We know from other NT passages that demons, once cast out, can always return to their host later. So Satan, by temporarily giving up possession of the blind-mute, secures the allegiance of Jesus' followers. In chess, we call this a "sacrifice;" giving up one piece to secure something of greater value. If the Pharisees are right, Jesus' "miracle," by tricking believers, would give to Satan all those who call themselves "Christians." If I were Satan (and I'm not!), I'd take that deal.
22Then they brought him a demon-possessed man who was blind and mute, and Jesus healed him, so that he could both talk and see. 23All the people were astonished and said, “Could this be the Son of David?”24But when the Pharisees heard this, they said, “It is only by Beelzebub,d the prince of demons, that this fellow drives out demons.”25Jesus knew their thoughts and said to them, “Every kingdom divided against itself will be ruined, and every city or household divided against itself will not stand. 26If Satan drives out Satan, he is divided against himself. How then can his kingdom stand? 27And if I drive out demons by Beelzebub, by whom do your people drive them out? So then, they will be your judges. 28But if I drive out demons by the Spirit of God, then the kingdom of God has come upon you.29“Or again, how can anyone enter a strong man’s house and carry off his possessions unless he first ties up the strong man? Then he can rob his house.
Experienced Criminologists would also blanch as Jesus' response. A skilled interrogator expects an innocent person, falsely accused, to say "I didn't do it." Instead, Jesus responds with the spurious "house divided" argument, then engages in what looks like psychological projection: "31And so I tell you, every sin and blasphemy will be forgiven men, but the blasphemy against the Spirit will not be forgiven. "
Of course traditional Christianity has a quite different interpretation, one that focuses on the unforgivable sin, blaspheming the Holy Spirit. It's not clear exactly what this mean, but the orthodox generally interpret it as a permanent hardening of the heart that prevents one from accepting grace.
If the Bible alone is our sole source of truth, there will be as many Christianities as there are readers. Tradition and Authority are there to help.
I forget who pointed it out, but criminology is a field whose data consists entirely of *failures*. A successful criminal is not just one who is not convicted, but not caught, and perhaps whose crime is not even discovered. The linked article on interview and interrogation technique has truthful responses as being detailed and interladen (interlarded?) with protestations of innocence; the deceptive ones are vague, and contain frequent statements of puzzlement. Given the source data for such presumptions, at best we can conclude that criminals who take the latter course in interviews will be found out, while those who adopt the former may be viewed as upstanding citizens.
ReplyDeleteAnother way to view Jesus' reply might be one of pure power. Instead of denying the charge, his response is rather: whatever—are you with me or against me? Can YOU drive out demons? If I drive them out by Beelzebub, then they can fuck you up. But if I drive them out by the power of God, then you're REALLY in the shit.
In other words, the ones who deny might not be innocent, but rather super-successful criminals? OK ... that's an interesting argument, and frankly, I'm shocked that anyone actually reads this blog (even my girlfriend doesn't) which was created (mostly) as a writing exercise for a screenplay.
ReplyDeleteI think your second part doesn't hold up, because Jesus, being God, isn't ever wrong, and his "house divided" argument is just that. The real devil WOULD give up one guy's soul in order to take many more.