lord of dung, in a manner analogous to that in which Óõ÷Ýì was turned into Óõ÷Üñ . 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 æְáåּì 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 (Eph_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 æֶáֶì , not æְáåּì . 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 Âååëæåâïýë bears reference to the expression ïἰêïäåóðüôçò , which Christ had here chosen. Hence, “lord of the habitation.” Perhaps, then, this designation of Satan may refer to the habitation of demons in the possessed. The parallel passage in Matthew 12, where the Pharisees say ( Mat_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” ( Mat_10:25; Mat_10:29; and especially Mat_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 (Mat_9:34; Mat_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 (Mat_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. This may serve as a sufficient answer to those who ask, When the Jews had called Christ Beelzebul. Comp. Mat_12:24; Joh_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.
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:
Mat_10:25.—̓ Å ð åêÜëåóåí , B., C., [Cod. Sinait.] Lachmann, Tischendorf, [Alford, Wordsworth. Meyer regards the åêÜëåóåí of the Elzevir text as an arbitrary substitution of the more usual verb.—]
Mat_10:25.—[ Âååëæåâïýë 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.]
Mat_10:25.—[This interpolation is unnecessary.—]
[For this reason Alford, also, adopts Meyer’s derivation, while Wordsworth adheres to Winer’s interpretation: dominus stercoris.—P. S.]
Mat_10:28.—[Lachmann and Tischendorf read: ìὴ öïâåῖóèå ἀðü (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 Mat_10:28; Mat_10:31 : öïâéóèå , a mere writing error for öïâåῖóèå ). But Cod. B. or Vatieanus, as published by Angelo Mai, reads: ìὴ öïâçèῆôå ἀðü (conjunct. aor. i. pass.), and in the more correct edition of Buttmann, with different accentuation: ìὴ öïâÞèçôå ἀðü (imperat. aor. i. pass.). So also Cod. Alexandrinus, as published by B. H. Cowper, Lond., 1960 ( öïâçèῆôå ), Origen, and, of modern critics, Alford ( öïâÞèçôå ), Fritzsche and Conant ( öïâçèῆôå ). Meyer explains öïâçèῆôå from Mat_10:24 and reads also in Mat_10:31 öïâåῖôèå with B., D., L., Cod. Sinait, Lachmann, and Tischendorf. The main point for the sense, however, is the difference in the construction, the ἀðü after the first öïâåῖóèå and the acc. ôüí 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.]