The Lucan Account Of The Beelzebul Controversy

by Martin Emmrich

Martin Emmrich is a Ph.D. student in hermeneutics at Westminster Theological Seminary.

Luke’s account of the life of Jesus does not pretend to furnish an unbiased report of the words and deeds of Jesus, but indicates right up front that the author is conscious of communicating to Christians (1:1–4). Consequently, Luke’s theological agenda determines the shape of the documentation he provides (cf. περι᾿ τῶν πεπληροφορημένων ἐν ἡμῖν πραγμάτων, 1:1).[1] As far as the gospel of Luke is concerned,[2] the author’s basic presupposition is that history is about how God’s will has been enforced among the nations. Where did the author derive his concept? Of course the primary impetus came from Luke’s convictions, so that he sought to relate the life of Jesus (and the church) to the OT. At the same time, Genesis-Numbers (P) and the deuteronomistic history provided a scriptural model for Luke’s purpose, a model which featured the same theological understanding of history as being under God’s control.[3] Luke’s concept of history is thus deeply indebted to OT history. However, the author of the third gospel views the will of God (βουλὴ τοῦ θεοῦ, cf. Luke 7:30; Acts 2:23, etc.) primarily in terms of fulfillment of OT promises and prophecies in Jesus’ life and the early church (cf. Luke 4:21).[4] Consequently, the coming of Jesus and the birth of the NT community has inaugurated a new chapter in history, or, to be more precise, in the history of redemption.

The present study elucidates this theme in Luke’s rendering of the Beelzebul controversy (11:14–23).[5] Luke selectively arranges the account to communicate two ideas: 1) the eschatological exodus has been set in motion in Jesus’ coming; 2) the agency of the Spirit is redefined in terms of the disciples’ fearless confession.[6] As this essay shows, the former notion primarily concerns the theological significance of the Beelzebul story in the framework of Heilsgeschichte, while the latter shows the significance of the event for the mission of the early church.[7]

I. Exorcisms and the Beelzebul Controversy

Before looking at the Lucan version of the conflict, a few remarks about the historicity of the synoptic accounts of the Beelzebul controversy are in order. First, exorcistic performances were not at all uncommon in first century Palestine.[8] The same is true for Jesus’ ministry. Although the synoptics record exorcisms in varying degrees (Mark being by far the most elaborate testimony to exorcisms), the first three gospels relate seven distinct instances of Jesus’ performance of an exorcism.[9] Thus, without endorsing any particular synoptic pericope, the very fact that the gospels contain seven individual cases of exorcisms (criterion of multiple attestation) supports the view that such miracles loomed large in Jesus’ ministry.[10] Albert Fuchs maintains that in the process of writing the gospels the evangelists most likely drew upon a general Christian memory that had already merged into some written sources. Consequently, though the authenticity of specific occasions (or rather details) is doubtful, the synoptics record the various exorcisms as the kind of thing Jesus used to do.[11] Nevertheless, such remarkable miracles as the exorcisms (and indeed this is true for all of Jesus’ miraculous acts) would not only have been remembered as a mere fact; rather, there is a high likelihood that in many instances more specific memories would have informed the composition of the synoptic accounts.

As for the differences among the synoptic accounts of the Beelzebul story, Mark 3:22ff. (unlike Matt 12:22 and Luke 11:14) does not feature an exorcism as introduction to the discourse.[12] But whether the said conflict arose in immediate response to an exorcism or whether Matthew and Luke inserted the miracle into the controversy to provide a setting that corresponds to the charges brought against Jesus,[13] the synoptic evidence is still quite con- vincing that Jesus performed exorcisms upon a number of occasions. In connection with his radical claims, these miracles, as a regular and controversial part of Jesus’ ministry, would have generated the suspicion that he was a magician, i.e., in league with demonic forces.[14] At any rate, what is at stake in the Beelzebul account is the evaluation of Jesus’ exorcisms, a theological analysis of the phenomena before his contemporaries,[15] which did lead to the kind of controversy recorded in Luke.[16] Thus, the historicity of the Beelzebul controversy, at least in its basic outline, should not be doubted. The combined witness of the synoptics establishes the following facts:

1. Jesus performed exorcisms;
2. Jesus’ exorcistic performances were not interpreted unanimously;
3. Some named “Beelzebul”[17] the prince of the demons, as the source of this kind of supernatural activity;
4. In defense of his own claims, Jesus responded to the challenge posed by his opponents.

How then do we ascertain the rudimentary form of this response? To begin with, none of the synoptic evangelists should be considered an eyewitness to the controversy (at least there is no positive evidence for this), so that there can be no a priori judgment as to the “preeminence” of any single account.[18] The best approach, then, is to compare Jesus’ apology in the synoptics.

First, it should be noted that in Luke’s version of the conflict a sign from heaven is demanded (11:16, absent in Matthew, Mark), in addition to the charge made by Jesus’ opponents. Because Jesus’ answer to this request is postponed until 11:29–32, commentators have suggested that v. 16 serves no other purpose than to provide a concrete antecedent for vv. 29–32. While Luke’s structural concerns here cannot be denied,[19] I would challenge this view in arguing that the insertion also betrays theological motivation. There was a more compelling reason for the author to include v. 16 at the head of the controversy. This point shall be addressed below.

Verse 11:17 marks the beginning of Jesus’ speech, which, generally speaking, features material that is shared with (either) Matthew and/or Mark through v. 23. The sayings contained in vv. 17–18 are common to all three accounts (ignoring minor discrepancies in wording).[20] Again, vv. 19–20 are paralleled by Matt 12:27–28, which sayings are commonly believed to have been taken from Q.[21] By far the most striking difference here lies in the Lucan “finger of God” (δακτύλος θεοῦ, v. 20), in place of which Matt 12:28 has the “Spirit of God.” The argument advanced here is that rather than preserving the Q reading,[22] Luke altered “Spirit of God” to read “finger of God.”

The parable of the strong man (vv. 21–22) appears in all three synoptics, and although Luke’s picture is of battle (not of burglary, cf. Matt 12:29; Mark 3:27), the basic idea remains the same. The significance of this nuance will be addressed (albeit as a minor point) as we go along.

Finally, the fourth element of the sayings complex (v. 23, the identical wording in Matt 12:30) speaks of the impossibility of taking a neutral position in the confrontation between Jesus and Satan, and fits the theme of the passage insofar as the main question concerns allegiance to the said powers. Most surprisingly, however, Luke does not include the blasphemy logion at this point, which concludes the other two accounts of the Beelzebul story. Since the controversy and the blasphemy logion have been tightly correlated in the earliest tradition of the primitive church,[23] and because there exists a logical, inherent connection between the logion and the question on which the entire pericope hinges, the blasphemy saying is probably most authentic. Thus, the reason for Luke’s omission of this salient saying is of vital importance. This question shall be treated in the final section of the present study.

II. The “Finger of God”

For convenience’s sake I will begin with Luke’s “finger of God” (11:20). The overwhelming majority of scholars has argued that Luke here preserved the Q reading, while Matthew changed it to “Spirit of God” (12:28).[24] However, since Christopher S. Rodd’s study of this problem,[25] a few scholars have suggested that the majority view should be reassessed. Thus, Robert P. Menzies claims the following:

In view of their use of πνεῦμα elsewhere, it is more likely that Luke deleted the reference contained in Q than that Matthew added the term to the tradition. As we have noted, Matthew follows his sources closely with reference to the Spirit, never omitting a reference to πνεῦμα which is contained in Mark and/or Q. Luke, on the other hand, feels free to alter his sources: not only does he add πνεῦμα to his sources; he is also willing, when inclined, to omit the term (Lk 20:42 = Mk 12:36).[26]

Indeed Luke’s handling of sources seems to be more liberal than most were willing to admit.[27] Another important point to be considered is the placement of the blasphemy saying. The context which Matthew and Mark provide for the logion is cogent from both a literary and historical perspective, since it constitutes an appropriate response to the charge of Jesus’ opponents. In fact, the reference to the Spirit in Matt 12:28 connects the logion to the preceding discourse and makes the passage intelligible. We have therefore every reason to conclude that Matthew’s πνεῦμα θεοῦ formed part of the text of Q. The closing editorial comment in the Marcan version of the controversy (3:30) also confirms the historicity of the context for the blasphemy saying, for it indicates that its meaning hinges on the definition of πνεῦμα.[28] Thus it was most likely Luke who altered the reading of Q with his δακτύλοσ θεοῦ.

What then motivated the Lucan change of the tradition? Although a fuller answer to this question will be given below (see section IV), I may anticipate at least one of the readers’ concerns at this point: while Luke affirms the ministry of Jesus as empowered by the initial anointing of the Holy Spirit (4:18), he is generally hesitant to ascribe his miracles to the agency of the Spirit. Jesus’ mighty deeds are accounted for by God’s being with him (Acts 10:38) or God’s working through him (Acts 2:22). He is intent on defining pneumatology in terms of the more traditional (i.e. Jewish) view, according to which the Spirit is the Spirit of prophecy.[29] When Luke therefore changes “Spirit of God” to “finger of God” he adopts the prophetic pneumatology[30] that marks the OT and the current view in Judaism.[31]

Closely related to this is the notion that Luke, in introducing the “finger of God,” seems to make a deliberate reference to the mosaic typology (LXX, Exod 8:15).[32] In Israel’s exodus God revealed his finger by performing miraculous signs that confirmed his salvific intent for Israel. Yet Pharaoh hardened himself against such divine intervention, whose example was then “copied” by Israel’s rebellion in the wilderness, despite the fact that she had witnessed so many tangible proofs of the power of God. Says Ewald Lövestam:

Da Mose und seine Mithelfer beim ersten Exodus … unter der Führung Gottes standen und in Gottes Kraft handelten, bedeutete der Widerspruch des Volkes ihnen gegenüber Opposition gegen Gott selbst in seinem Heilseingreifen…. Der Widerspruch des Wüstengeschlechts gegenüber Mose … betraf nicht nur den Menschen. Er richtete sich gegen Gott selbst in seinem Heilshandeln.[33]

By making this alteration Luke echoes the events of the first exodus, thus indicating that he wants the Beelzebul conflict to be read against the background of Israel’s coming out of Egypt. In doing so he presents Jesus’ ministry as the eschatological exodus (cf. 9:31, ἔψοδος), with God’s finger performing new salvific works among his people. Additionally, with this episode of sacred history as backdrop, Jesus is portrayed as the long awaited “prophet like Moses” (cf. Deut 18:15, 18–19), who ultimately is rejected by his own generation.

Luke’s shaping of the parable of the strong man supports this notion. According to J. Nolland, “Luke has moved the image from that of a physically strong householder to that of a well-armed Lord of a castle, and the primary action from that of binding up the householder to that of his defeat by the hands of a more powerful figure.”[34] While Matthew and Mark have the imagery of burglary, Luke’s account speaks of a battle. That the Lucan version of the parable is due to his own editorial activity is (at least circumstantially) confirmed by a seeming allusion to Isa 49:24–26, which text is so reminiscent of the exodus pattern: Israel is under the yoke of a mighty oppressor, but may hope for the sudden intervention of the divine warrior who is more powerful than the tyrant.[35] If therefore Luke has intensified the picture (as we argue he has), his change helps to adapt the parable to the exodus theme, where God claimed his people in no uncertain terms.[36]

Still the author of the third gospel has left another clue for his readers designed to lead to an understanding of the Beelzebul controversy against the background of Heilsgeschichte, namely Israel’s pertinacious resistance of God’s salvific work in the exodus.

III. A “Sign From Heaven”

History inevitably involves selectivity. The historian must select and arrange the features of an historical event that most characteristically communicate its significance in the author’s own conception. Readers, accordingly, should look for elements in a historical narrative that fit the author’s perspective or, to turn the statement on its head, features that may be a surprise because of their apparent departure from the narrative’s significance. One such surprise may be found in 11:16 of Luke’s version of the Beelzebul story: “Others, in tempting him, required of him a sign from heaven.” The request for a sign is not included in the other two synoptics, although Matthew has it follow the controversy (12:38). Why did Luke incorporate v. 16 into his narrative framework, when he postpones Jesus’ response until v. 29? Commentators have seen in this interpolation hardly anything more than a preparation for vv. 29ff. I. Howard Marshall argues that “Luke intends the verse to prepare for his later saying, and he may have meant to suggest that the exorcisms performed by Jesus made a sign from heaven unnecessary.”[37] But this is hardly a satisfying answer to the problem. After all, by joining to this story the request for a sign that would legitimate Jesus’ claims without further discussing the demand in this pericope, the author seems to possess a more intimate knowledge of the conflict at hand.[38] If this is correct, then the postponement of Jesus’ response makes sense, since the author did not want to get bogged down by answering both questions in this pericope. For Luke, the demand for a sign contributes to the theme developed in this passage and so he records Jesus’ reply at a later point. But what precisely is the contribution the reader is to recognize?

First of all, in the context of the Beelzebul controversy (as in other gospel accounts that involve a demand for a sign from Jesus) this demand serves the purpose of legitimizing Jesus’ prophetic claims.[39] And, as we have seen, Jesus is not merely portrayed as a prophet but as the eschatological prophet like Moses. By incorporating v. 16 into this pericope, therefore, Luke places a more pointed question on the lips of the people: “Show us that you are that prophet!” Luke, in effect, underscores the typological aspect of this request. The demand for a sign not only reveals the inherent doubt of Jesus’ opponents in the conflict, but it also brings to the fore another striking parallel between Jesus and Moses. The rebels of Moses’ day and age, like Jesus’ adversaries, questioned the source of the mighty works performed during Israel’s deliverance: “Is Yahweh among us or not?” (Exod 17:7). The same question lies at the heart of the Beelzebul controversy. The repeated demands for signs that the rebels attempted to dictate to Yahweh afford another obvious tie with the controversy: although Israel had witnessed so many miracles (the actual occurrence of which was never contested, as is the case in the Beelzebul story), they continued to question God’s salvific intent and asked for signs of confirmation. In doing so, they tempted God.

The following texts may suffice to recall the situation: “How long will this people provoke me? And how long will they continue in unbelief, for all the signs which I have shown among them?” (Num 14:11). “And they tempted God in their heart by asking meat for their lust. Yes, they spoke against God, they said: ‘Can God furnish a table in the wilderness?’” (Ps 78:18–19). “…Your fathers tempted me, tested me, although they saw my work.”

(Ps 95:9). Thus, in the OT tradition the unbelief of the wilderness generation is placed side by side with Israel’s tempting God. In juxtaposing the request for a sign and the charge contained in v. 15 Luke is evidently alluding to this pattern. At the same time, he is careful to include the adverbial participle of πειράζειν in v. 16,[40] thus making the connection more explicit.

On the basis of these observations, Luke’s purposes become clear. His editorial insertion (v. 16) links Christ’s ministry to Moses and the Exodus. Luke puts those who required a sign from heaven on one level with the wilderness generation. They are pictured as exhibiting the same attitude of doubt and obduracy that characterized the Exodus rebels. Again, in recalling the Exodus as the historical backdrop to the Beelzebul conflict Luke makes Jesus a prophet akin to Moses, who is inaugurating an eschatological exodus that supercedes Israel’s deliverance from Egypt. Christ’s exorcisms (as all of his miracles) show the finger of God once more performing a great salvific work (v. 20). Still, Jesus meets with the same kind of opposition from the people of God whose unbelief demands additional signs. Their behavior parallels that of the hardened wilderness generation. Luke’s omission of the blasphemy logion, which traditionally had been connected with the controversy, remains to be discussed.

IV. The Blasphemy Logion Omitted

A careful and purposeful selection has been made in Luke’s composition of the Beelzebul controversy with the result that the narrative conforms to the pattern of the first Exodus. The author altered his sources and added certain details that gives the Beelzebul story added theological significance. Yet, in his portrayal of the event he also rejected material that did not fit its (i.e., his) meaning. In fact, the omission of the blasphemy logion marks an incisive editorial intervention. That the saying’s authentic historical context was the Beelzebul incident has already been established.[41] Therefore, the author of the third gospel must have had compelling reasons to break with the tradition at this point. Although the primary concern here is not exegetical, a few remarks about the meaning of the blasphemy logion are in order.[42] Although the logion would actually fit well into the Lucan version of the controversy, it was omitted because of the author’s concern for contemporization.

What then is the (seemingly) unforgivable sin against the Holy Spirit? E. Earle Ellis, taking his cue from the Marcan version of the Beelzebul story, sees the unpardonable sin in ascribing the work of the Holy Spirit to an unclean Spirit (cf. the explanatory remark in Mark 3:30).[43] Patristic interpreters (Origen, Theognostus of Alexandria) understood the blasphemy against the Holy Spirit as apostasy,[44] while Walter Grundmann takes the statement to refer to Jesus’ contemporaries, who, after having been given a “second chance” in the post-pentecostal era, would still refuse to obey the gospel call.[45] The most cogent explanation has been afforded by Alfred Plummer, who introduced the idea of an obdurate, persistent opposition to “Spirit-empowered preaching.”[46] But it is the Scandinavian scholar Ewald Lövestam, who elucidated the OT background of Jesus’ saying.[47] According to his view, the blasphemy logion must be read against the events of the first Exodus: those who blaspheme the Holy Spirit (whose work is manifested in Jesus’ exorcisms) show the same pertinacious resistance to God’s deliverance as was once exhibited in the days of the Exodus.[48]

Thus, the blasphemy saying is not meant to declare what is forgivable (or rather unforgivable), but what will happen (i.e. οὺκ ὰφεθήσεται, “will not be forgiven,” indicative).[49] The saying has no single, definable sin in mind that cannot be forgiven because of its gravity. Instead, a resistant attitude to God’s eschatological intervention in the salvation of his people is in view, just as it was when Israel rebelled against God in the Exodus. Such resistance cannot receive eschatological forgiveness: whoever so hardens his heart will not be forgiven, since the most fundamental prerequisite for grace is absent, namely a repentant acknowledgment of God’s salvific activity in Jesus.[50] The “speaking a word against the Son of Man” (λέγειν λόγον κατὰ τοῦ υἱοῦ ἀνθρώπου, Matt 12:32; Luke 12:10) stands in sharp contrast to the blasphemy against the Holy Spirit.[51] Since in the former case forgiveness will be granted, the sin described falls short of the crucial aspect of persistence. The language implies repentance on the part of the sinner, as the gift of eschatological forgiveness will not be applied automatically, but is dependent on a penitent attitude of the one seeking it.[52] Hence, far from denoting any specific sin, the logion must be understood conceptually.[53]

If our reading of the logion is correct, the question why Luke divorced it from its authentic context imposes itself even more compellingly. After all, the logion seems to follow the pattern of dogged antagonism displayed in the wilderness rebels, and thus harmonizes well with the Lucan version of the controversy.

In the foregoing discussion we have already mentioned Luke’s reluctance to attribute Jesus’ miracles to the power of the Holy Spirit.[54] He is keen on preserving the traditional Jewish view that saw the agency of the Spirit primarily in terms of prophetic utterances, a tendency perceivable throughout Luke-Acts (apostolic miracles too are generally not performed by the Holy Spirit but through the name of Jesus; cf. Acts 3:6, 16; 4:10, etc.). This rather consistent feature of Lucan writings stems from the author’s understanding of redemptive history, according to which the present age is the one in which the gospel of salvation is to be proclaimed to all nations. It is for this very task that the Holy Spirit has come, not to perform miracles.[55] Thus, the inclusion of the blasphemy logion in the Beelzebul controversy would have involved a major departure from the Lucan concept of the Spirit’s agency.

With this in mind, it is not at all surprising that Luke seeks to provide a distinct application of the saying to the situation of the NT church. For in placing it in another block of Q material (12:1–12, a passage about fearless confession) he redefines (i.e., in relation to the other synoptic evangelists) the agency of the Holy Spirit: no longer the power to exorcise demons (as in Matthew, Mark), the Spirit operates when in the face of persecution Jesus’ disciples confess their Lord. In other words, the disciples too can harden themselves with regards to God’s salvific work (now manifested in fearless confession) and so forfeit the gift of eschatological forgiveness. Already in 12:4–7 the followers of Jesus have been warned against apostatizing in a hostile environment. Verse 9 spells out the stark consequences for disowning Jesus, and the blasphemy logion (v. 10) reinforces this notion. What it all comes down to is allegiance to Jesus. Consequently, in Luke’s setting the sin against the Holy Spirit becomes one of apostasy,[56] that is, when the disciples refuse to act in accord with the Spirit’s empowering of the testimony to Jesus.[57] Luke’s placement of the saying contemporizes its meaning and shifts the warning from the persecutor to the persecuted.[58]

In summary, we may ascertain that the Lucan account of the Beelzebul conflict is shaped to highlight the significance of Jesus’ ministry (in particular his exorcisms) as the fulfillment of the promise of the prophet like Moses (Deut 18:15, 18). Not only has the eschatological exodus been inaugurated through Jesus, who like Moses backs his claim with miracles, but he also meets resistance in the same way Israel rebelled in the Exodus. The tools by which the author patterns the Beelzebul story after the events of Moses’ leading Israel out of Egypt are inclusion of extraneous material (11:16) and various modifications of tradition (11:20–22). Yet he is not content with providing the “proper” historical paradigm for the conflict. He applies the salient logion of the blasphemy against the Holy Spirit, which summarizes the idea of obdurate antagonism lying at the heart of the con troversy to the present NT church. And because he conceives the agency of the Spirit in terms of the persecuted church’s public confession, Jesus’ followers themselves become the primary object of the warning against resisting the Spirit.

Notes

1. The use of πληροφορέω not only suggests that the author regards the events as a fulfillment of OT prophecy, but that themselves come to fulfillment via the continuing mission of the church and the faith-response to which the events give rise. The ἐν ἡμῖν indicates that the author shares in the Christian faith. Cf. Robert C. Tannehill, Luke (Nashville: Abingdon Press, 1996), 34.
2. Although this is true for the whole of Luke-Acts, too.
3. Accordingly, Luke-Acts is replete with Septuagintalisms. Especially the infancy narrative reads like an appendix to the LXX.
4. Cf. Gregory E. Sterling, Historiography and Self-Definition (Leiden: Brill, 1992), 359: “The plan of God is in the OT in the form of promise. Luke-Acts represent an attempt to write out the record of its fulfillment.”
5. This study is limited to a few key issues and does not claim to provide an exhaustive treatment.
6. The term “redefinition” has reference to the other synoptic accounts, where the agency of the Spirit is depicted in different terms.
7. Of course, this form of contemporization too has everything to do with the author’s theological agenda. The statement is to indicate the predominant concern of the “historian.”
8. Cf. Everett Ferguson, Demonology in the Early Christian World (New York: Mellen Press, 1984), 11ff.
9. Mark 1:23–28/Luke 4:33–37; 3:22–30/Matt 12:22–30/Luke 11:14–23; Mark 5:1–20; 7:24–30/Mark 15:21–28; Mark 9:14–29; Matt 9:32–33; Luke 8:2.
10. Cf. John P. Meier, A Marginal Jew, vol. 2 (New York: Doubleday, 1994), 648.
11. Cf. Albert Fuchs, Die Entwicklung der Beelzebul-Kontroverse bei den Synoptikern (Linz: SNTU, 1980), 36–37.
12. I do not intend to comment on the discrepancies between Matthew (τυφλὸς και᾿ κωφός) and Luke (και᾿ αὐτὸ ἧν κωφόν). For a treatment of this issue see Adolf Schlatter, Das Evangelium des Lukas (Stuttgart: Calwer Verlag, 1960), 508–9; Meier, A Marginal Jew, 656–67.
13. Most scholars agree in arguing that both Matthew and Luke found the exorcism in their version of Q. Cf. John Nolland, Luke, 9:21–18:34 (Dallas: Word Books, 1993), 635–36; Walter Schmithals, Das Evangelium nach Lukas (Zürich: TVZ, 1980), 133.
14. Apparently, such accusations were leveled against Jesus on several occasions, cf. Matt 10:25; John 8:48, 52; 10:20.
15. It should be noted that Jesus’ ability to cast out demons is not contested, neither in the Beelzebul controversy, nor in any other account that involves an exorcism.
16. Cf. Ewald Lövestam, Spiritus Blasphemia (Lund: CWK Gleerup, 1968), 23ff. Nicholas T. Wright, Jesus and the Victory of God (Minneapolis: Fortress, 1996), 451ff.
17. For a discussion of the term Βεελζεβούλ (Aram בעל זבול) see Lloyd Gaston, “Beelzebul,” TZ 18 (1962) 247-55. Gaston argues that בעל זבול (“lord of the exalted abode”) refers to the Canaanite god בעל שׁמים. Because Judaism refused to accept a linguistic challenge to Yahweh’s claim, whose habitation is בשׁמים (“in the heavens,” cf. 1 QM XII:1), a synonym came to be employed. The correlation of the heathen gods with demons cannot be dated definitely, but is attested by the LXX (Ps 95:5, δαιμόνια, for MT 96:5, אלילים).
18. Although Marcan priority may be assumed, it is certain that Q (which provided Matthew and Luke with the respective non-Marcan material) antedated the composition of our second gospel. The scenario is even further complicated by the strong likelihood that different versions of written sources circulated in the early church.
19. Indeed v. 16 serves the binding together of the materials of a larger section (11:14–54).
20. Luke’s addition of 11:18b, ὅτι λέγετε ἐν Βεελζεοὺλ ἐκβάλλειν με τὰ δαιμόνια, most likely represents his rendering of the Marcan postscript (3:30), pace I. Howard Marshall, The Gospel of Luke (Exeter: Paternoster Press, 1978), 474.
21. Cf. Joseph A. Fitzmyer, The Gospel According to Luke, X-XXIV (Garden City: Doubleday, 1985), 918.
22. This view is held by the vast majority of scholars, cf. Norman Perrin, Rediscovering the Teaching of Jesus (San Francisco: Harper & Row, 1967), 63; Joachim Jeremias, Die Sprache des Lukasevangeliums (Göttingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht, 1980), 199–202; Robert W. Wall, “The Finger of God, Deuteronomy 9:10 and Luke 11:20, ” NTS 33 (1978) 144.
23. Cf. Lövestam, Spiritus Blasphemia 8–9.
24. Cf. Footnote #22; cf. also Jean L. Leuba, “Der Zusammenhang zwischen Geist und Tradition nach dem Neuen Testament,” KuD 4 (1958) 234-50.
25. Christopher S. Rodd, “Spirit or Finger,” ExpTim 72 (1960–61) 157–58.
26. Robert P. Menzies, The Development of Early Christian Pneumatology (Sheffield: JSOT Press, 1991), 186.
27. Cf. Robert H. Stein, The Synoptic Problem: An Introduction (Leicester: InterVarsity Press, 1988), 103: “… in general Luke appears to give more sayings in the original form than does Matthew… .”
28. Although the scope of this paper does not permit a thorough treatment of questions of synoptic interdependence, we should keep in mind that the reading of 11:20 is usually evaluated on the basis of a crucial, long held assumption, which is intimately related to one of the fundamental claims of the Two Source Hypothesis, namely that Luke did not know Matthew. Yet, dissenting voices have become more frequent during the last decade. Michael D. Goulder, for example, suggests that in writing the third gospel, Luke combines Mark and Matthew. In particular, he rewrote Matthew’s birth narrative with the aid of the OT, and added new material of his own, largely parables. Material that is common to both Matthew and Luke is seen as a Lucan interpretation of matter in Matthew, which accounts for many of the minor variants in Luke. Cf. Michael D. Goulder, Luke—A New Paradigm (Sheffield: JSOT Press, 1989), 16ff. Eric Franklin too views Luke as an interpreter (rather critic) of Matthean material, and proceeds to demonstrate his point in reference to the Beelzebub controversy (among other case studies). Cf. Eric Franklin, Luke: Interpreter of Paul, Critic of Matthew (Sheffield: JSOT Press, 1994), 299–300.
29. Charles K. Barrett has shown that in ancient Jewish literature (Apocrypha, Qumran, Josephus, Rabbinic writings) exorcisms are never attributed to the Holy Spirit, cf. Charles K. Barrett, The Holy Spirit and the Gospel Tradition (London: SPCK, 1947), 53–59. Healing miracles in the OT are not associated with the Holy Spirit either, but are depicted as interventions of God in response to prayer or other mediatorial acts (Num 12:13–15; 1 Kings 17:19–24, etc.). However, the Spirit does come into focus in passages where prophetic activities are described (Num 11:29).
30. See below under IV.
31. Cf. Menzies, The Development of Early Christian Pneumatology, 194–95.
32. Robert W. Wall’s thesis that the Lucan phrase “finger of God” represents an allusion to the deuteronomic narrative (Deut 9:10), in which God reveals his covenant with Israel by writing it with his finger, is less convincing. Although he rightly maintains that the exorcisms must be seen as revelatory events (i.e., God once revealed his salvation by writing on stone but now reveals his salvation by his finger’s new work, the exorcism of demons), he sees the struggle waged in the controversy not between Jesus and Satan but between Israel and Satan. He is thus dismissing the most plausible reading of the passage. Cf. Wall, “The Finger of God, Deuteronomy 9:10 and Luke 11:20, ” 144–50.
33. Lövestam, Spiritus Blasphemia, 26.
34. Nolland, Luke, 9:21–18:34, 641.
35. As for the parallel to Isa 49:24–26, cf. Claus Westermann, Das Buch Jesaja (Göttingen: Vanderhoeck & Ruprecht, 1966), 179–80.
36. The first exodus is often said to have been realized by God’s “high hand and stretched out arm” (Exod 14:8; Num 33:3; Deut 5:15; 7:19; 32:27), language that bespeaks warfare rather than burglary. And since we already discussed the significance of the finger of God, it may be added that there is a definite connection between God’s finger and his hand. What is the finger of God, but the hand of God, and what is the hand of God, but the arm of Yahweh that saves his people while rendering judgment on Israel’s oppressors?
37. Marshall, The Gospel of Luke, 473. Cf. also Nolland, Luke, 9:21–18:34, 637: “The presence of v. 16 gives the necessary concrete antecedent for vv. 29–32… .”
38. Otherwise Luke could have appended the request to the conflict as Matthew did. But to leave v. 16 virtually isolated in the present setting (even if it is conceived preparatory) seems awkward, if no other reason can be found for the interpolation.
39. Apparently, first century Palestine saw a number of figures who claimed to be prophets, cf. Josephus, Ant 18.4.1, 85; 20.8.6, 169ff. In these incidents miracles or some other signs were promised as confirmation for prophetic claims.
40. Possibly a reflection on Mark 8:11, cf. Schmithals, Das Evangelium Nach Lukas, 133. Matt 12:39 has similar language but does not feature the verb πειράζω.
41. Cf. 271; cf. also Adolf Schlatter, Das Evangelium des Lukas (Stuttgart: Calwer Verlag, 1960), 511.
42. Obviously, the ensuing discussion is far from giving a well rounded account of the various approaches that have been suggested in the history of the saying’s interpretation.
43. E. Earle Ellis, The Gospel of Luke (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1974), 176.
44. According to this view, “speaking a word against the Son of man” is forgivable because it is committed by unbelievers.
45. The sin against the Son of man pertains to the pre-resurrection period and is forgivable on account of the provisional nature of the gospel’s proclamation, Walter Grundmann, Das Evangelium Nach Lukas (Berlin: Evangelische Verlagsanstalt, 1961), 255. A similar view has been propounded in Erich Klostermann, Das Lukasevangelium (Tübingen: Mohr-Siebeck, 1927), 134. But a change from one period to another is not supported by the tenses of the verbs, cf. Christopher F. Evans, Saint Luke (London: SCM Press, 1990), 518.
46. Alfred Plummer, A Crucial and Exegetical Commentary on the Gospel According to Saint Luke (Edinburgh: T. & T. Clark, 1922), 321. Plummer argues mainly from Luke’s account, which has the post-Easter community in mind. His view is shared and expounded by Fitzmyer, The Gospel According to Luke, X-XXIV, 964.
47. Lövestam, Spiritus Blasphemia, 23ff.
48. There are in fact OT reflections on the exodus that depict the attitude of the rebels as being directed against the Holy Spirit. Of course, we may not think of the following references to the Spirit in terms of Chalcedonian theology; rather, the OT concept of the Holy Spirit is one of agency and not personality. Ps 106:32–33: “They made (God) angry at the waters of Meribah … because they resisted his Spirit …”; Isa 63:7–10: “… they rebelled and grieved his Holy Spirit… .”
49. It is of pivotal importance to point to the exact wording of the logion. In Matthew and Luke the verb of the main clause sustains the future passive ( ἀφεθήσεται), except for Mark 3:29 (οὐκ ἔξει ἄφεσιν εἰς τὸν αἰῶνα). Yet, despite the use of the present in Mark, all three accounts are clearly eschatological in thrust.
50. That the blasphemy against the Holy Spirit denotes an ongoing, impenitent attitude is borne out in particular by the Matthean and Lucan context. For in Jesus’ response to the demand for a sign he emphasizes that it is repentance that his opponents lack, cf. Matt 12:38–42; Luke 11:29–32.
51. For a discussion of the development of the blasphemy logion see M. Eugene Boring, “The Unforgivable Sin Logion Mark 3:28–29/Matt 12:31–32/Luke 12:10: Formal Analysis and History of the Tradition,” NT 18 (1976) 258-79.
52. We can assume that first-century Palestinian Jews would have understood the conditionality of the promise.
53. Cf. Darrell L. Bock, Luke (Downers Grove: InterVarsity Press, 1994), 223.
54. See under II.
55. Of course, this is not to say that this concern is absent in the other synoptics; yet Luke chose to highlight this aspect. The fact that he has a second volume that records the onset of the church age allows him to differentiate more explicitly what is only hinted at in the first two gospels.
56. Similarly, R. C. Tannehill, Luke, 203.
57. In a certain sense, therefore, the blasphemy logion looks back to the other isolated Q saying of the pericope, namely the “leaven of the Pharisees” (12:1) which is said to be hypocrisy. Thus what has happened to the Pharisees is a real possibility for Jesus’ followers, if they will fail to live up to their mission task.
58. In my opinion, however, it is not entirely clear whether this interpretation precludes the possibility that the one who blasphemes the Holy Spirit may not also be the persecutor who persistently resists the confession of the persecuted. After all, 12:12 would allow for this view, especially since Luke affords an “expository” event in the martyrdom of Stephen (Acts 7). We may recall that his persecutors are charged with “constantly resisting the Holy Spirit” (Acts 7:51–53). Here Luke gives an account of a disciple who meets with the kind of dogged rejection that his master encountered. Such a scenario is also anticipated in Matt 10:24ff., and maybe Luke has also had an eye on the Marcan context of the Beelzebul story, which is immediately preceded by the calling of the twelve apostles for the purpose of being with Jesus and “that he might send them out to preach” (3:14). At any rate, the Marcan arrangement is suggestive of an application to the mission of the disciples in the way it has been discussed. Another interesting feature of Luke’s account could argue for a twofold application of the blasphemy logion. First of all, one should not overlook that in his long travel sequence (9:51–19:27) the logion, though dislocated from its authentic setting, is still in relative proximity to the Beelzebul controversy. As a matter of fact, Luke has managed to create an unbroken narrative sequence from 11:14 all the way to 12:1–2. The Beelzebul controversy itself, the response to the request for signs (11:29–36) and Jesus’ harangue against the scribes and Pharisees (11:37–54), which gives rise to the saying about the “leaven of the Pharisees” (12:1), are closely joined together by temporal ἐν-phrases, thus providing seamless transitions from pericope to pericope: ἐν τῷ λέγειν (11:27); ἐν τῷ λαλῆσαι (11:37); ἐν οἷς (12:1). Each of these pericopes has at its heart the question of how people respond to God’s spokesmen. So since Luke created the impression of a continuous narrative with coherent thematic unity, and because his audience was aware of the connection between the Beelzebul controversy and the blasphemy logion, the Beelzebul account would still have “echoed” in the minds of the readers. In other words, although Luke divorced the logion from its authentic setting for the purpose of applying it to apostates, he afforded sufficient clues that allowed his readers to retain a more traditional application of the saying (i.e., the challenge of facing the blasphemers would be “handed down” to Jesus’ disciples).