In League
(Luke 11: 15) But some of them said, In conjunction with Beelzebul, the ruler of the demons, does he not expel the demons.
The crowds are astonished, but not “some of them,” namely Pharisees (Matt. 12:24). These have a ready explanation for the miracles that were wrought upon the demoniacs. Having these miracles right before their eyes, they could not, of course, resort to the modernist’s plea: “It is necessary to question the literal accuracy of the narrative” – so one of the latest commentaries. Again, “to the modern mind” the exorcisms “can easily be explained on psychological principles, which are gradually being understood.” These Pharisees had an explanation only for the expulsion of demons, the modernists usually go much farther that that. But the Pharisees offered a better explanation. They put Jesus in league with the devil. Satan obliges his friend Jesus by withdrawing the demons from their victims when Jesus wants this done. That made everything plain! It did more, it made thorough work of discrediting Jesus. Who would follow a man who is in league with Satan? We take ‘en’ in its ordinary meaning: “in conjunction with,” “in union with.” The derivation of “Beelzebul” has not as yet been cleared up, the term being wanting in all the old Jewish literature. It is supposed to mean “Lord of the swelling” and was used as a designation for Satan. It was originally the name of the Philistine god Baal to whom Ahaziah applied to heal his disease. In some manner, at which linguists thus far only guess, the Jews picked it up as a vile term for Satan. Some think that they corrupted it to “Beelzebub,” “Baal of flies” and thus “Baal of dung”; but this is not certain, being due perhaps only to pronunciation. “The ruler of the demons” explains exactly who is meant, the head if the hellish kingdom. In this case the victim was also blind. These Pharisees plus scribes (Mark 3:22) were from Jerusalem, the seat of the deadly opposition to Jesus. They did not witness the miracle but heard of it and then pronounced their slander. Jesus knew their thoughts by means of the knowledge that was always at his command when it was needed and summoned them in order to confront them (Matt. 12 and Mark 3).
(23) He that is not with me is against me, and he that gathers not with me scatters.
The matter is brought to a point. While it is still general, the statement verges on the personal, for every hearer is led to ask: “Where do I stand?” There are, then, two sides: Jesus – Satan; the Victor – the vanquished. Neutrality is impossible. ‘Meta’ [with] denotes personal association and attachment, and ‘kata,’ “down on me,” hostility. But the idea is not that the Pharisees to whom Jesus is speaking (Mark 3:23) were trying to assume a neutral position, and that their reference to Beelzebul was only an expression of embarrassment, they being at a loss for a better explanation. There is nothing in the narrative to support this view. The Pharisees were against Jesus; from the very moment when they decided not to be “with him” they had swung to the other side. In the war against Satan every man who does not side with Jesus is against him and for Satan. Luke 9:50 and Mark 9:40 agree with this, for to do a miracle or a kind deed “in Jesus’ name” is neither neutral nor hostile to Jesus. Both attitudes have their immediate effect on others, the one gathers, the other scatters. No objects are mentioned, the stress is on the actions alone. Of the three possible objects: sheep, grain, fish, we prefer the first (Matt. 9:36; 10:6; John 10:12, where ‘skorpizei’ is also used with reference to sheep). It was the great work of Jesus to gather the lost sheep; the wolf, Satan, scattered them.
Via Lenski’s Interpretation of Luke
