Jesus as Exorcist

Matt 12:22-28

22 Then a demon-possessed man who was blind and mute was brought to Jesus, and he healed him, so that the mute man spoke and saw. 23 All the crowds were stunned, and were saying, "This man cannot be the Son of David, can he?" 24 But when the Pharisees heard this, they said, "This man casts out demons only by Beelzebul the ruler of the demons." 25 And knowing their thoughts Jesus said to them, "Any kingdom divided against itself is laid waste; and any city or household divided against itself will not stand. 26 If Satan casts out Satan, he is divided against himself; how then will his kingdom stand? 27 If I by Beelzebul cast out demons, by whom do your sons cast them out? For this reason they will be your judges. 28 But if I cast out demons by the Spirit of God, then the Kingdom of God has come upon you.

Mark 3:20-26

20 And He came home, and the crowd gathered again, to such an extent that they could not even eat a meal. 21 When his own people heard of this, they went out to take custody of him; for they were saying, "He has lost his senses." 22 The scribes who came down from Jerusalem were saying, "He is possessed by Beelzebul," and "He casts out the demons by the ruler of the demons." 23 And he called them to himself and began speaking to them in parables, "How can Satan cast out Satan? 24 If a kingdom is divided against itself, that kingdom cannot stand. 25 If a household is divided against itself, that house will not be able to stand. 26 If Satan has risen up against himself and is divided, he cannot stand, but he is finished.

Luke 11:14-20

14 And he was casting out a demon, and it was mute; when the demon had gone out, the mute man spoke; and the crowds were amazed. 15 But some of them said, "He casts out demons by Beelzebul, the ruler of the demons." 16 Others, to test him, were demanding of him a sign from heaven. 17 But he knew their thoughts and said to them, "Any kingdom divided against itself is laid waste; and a house against itself falls. 18 If Satan also is divided against himself, how will his kingdom stand? For you say that I cast out demons by Beelzebul. 19 And if I by Beelzebul cast out demons, by whom do your sons cast them out? For this reason they will be your judges. 20 But if I cast out demons by the finger of God, then the Kingdom of God has come upon you.

There are two different versions of the tradition of the Beelzebul Controversy, a Markan version and a non-Markan version available to Matthew and Luke. Form-critically, this tradition is an apophthegma, or pronouncement story: narratives that culminate in a short, poignant saying of Jesus. How the non-Markan version available to Matthew differed from that available to Luke is impossible to determine, since it is probable that both Matthew and Luke redacted their respective versions. Those who hold that the double tradition derives from a single written source, the so-called "Q-source,” believe that Matthew and Luke independently made use of the same written source. On this assumption, scholars attempt to reconstruct the hypothetical Q-version, by separating out Matthean and Lukan redaction. But if the assumption of a common written source is not valid, then it becomes virtually impossible to separate redaction from tradition in Matthew and Luke. Given the parallels between Matt 12:25b and Mark 3:25, it is probable that Matthew conflated his non-Markan account with his Markan. (Matt 12:25b "And any city or household divided against itself will not stand" = Mark 3:25 "If a household is divided against itself, that house will not be able to stand").

The attempts to reconstruct the hypothetical, common source available to Matthew and Luke are far too speculative, even on the assumption that there was such a written document. See Percy, Die Botschaft Jesu, 178-87; Schulz, Die Spruchquelle, 203-13; R. Laufen, Die Doppelüberlieferungen der Logienquelle und des Markusevangeliums, 126-55; Hultgren, Jesus and His Adversaries, 100-106; Schlosser, Le règne de Dieu dans les Dits de Jésus, 1.127-39; H. Merklein, Jesu Botschaft von der Gottesherschaft, 63-66; id., Gottesherrschaft, 158-60; Twelftree, Jesus the Exorcist, 98-113. Only limited redactional suggestions may be legitimately proffered based on Lukan and Matthean preferred vocabulary and style.

Source

"To the Place of Trumpeting"

This inscription, which translates as "To the place of trumpeting..." was discovered during excavations at the base of the southwest corner of the Temple Mount. It served to indicate where a priest would stand to blow the trumpet to begin and end the Sabbath. Josephus explains the procedure used to begin and end the Sabbath: "And the last [tower] was erected above the roof of the Priest's Chambers, where it was the custom for one of the priests to stand and to give notice, by the sound of a trumpet, in the afternoon of the approach, and on the following evening of the close, of every seventh day, announcing to the people the respective hours for ceasing work and for resuming their labors" (War 4.582-83).

In the non-Markan versions of the tradition, the occasion for the accusation is Jesus' exorcism of a man who was mute or, according to Matthew, both mute and blind, whereas in the Markan version, the accusation follows another charge: that Jesus is insane. The introductions of the Beelzebul controversy in Matthew (12:22) and Luke (11:14), however, have little verbatim agreement. In fact, Luke's introduction (11:14) has more parallels with Matt 9:32-33. Like Luke 11:14, Matt 9:32 has only a mute man, not a blind and mute man as in Matt 12:22; also both Luke 11:14 and Matt 9:32 use the verb ekballein ("to cast out") to describe Jesus' exorcism rather than the verb therapeuein ("to heal"), which occurs in Matt 12:22. Similarly, the phrase "The mute man spoke" is also found in Luke 11:14 and Matt 9:32, but not in Matt 12:22, and in both Luke 11:14 and Matt 9:33 there occurs the phrase "The crowds marveled" (see Schulz, Die Spruchquelle, 204). The fact that Matt 9:34 reads "But the Pharisees said, 'By the prince of demons he casts out demons'" suggests that Matt 9:32-34 is a shorter version of Luke 11:14-23 = Matt 12:22-30 and Mark 3:22-27, a version that does not include Jesus' response to the accusation. Matthew seems to have included both the shorter version of this tradition and a longer one similar to that found in Luke, with the exception of the introduction (Luke 12:14). It is possible that Matthew inserted "the Pharisees" into his version of the longer Beelzebul tradition as Jesus' accusers based on the fact that they are Jesus' accusers in the shorter version in Matt 9:32-33. (Mark identifies them as scribes from Jerusalem [who likely were Pharisees] and Luke has the indefinite "some of them" (tines...ex autôn). Nevertheless, since the phrase "some of" (tis ek) is part of the Lukan vocabulary, perhaps Luke changed an original reference to the Pharisees as Jesus' accusers.) This shorter version represented by Matt 9:32-34 has obvious parallels with Luke 11:14. Finally, the use of the title “son of David” in the clause in Matt 12:23b "This man is not the son of David, is he?" could be Matthean redaction since the title is typical of Matthew (9:27; 12:23; 20:30, 31 [= Mark 10:47, 48]; 21:9, 15; 22:42 [=Mark 12:35]).

In order to account for his ability to exorcize, Jesus' detractors accuse him of casting out demons by the power of Beelzebul (Satan), the prince of demons, a charge that Jesus rightly rejects. (The use of en ["in"] is causal, reflecting the Semitic preposition b-. In the Lukan version, it is added, "Others, to test him, were demanding of him a sign from heaven" [11:16]. Since the word heteroi ["others"] is a Lukan preferred word, it is possible that 11:16 is a Lukan composition desgined for clarification [Jeremias, Die Sprache des Lukasevangeliums, 199; Schulz, Die Spruchquelle, 203-205; Hultgren, Jesus and His Adversaries, 102].) The accounts of Jesus' response found in Matt 12:25 and Luke 11:17 have numerous verbal parallels, and are different from Mark's account. It seems that Matthew has conflated his Markan version with a non-Markan, because Matt 12:25b and Mark 3:25 have close parallels. Unlike the other synoptic gospels, Mark's version contains the additional accusation that Jesus actually "has Beelzebul," by which seems to be meant that Jesus has a demon, which gives him the ability to cast out other demons (Mark 3:22). Regardless of the individual differences, however, the same point is made in all three accounts: Jesus says that he could not be casting out demons by the power of Beelzebul (Satan) because this would mean that Satan is attacking himself, and so his "kingdom" would not remain for long. (It is taken for granted that Satan is identical to Beelzebul.) It should be noted that the accusation and Jesus' response to it presuppose that Beelzebul (Satan) is active in the world of human beings, that he has a "kingdom," a sphere of influence among human beings. Indeed, in the version of this tradition represented by Matt 12:22-29 = Luke 11:14-22, Jesus asks rhetorically, "How will his kingdom stand?" Like many of his contemporaries, Jesus believes that Satan is in substantial control of human beings and even Jews. In the non-Markan versions of Matthew and Luke, there follows a saying that represents a second argument against the accusation that Jesus is exorcizing by the power of Beelzebul. He says, "If I cast out demons by the power of Beelzebub, by whom do your people drive them out?” On the assumption that his critics believe that their own adherents (“your sons”) truly cast out demons then Jesus is arguing that it is arbitrarily to say that he is casting out demons by the power of Beelzebul but not these other exorcists: clearly such an argument is prejudicial and self-defeating.

The use of Beelzebul as a name for Satan is unattested outside of the synoptic gospels (Mark 3:20-30; Matt 12:22-29 = Luke 11:14-22; Matt 10:25). Based on this evidence, however, it is clear that it had come to be used as a synonymous term by Jesus' time (contrary to M. Limbeck, “Beelzebul—eine ursprüngliche Bezeichnung für Jesus?” in Wort Gottes in der Zeit FS K.H. Schelkle, 31-42). The term Beelzebul likely was originally a name for a Canaanite deity: "Baal the prince" or "Baal of the Exalted Abode." (In the Old Testament zebul refers to God's "exalted abode" either heaven or the Temple [1 Kgs 8:13; 2 Chr 6:2; Isa 63:15; Hab 3:11; see also 1QS 10.3; 1QM12.1, 2; 1QH 3.34].) How the term became identified with Satan is unknown, but probably was the result of the more general identification of pagan gods with demons in second-Temple period. The term may mean mean Lord of the heavens or air, in which demons dwell (Fitzmyer, Luke, 920; Klauck, Allegorie und Allegorese in synoptischen Gleichnistexten, 178).

Justin Martyr in his Dialogue with Trypho gives evidence that the accusation that Jesus was a "magician" or sorcerer persisted in spite of Jesus' attempt to refute the charge. Justin remarks about Jesus, "And having raised the dead, and causing them to live, by his deeds he compelled the men who lived at that time to recognize him. But though they saw such works, they asserted it was magical art. For they dared to call him a magician, and a deceiver of the people " (Dial. 69). (See Klausner, Jesus of Nazareth, 18-54; M. Smith, Jesus the Magician)

Israel’s history is divided into two eras; the preliminary era is understood as being under the control of Belial, the archenemy of God and the righteous. This period of time must run its course before there can be a transition to the time of salvation, which is variously described in the Qumran sectarian texts. Certain adverbial phrases used in the Community Rule are reflective of this theological understanding of history: "during the dominion of Belial" (1QS 1.18, 23b-24a) and "all the days of Belial's dominion" (2.19). During what is called “the dominion of his enmity” the sons of light—the members of the community—will suffer at the hands of Belial and the spirits of his lot and be caused to stumble (1QS 3.23-24). This is according to the mysteries of God, who for unknown reasons allows Belial and the spirits of his lot substantial control over Israel and the world for a period of time. In 1QS 4:18 God has determined an end for the existence of deceit. In the War Scroll, the phrase “dominion of Belial” also occurs (14.9), as does the phrase “prince of the dominion of deceit” (17.5-6). Belial has spirits under his authority: “[Belial and al]the angels of his dominion” (1.15) (see “army of his dominion” [18.1]). In the Damascus Document, it is explained that from the founding of the community to the “completion of time," “Belial will be sent against Israel” (CD 4.12-18). In 4Q390 (Pseudo-Moses) there is a similar reference to time of the dominion of Belial: “And [there will co]me the dominion of Belial upon them to deliver them to the sword for a week of year[s] (frag. 2 col. 1.3b-4). It seems that frag. 2 col. 1 describes the last week of the last jubilee of the time before the eschaton (see 1QS 3.23-24). The Qumran sectarian writings anticipate Belial's eschatological defeat and destruction. According to the War Scroll, Belial and his angels fight in the eschatological war on the side of the sons of darkness, but after a protracted war, the enemies of God, including Belial and the spirits of his lot, will be defeated and destroyed (1QM 14.9, 15; 17.5-6; 18.1-3; 4QM 1 frg. 10 2.15; frg. 11 2.18). In 11QMelchizedek, when Melchizedek, who is probably the archangel Michael, appears at the eschaton, among other things he will also execute judgment on Belial and the spirits of his lot. In this context, Ps 82:1-2 is interpreted eschatologically of Melchizedek's judgment of the fallen angels: the "god" (elohim) who takes his stand in the assembly of God ('el) is the heavenly being Melchizedek; he will judge in the midst of the other "gods" ('elohim) (2.9-14). The fact that in line 11 it is said that it is God ('el) who will judge the peoples, citing Ps 7:8, indicates that the angel Melchizedek is the instrument of God's eschatological judgment. Along the same lines, the reference "Your God reigns" in Isa 52:7 is interpreted to be the reign of Melchizedek, who is a god in the sense of being an angel. Ps 82:2 "How long will you judge unjustly and show partiality to the wicked" is interpreted as follows: "Its interpretation concerns Belial and the spirits of his lot, who rebelled by turning away from the precepts of God" (2.12). Apparently, Ps 82:2 is interpreted as speaking of the unjust reign of Belial and the spirits of his lot, which will come to an end with the appearance of Melchizedek as eschatological judge. (This interpretation is suggested by the fact that Ps 82:1 says that God presides over the assembly of God and judges among the gods ('elohim). These "gods" are interpreted as angels rather than as human judges. Those addressed in Ps 82:1-2 are again called "gods" and are also called sons of God in Ps 82:6. 11QMelch 2.13 seems to mean that Melchizedek will become judge on that day and will remove the right to judge (or to rule) from Belial and the spirits of his lot. Finally, 1QS 4.18-19 speaks of how, at his visitation, the time of eschatological salvation and final judgment, God as merciful will put an end to the existence of deceit (4.18-19). It is said that "God will purify by His truth all the works of man and purge for himself some from the sons of man. He will utterly destroy the spirit of deceit from within his flesh" (4.20-21). Although nothing is said of the destruction of Belial or the spirits of his lot, it seems that, given the close connection between the spirit of deceit and the angel of darkness (see 1QS 3.21-22), the removal of the former entails the removal of the latter.

The non-Markan versions of this tradition (Matt 12:22-30 = Luke 11:14-23) have another saying that is absent from the Markan version, which is very important for an understanding of Jesus’ view of the Kingdom of God. Jesus says, "If I cast out demons by the spirit (Matt) or "finger" (Luke) of God, then the Kingdom of God has come upon you" (Matt 12:27-28 = Luke 11:19-20). Both phrases mean "the action of God through the Spirit." Contrary to his critics, Jesus claims to be casting out demons by the power of God. Although he does not deny that others cast out demons, he does affirm that the Kingdom of God has come by means of his exorcist activity: his exorcisms are the result of the appearance of the Kingdom of God. (This implies that his exorcisms were of a different order as compared to the other exorcists.) His point is that he is making an assault on the spiritual reign of Satan, and is in the process of establishing the Kingdom of God in its place. The verb used to describe the fact that the Kingdom of God "has come" is the aorist of phthanô [ephasen]. It occurs with the same meaning in 1 Thess 2:16; Rom 9:11; 2 Cor 10:14.) The fact that Jesus says that the Kingdom of God has come "upon you" clearly presupposes that the Kingdom is a present reality for Jesus' contemporaries. In fact, according to Jewish eschatological understanding, the demise of the reign of Satan could only mean the ascendancy of the Kingdom of God. In his Sermon at Nazareth (Luke 4:16-30), Jesus does not specify in detail how he as the anointed one of Isa 61:1 would fulfil that role. Possibly, however, given the association of Ps 82:1-2, Isa 52:7 and Isa 61:1 in 11QMelch, Jesus may have interpreted his salvation-historical role as including bringing liberation to his people from Satan and other evil spirits insofar as he saw himself as destined to be eschatological judge of these beings, in the same way that Melchizedek is to function as eschatological judge in11QMelch. In other words, insofar as he is the eschatological figure in Isa 61:1, Jesus is the eschatological judge in Ps 82:1-2, since these two texts are to be fulfilled by the same salvation-historical individual. Thus, Jesus' exorcisms would be the first step in the judgment of Satan and his demonic subordinates.

It is sometimes argued that the use of the phrase “finger of God” is a deliberate allusion to Moses through whom “the finger of God” was manifested (Exod 8:19). The intention is for Jesus to be modeled on the fugure of Moses (Manson, The Teaching of Jesus, 82-83; Lundstroem, Kingdom of God, 133, 235; McKnight, Jesus and His Death, 197-200). But this seems to be a case of over-interpretation.
Matthew’s version of the saying is very close to Luke’s, the differences being that Matt lacks Luke’s egô and has “by the Spirit of God” rather than “by the finger of God.” On the assumption that there was one original version, there has been much debate about which of the two versions is more original. But it is equally plausible that there were two versions of this tradition in circulation, one using the metaphor "finger of God" and the other substituting the vehicle "finger" for the tenor "Spirit." Luke probably did not change "by spirit of God" to "by finger of God" because he has no preference for genitive constructions without the definite article (Jeremias, Die Sprache des Lukasevangeliums, 201; see also Schulz, Die Spruchquelle, 205; R. Hummel, Die Auseinandersetzung zwischen Kirche und Judentum im Matthäusevangelium, 124; Barrett, The Holy Spirit in the Gospel Tradition, 53-65; Lührmann, Die Redaktion der Logienquelle, 33; Perrin, Rediscovering the Teaching of Jesus, 63; Schlosser, Le Règne de Dieu dans les Dits de Jésus, 1.132-34; Merklein, Gottesherrschaft, 158; Davies and Allison, Matthew, 2.340). On the use of the metaphor “finger of God” see Exod 8:19; 31:18; Deut 9:10; Ps 8:3; Ezek 8:1; 11:5; Dan 5:5; 1QM 18:1-15 (see B. Couroyer, “‘Le doigt de Dieu’ (Exod VIII, 15)” Revue Biblique 63 (1956) 481-95).
Many have argued that Luke 11:20 = Matt 12:28 was originally an isolated saying that was added to an original apophthegma, or pronouncement story; evidence for this is said to be that the argument in Luke 11:20 = Matt 12:28 is different from that in Luke 11:19 = Matt 12:27 and is actually contradictory. In spite of the apparent unity effected by the parallelism between en Beelzeboul and en pneumati theou or en daktulô theou and the fact that both contain the pronoun "I" (egô) the unity of Luke 11:19-20 = Matt 12:27-28 is only apparent. In Luke 11:19 = Matt 12:27 Jesus argues that his critics should not view him as different from other exorcisms, so that if he is exorcizing by means of the power of Beezebul then so are they. But in Luke 11:20 = Matt 12:28 he does not presuppose validity of other exorcists, but claims that his exorcisms uniquely are a manifestation of the Kingdom of God. But if Jesus’ exorcisms are no different from those of other exorcists then there is no basis to the claim his exorcisms are a manifestation of the Kingdom of God: Jesus’ uniqueness has been undermined (B. Noack, Satanas und Soteria, 28, 71; Schulz, Die Spruchquelle, 203-13; Beare, Matthew, 278-79; Kümmel, Promise and Fulfilment, 105-106; Bultmann, History of the Synoptic Tradition, 14, 162; Schweizer, Matthew, 284-85; Schlosser, Le Règne de Dieu dans les Dits de Jésus, 1.130-32; Sato, Q und Prophetie, 132-34; Sanders, Jesus and Judaism, 135; H. Schürmann, Gottes Reich-Jesu Geschick, 104-108; Kloppenborg, The Formation of Q, 121-27; Meier, A Marginal Jew. Mentor, Message, and Miracles, 407-411. Different redactional histories have been proposed. Schulz claims that Luke 11:15, 17 repesents the original apophthegma to which was added the sayings in 11:18, 19, 20; Luke 11:16 is redactional (Spruchquelle, 205-13). Similarly, E. Schweizer argues that originally Matthew 12:22-24 (= Luke 11:14-15) was followed by 12:27 (= Luke 11:19), since Beelzebul is mentioned in both (Matthew, 284-85). In Matt 12:25-26 (= Luke 11:17-18) the name used is Satan (satanas). In the earliest version of this tradition probably Matt 12:27 (= Luke 11:19) was Jesus’ response to the accusation in 12:24 (= Luke 11:15). Luke 11:18b, not found in Matthew’s version, is an addition made to connect the two traditions, Matt 12:22-24, 27 = Luke 11:14-15, 19 and Matt 12:25-26 = Luke 11:17-18. Matt 12:28 (= Luke 11:20) is an isolated saying that became attached secondarily to the apophthegma. Luke 11:16 is a Lukan redactional addition, since Matthew does not have it. Dealing with the Lukan version, since he thinks that it is closer to the original Q-source, Schlosser argues for a three-stage development. The original apopthegma consisted of Luke 11:14-15, 17-18a. Then the isolated logion 11:20 was added to the apophthegma; to facilitate to attachment of the logion 11:19 was created, inspired by the structure of 11:20. A parallel between “by Beelzebul” and “by the finger of God” was created. Finally, the Lukan redactor added 11:18b to reinforce the literary unity and 11:16 in order to prepare for the section about signs (11:29-32) (Le Règne de Dieu dans les Dits de Jésus, 1.130-32) (see E. Käsemann, “Lukas 11,14-28,” Exegetische Versuche und Besinnungen [2 vols.; 4 ed.; Göttingen: Vandenhoeck and Ruprecht, 1965] 1.242-48 [243-44]). H. Schürmann argues that tradition-historically the saying in Luke 11:19 = Matt 12:27 was originally part of an apophthegma also consisting of Luke 11:14, 17a and 20 (= Matt 12:22-23a, 25a and 28) (Gottes Reich-Jesu Geschick, 104-108). At some point, this tradition became conflated with another apophthegm now represented by Mark 3:22-26 (= Luke 11:17b-18b and Matt 25b-26). The saying found in Luke 11:19 = Matt 12:27 was also interpolated into this conflated tradition. Finally, Kloppenborg proposes two possible tradition-historical explanations for Luke 11:14-20, which he views as closest to the origin version in the Q-source. Either 11:14, 15, 17-18a was the original core and this was secondarily expanded by addition of 11:19 and a commentary in 11:20 or 11:14-15, 19 was the original core and was fused with a variant form of the apophthegma consisting of 11:15, 17-18a (= Mark 3:22-26), which was then also expanded by the commentary in 11:20 (The Formation of Q, 121-27) He prefers the first, since there is no evidence that there was a pre-Q variant of the accusation and because both Mark and Q agree in making the double metaphor of the divided kingdom and household as Jesus’ first response to the accusation. Proposals like those discussed above assume as their foundation the incompatibility of Luke 11:19, 20 = Matt 12:27, 28; without this assumption there would be no need to deconstruct the text and determine its redactional stages. But the argument in Luke 11:20 = Matt 12:28 is not from exorcisms in general but from Jesus’ own exorcisms (Percy, Botschaft, 180; Fiedler, Sünder, 214-215; Polag, Christologie, 39-41; Davies and Allison, Matthew, 2.339; Twelftree, Jesus the Exorcist, 106-107). The argument in Luke 11:19 = Matt 12:27 is reductio ad absurdum, designed to show how indefensible is the accusation of Jesus’ detractors is based on their own beliefs. The most that can be said is that Jesus is tolerant of other exorcists (see Luke 11:23 = Matt 12:30; Mark 9:40 = Luke 9:50). This means that Jesus is not assuming in Luke 11:20 = Matt 12:28 that he is doing the very same thing that other exorcists are doing. Rather, his exorcisms are different from those of other Jewish exorcists. Unlike them, he never uses secondary means in his exorcisms, such as fumigations, rings, roots or herbs. Nor does he use incantations, liturgical prayers or specially-composed psalms of praise as part of his exorcist practice. Moreover, Jesus does not appeal to any authority for this exorcisms other than himself, not even to God; Jesus was unique among exorcists because he simply commanded evil spirits and they submitted to him without opposition or struggle (see Tobit 6:14; 8:2; Josephus, War 7. 185; Ant. 8.45-48; 4Q510-11; 11Q11: 4Q560; Jub. 10:10-14; LAB 60; 4QPs-a XXVII, 9-10). Jesus exorcizes on his own authority, in such a way that people marvel that demons submit to him (Mark 1:27 = Luke 4:36; see Matt 9:33; Luke 10:17). Jesus' authority over demons explains the alarm and terror that they exhibit when they encounter him; they fear for their continued well-being because they believe that Jesus has the authority to torment them and send them to the Abyss or pit, where they do not want to go (Mark 5:10; Luke 8:31). In fact, the demons recognize Jesus as the Messiah, as the one to whom has been given authority over the spiritual world; they address him appropriately by the messianic titles of "son of God" (Mark 3:11; Luke 4:42), "son of the most High God" (Mark 5:7 = Luke 8:28; see Matt 8:28 "son of God"), and "holy one of God" (Mark 1:24; Luke 4:34) (Van der Loos, The Miracles of Jesus, 363). Clearly, Jesus’ exorcisms are different from those of his contemporaries (see C.C. Caragounis, “Kingdom of God, Son of Man and Jesus’ Self-Understanding” TynBul 40 [1989] 2-23; 223-38 [230-31]). In addition, it should noted that what is found in the double tradition is a condensation of a no doubt much longer dialogue. The two sayings in Luke 11:19, 20 = Matt 12:27, 28 are two of the more salient points that Jesus makes during this dialogue.

5.5.2. The Stronger Man (Matt 12:29; Mark 3:27; Luke 11:21-22)

Matt 12:29

29 Or how can anyone enter the strong man's house and carry off his property, unless he first binds the strong man? And then he will plunder his house.

Mark 3:27

27 But no one can enter the strong man's house and plunder his property unless he first binds the strong man, and then he will plunder his house.

Luke 11:21-22

21 When a strong man, fully armed, guards his own house, his possessions are undisturbed. 22 But when someone stronger than he attacks him and overpowers him, he takes away from him all his armor on which he had relied and distributes his plunder.

In the context of Jesus' self-defence against the accusation that he casts out demons by the power of Beelzebul is found a saying about the plundering of the strong man. There are two different versions of the same tradition, quite dissimilar to each other: Mark 3:27 = Matt 12:29; Luke 11:21-22. Matthew seems to give preference to the Markan version, that is, assuming that he had access to the version represented by Luke. (The Gospel of Thomas has a shorter version of this saying: "Jesus said, 'One cannot enter a strong person's house and take it by force without tying his hands. Then one can loot his house'" [35].) It seems that in the non-Markan source this saying was also connected with the tradition of the Beelzebul Controversy, and it was situated after the saying on the Kingdom of God (Matt 11:28 = Luke 11:20). Despite the differences, both versions make the same point: in order to plunder the house of a strong man one must be stronger than he is; only then can one carry away his goods. Jesus is speaking allegorically: the strong man is Satan and the house is his kingdom or sphere of influence. Jesus is claiming that there has come one who is stronger than Satan and is in the process of plundering his kingdom, which is an oblique reference to himself. The plunder taken by the stronger man represents those who were demonized but whom Jesus freed from Satan’s influence. In short, the reign of Satan is in the process of being replaced by the Kingdom of God, proof of which is Jesus' power over demons.

Given the dissimilarity between the two it is unlikely that Luke has redacted his Markan source (contrary to S. Légasse, “L’homme fort de Luc 11:21-22,” NovT 5 (1962) 5-9; Lührmann, Die Redaktion der Logienquelle, 33). Luke 11:21-22 contains several hapax legomenas: kathoplizomai and to skulon occur only this one time in the New Testament, and the verb nikaô and panoplia both occur only this once in Luke/Acts. The noun aulê occurs only one other time in Luke/Acts, in the story of Peter’s denial, and so is not a typical Lukan word. In addition, the rest of the vocabulary is not uniquely Lukan (phulassô, eirênê, airô, peithô, diadidômi). So there is no linguistic evidence to support the claim that Luke 11:21-22 is Lukan redaction (Jeremias, Die Sprache des Lukasevangeliums, 201; Meier, A Marginal Jew. Mentor, Message, and Miracles, 472 n. 84).

There have been attempts to connect Jesus’ saying intertextually with the Old Testament. Most often Isa 49:24-25 (26) is put forward as the inspiration behind Jesus’ saying (Manson, Sayings, 86; Grimm, Weil Ich dich Liebe. Die Verkündigung und Deuterjesaja, 88-93; Laufen, Doppelüberlieferung, 130; Klauck, Allegorie und Allegorese in synoptischen Gleichnistexten, 180-81; Scot McKnight, Jesus and His Death, 221-23). Klauck suggests T. Zebul. 9:8 stands in continuity between Isa 49:24-25 and Matt 12:29/Mark 3:27: “He will liberate every captive of the sons of men from the Beliar.” He also argues that behind in the later Lukan version the statement that the stronger man distributes his plunder is an allusion to Isa 53:12c “Therefore, I will allot Him a portion with the great, and He will divide the booty with the strong” (Allegorie und Allegorese in synoptischen Gleichnistexten, 183; see Fitzmyer, Luke, 923). Meier suggests Isa 24:21-22 as background to the more original Markan version. He claims that Isa 49:24-25 serves more as a background to Q version, which is less original; it may even have been the catalyst for the transformation of the Markan version ( A Marginal Jew. Mentor, Message, and Miracles, 419). It would seem, however, that all the suggestions put forward as background to Jesus’ saying are too tenuous to be convincing.

Those who stress the exclusively futuristic conception of the Kingdom of God in Jesus' teaching interpret Jesus' saying to mean that exorcisms are a sign of the future appearance of the Kingdom of God. See E. Grässer, Das Problem der Parusieverzögerung in den synoptischen Evangelien und in der Apostelgeschichte, 6ff.; der., "Zum Verständnis der Gottesherrschaft," ZNW 65 (1957) 3-26; Conzelmann, Jesus, 70, 74, 76-77; der., Grundriß der Theologie des Neuen Testaments, 131; R. Fuller, The Mission and Achievement of Jesus, 37-38; Hiers, The Kingdom of God in the Synoptic Tradition, 43-49. In other words, Jesus never taught that the Kingdom of God was a present reality; at best, his exorcisms are signs of the Kingdom of God, anticipations of the still-future Kingdom of God. It is clear that Jesus teaches that the Kingdom of God comes into being over time, as a historical process. Thus, to say that the Kingdom of God has has come insofar as Jesus casts out demons is not to say that the culmination of the Kingdom of God has come; nevertheless, Jesus' exorcisms do represent the inception of the Kingdom of God and by definition the beginning of the end of the reign of Satan.

5.5.3.“I Saw Satan Fall like Lightning” (Luke 10:17-20)

17 The seventy-two returned with joy and said, "Lord, even the demons submit to us in your name." 18 He replied, "I saw Satan fall like lightning from heaven. 19 I have given you authority to trample on snakes and scorpions and to overcome all the power of the enemy; nothing will harm you. 20 However, do not rejoice that the spirits submit to you, but rejoice that your names are written in heaven."

Luke includes an account of the exchange between Jesus and the seventy-two disciples upon their return from their mission to announce that "The Kingdom of God has drawn near" (see Luke 10:1-12). (Jesus sent this group of seventy-two out in pairs, but who exactly they were is not known, since there are no further references to this larger group of disciples) The seventy-two remark with surprise and delight that, "Even the demons submit to us in your name." Apparently, they had encountered people who were demonized and were able to exorcize the demons "in Jesus' name," that is, on Jesus' authority. Jesus explains that he has given them authority over "all the power of the enemy," by which he means Satan, so that exorcisms are a sign of present reality of the Kingdom of God. In this context, Jesus tells them that he "saw Satan fall, like lightning, from heaven." He may be referring to a vision that he had concerning the eschatological defeat of Satan as the ruling power in human history. By falling from heaven Jesus refers to Satan's overthrow or removal from power, which, insofar as it is instantaneous, is expressed as "like lightning." There is no indication when Jesus saw in a vision Satan’s fall from power, but it is possible that the event followed his temptations. It was commonly believed that Satan had access to heaven, the abode of God and his angels; to have access to heaven implies authority over human beings, in particular, the authority to accuse them before God (Job 1:6-7; Zech 3:1-2; see 1 Enoch 40.7 [saytans]). (The phrase "to fall from heaven" occurs in Isa 14:12 to describe the overthrow of the king of Babylon.)

“I saw” is used as an introduction to a prophetic vision (see Amos 9:1 and Isa 6:1; Ezek 1:1). In each case the LXX translates the Hebrew as eidon. Also the introductory clause “I saw…and see…” is found in Ezek 1:4; 8:2, 7; 10:1, 9; Zech 1:8; 2:1, 5; 5:1; 6:1. As in Luke 10:16, the Greek imperfect form of theôreô occurs in the Greek translation of the Aramaic in Dan 4:10, 13; 7:2, 4, 6, 7, 9, 11, 13, 21; in 7:6, 7, 11 the verb has a direct object, similar to Luke 10:18. What is translated is the periphrastic use of chzh hywh. The introduction “I saw…” occur frequently in 1 Enoch: 22:5; 30:1; 107:1 (Aramaic chzyt); 17:6, 7, 8; 18; 26:3; 31:1 (Greek idon); 17:3 (Greek eidon); 21:3, 7 (Greek tetheamai); 26:2; 106:13; 107:1 (Migaku Sato, Q und Prophetie. Studien zur Gattungs- und Traditionsgeschichte der Quelle Q, 114).

5.5.4. Bread for the Children (Mark 7:24-30 = Matt 15:21-28)

Mark 7:24-30
24 Jesus left that place and went to the vicinity of Tyre. He entered a house and did not want anyone to know it; yet he could not keep his presence secret. 25 In fact, as soon as she heard about him, a woman whose little daughter was possessed by an evil spirit came and fell at his feet. 26 The woman was a Greek, born in Syrian Phoenicia. She begged Jesus to drive the demon out of her daughter. 27 "First let the children eat all they want," he told her, "for it is not right to take the children's bread and toss it to their dogs." 28 "Yes, Lord," she replied, "but even the dogs under the table eat the children's crumbs." 29 Then he told her, "For such a reply, you may go; the demon has left your daughter." 30 She went home and found her child lying on the bed, and the demon gone.

Matthew 15:21-28
21 Leaving that place, Jesus withdrew to the region of Tyre and Sidon. 22 A Canaanite woman from that vicinity came to him, crying out, "Lord, Son of David, have mercy on me! My daughter is suffering terribly from demon-possession." 23 Jesus did not answer a word. So his disciples came to him and urged him, "Send her away, for she keeps crying out after us." 24 He answered, "I was sent only to the lost sheep of Israel. 25 The woman came and knelt before him. "Lord, help me!" she said. 26 He replied, "It is not right to take the children's bread and toss it to their dogs." 27 "Yes, Lord," she said, "but even the dogs eat the crumbs that fall from their masters' table." 28 Then Jesus answered, "Woman, you have great faith! Your request is granted." And her daughter was healed from that very hour.

In a Markan tradition, Jesus is reluctant to exorcize the demon from the daughter of the Syro-Phoenician woman, because this benefit of the Kingdom of God has been given only to Israel: "'First let the children eat all they want,' he told her, 'for it is not right to take the children's bread and toss it to their dogs'." (Jesus' metaphor is also an allusion to the fact that Jews referred to gentiles derisively as "dogs.") It is possible that the differences between Mark's version and that found in Matthew is the result of Matthew's conflation of a non-Markan version of this tradition with the Markan [Taylor, Mark, 347].) This would explain the differences between the two. If so, then Matthew probably interpolated 15:22-25 into his Markan source. Likewise, Matthew significantly abbreviates his Markan source; in so doing he reduces the harshness of Jesus' reply by eliminating the phrase "First let the children eat all they want." But Matthew's interpolation in 15:24 does contain the perhaps equally harsh saying, "I was sent only to the lost sheep of Israel" (see also Matt 10:5-6). Thus, the benefits of Satan's overthrow (at least initially) was restricted only to Jews. See Bread to Dogs.

Questions

In what way are Jesus' exorcisms unique? How do Jesus' opponents explain his ability to exorcize? How does Jesus respond to this? How does Jesus interpret the salvation-historical significance of his exorcist activity?

6. Blaspheming against the Holy Spirit

Mark 3:28-29
28 Truly I say to you, all sins shall be forgiven the sons of men, and whatever blasphemies they utter; 29 but whoever blasphemes against the Holy Spirit never has forgiveness, but is guilty of an eternal sin.

Matt 12:31-32

31 Therefore I say to you, any sin and blasphemy shall be forgiven human beings, but blasphemy against the Spirit shall not be forgiven.
32 Whoever speaks a word against the son of man, it shall be forgiven him; but whoever speaks against the Holy Spirit, it shall not be forgiven him, either in this age or in the age to come.

Luke 12:10

And everyone who speaks a word against the son of man, it will be forgiven him; but he who blasphemes against the Holy Spirit, it will not be forgiven him.

Two versions of a saying about blaspheming against the Holy Spirit occur in the synoptic gospels, a Markan version and a non-Markan one. Matthew includes both, appending the non-Markan version in 12:32 to 12:31, what is probably a redacted version of Mark 3:28-29. In Luke the non-Markan version follows a collection of sayings dealing with judgment and persecution in Luke (12:2-9), whereas the Markan version follows the Parable of the Strong Man.. Both sayings likely can be traced back to a common Aramaic original and so mean the same thing (R. Schippers, "The Son of Man in Matt. 12.32 = Luke 12.10 compared with Mark 3.28," Studia Evangelica IV, TU 102, 231-35; Lindars, Son of Man, 34-44; Casey, Son of Man, 230; Davies and Allison, Matthew, 2.344-49). It is probably that the term "son of man" in the non-Markan version (Matt 12:32 = Luke 12:10) has the generic meaning of "human beings" and does not refer to Jesus himself and so is to be understood as a Christological title. (Matthew correctly translates Mark's "sons of men" to human beings [anthropoi] in Matt 12:21.) The point of both versions of the saying is to contrast two types of sin: those against human beings and those against the Holy Spirit; the former is forgivable whereas the latter is blasphemy and is not forgivable. Although the contexts of both versions of the saying are secondary, Mark correctly connects Jesus' teaching about blaspheming against the Holy Spirit as thematically belonging to the Beelzebul Controversy and the Parable of the Strong Man (contrary to Zager, Gottesherrschaft und Endgericht in der Verkündigung Jesu, 275-82). The reason that speaking against or blaspheming against the Holy Spirit is unforgivable is that it represents the rejection of the very possibility of forgiveness that is offered as a manifestation of the Kingdom of God. To reject Jesus as sent and empowered by God (i.e. the Holy Spirit) by interpreting him, for example, as casting out demons by the power of Beelzebul, is to reject the Kingdom of God and all its benefits. Some have argued that the saying originates with an early Christian prophet but there is no reason to deny its authenticity (contrary to A. Fridrichson, "Le péché contre le Saint-Esprit," RHPhR 3 [1923] 367-72 (369); Tödt, Son of Man, 118-19; Hoffmann, Studien zur Theologie der Logienquelle, 151; Boring, "How May We Identify Oracles of Christian Prophets in the Synoptic Tradition? Mark 3.28-29 as a Test Case," JBL 91 [1972] 501-21; Schulz, Spruchequelle, 246-50; Sato, Q und Prophetie, 134-36).

Question

Why is blaspheming the Holy Spirit unforgivable?

BACK TO INDEX PAGE