Matthew 12:24

‘But when the Pharisees heard it, they said, “This one does not cast out demons, except by Beelzeboul, the prince of the demons.”

Note the contemptuous ‘this one'. In direct contrast to the crowds the Pharisees in effect said, ‘Is not this the son of Beelzeboul?', but in their case they had no doubts. They were truly spiritually blind, and spiritually dumb. They had had to acknowledge that Jesus did cast out evil spirits. That could not be denied. Thus if He had taught the same things as them, there would have been no problem. They would undoubtedly have hailed it as a sign that God's hand was with Him. However, when He opposed them on so much, they were put into a position where they had to find something bad to say about Him, and involvement with demons was a sure way to do that. It was always a safe bet in those superstitious days to accuse someone who disagreed with you, and could do things that you could not do, of ‘the black arts'. They thus claimed that it was on the authority of the prince of demons that He cast out evil spirits. But that was in fact inconsistent with their normal teaching, and they were denying the Kingly Rule of God as openly revealed (Matthew 12:28), simply because of their own prejudice.

This clear disagreement between the crowds and the Pharisees may well be intended to draw out to his readers that here was a ‘divided kingdom' of the kind Jesus would now speak about. It would therefore contain within itself the indication that Israel too was heading for destruction.

‘Beelzeboul.' Compare Matthew 10:25; Luke 11:15. Different manuscripts and versions present the full name differently It is given as ‘Beelzebub' in the Syriac and Vulgate versions - probably as taken from the name of the oracular god in 2 Kings 1:2, and as ‘Beelzeboul' in most manuscripts. It is given as ‘Beezeboul' in only a few manuscripts, but these include weighty ones (Aleph, B). The latter may, however, simply have dropped the ‘l' because ‘lz' was difficult to Greek speakers.

The correct name may well thus be Beelzeboul. ‘Zeboul' may represent ‘zebel' (dung) or ‘zebul' (dwelling). Thus the name may mean ‘lord of the house (or dwelling)' (see Matthew 12:25 b which seems to confirm this). Or it may be ‘lord of dung' as an insulting name for Satan. The former would explain the stress on ‘house' in Jesus' repudiation (Matthew 12:25; Matthew 12:28). The name Zbl is also found in a Ugaritic text, linked with baal, where it may be a proper name or mean ‘prince', and thus ‘Prince Baal' (but why is it then changed to ‘zeboul'?). Matthew 12:25 b thus suggests that Beelzeboul is seen as master over a household of demons (compare its meaning as ‘Lord of the house'). The thought was horrific. Jesus being compared to the Prince of Demons, and His household therefore a household of demons (which is later seen as absurd when we learn that His household in fact consists of those who do the will of His Father - Matthew 12:50). But it was clearly set policy for His opponents (Matthew 9:34; Matthew 10:25). They had to have some explanation for the wonders that they saw in front of their eyes and could not explain away. As the narrative goes on we learn that this is a synonym for Satan, as we would gather from him being the prince of the demons.