Versions

Mark and Q present variant versions of this cluster about opposing powers. Mark's cluster is composed of three elements:

• an accusation that Jesus represents the chief force opposed to God;
• a retort that divided powers are doomed; and
• a general rule about robbing a powerful person.

The third element is recorded separately in the gospel of Thomas, showing that Mark's version of Jesus' response is really a collection of independent sayings.

Both Matthew and Luke focus both the accusation and the response more clearly on Jesus' actions as an exorcist by including three more elements:

• a brief narrative preface in which Jesus drives a demon from a mute person;
• a question about the power of other exorcists; and
• a claim that exorcisms prove God is in control.

These last two sayings are in the middle of Jesus' response, between the second and third elements from Mark's cluster.  The additional elements in Q make it clear that the images of physical force in Jesus' reply are metaphors for conflict between spiritual powers. Without these the sayings about divided forces and robbery might be interpreted as encouraging violence. This may be why Matthew and Luke preferred Q's cluster to Mark's. Matthew even uses Q's narrative preface twice; the first time (Matt 9:32-34), however, without any reply by Jesus. It is not likely that Mark dropped the explicit references to exorcisms. So his cluster must come from an earlier stage of the collection of these sayings than Q's.

Q's cluster attracted two more sayings---one about opponents (Luke 11:23//Matt 12:30), the other about demons (Luke 11:24-26//Matt 12:43-45)---neither of which is explicitly about exorcisms. Mark has a variant of the first in another context. The second comes only from Q. Matthew separates it from this cluster by reporting Q's dispute over signs in between. These editorial variations show that these sayings do not come from one occasion. The appearance of an extended debate comes from later attempts to give a narrative setting to a growing collection of sayings with loosely related themes. Thus, the origin of each component needs to be considered separately.

Luke 11:14-20	Matt 12:22-28	Mark 3:22-26
14 Jesus was driving out	22 Then they brought him
	a blind and mute person
a demon who was mute,	who was demon possessed,
and when the demon departed	and he cured him
the mute man spoke.	so the mute could both speak
	and see
And the crowds	23 And the entire crowd
were amazed.	was beside itself
	and was saying,
	"This man can't be
	the son of David, can he?"
15 But	24 But	22 And
some of them	when the Pharisees heard of it,	the scholars
		who had come down
		from Jerusalem
said,	they said,	would say,
		"He's possessed by Beelzebul"
"He drives out demons	"This guy drives out demons	and "He drives out demons
with the power of Beelzebul,	only with the power of Beelzebul,	with the power of
the head demon."	the head demon."	the head demon."
16 Others were putting him
to the test
by demanding a sign
from heaven.
17 But he knew	25 But he knew	23 And calling them over
what they were thinking,	how they thought
and said to them,	and said to them,	he would speak to them
		in riddles:
		"How can Satan
		drive out Satan?
		24 After all,
"Every empire *	"Every empire *	if an empire *
divided against itself	divided against itself	is divided against itself,
		that empire *
is devastated;	is devastated;	cannot survive.
and a house	and no town or household	25 And if a household
divided against a house	divided against itself	is divided against itself,
		that household
falls.	can survive.	won't be able to survive.
18 If Satan	26 So if Satan	26 So if Satan
	drives out Satan,	rebels against himself
is divided against himself---	he is divided against himself,	and is divided,
since you claim
I drive out demons
with Beelzebul's power---
how will his empire endure?	then how can he survive?	he cannot endure
		but is doomed."
19 Suppose I do	27 Suppose I do
drive out demons	drive out demons
with the power of Beelzebul,	with the power of Beelzebul,
then with whose power	then with whose power
do your own people	do your own people
drive <them> out?	drive <them> out?
That's why	That's why
they will be your judges.	they will be your judges.
20 But if I drive out demons	28 But if I drive out demons
with the finger of God,	with the spirit of God,
then God's empire * has come	then God's empire * has come
for you."	for you."

* See cameo essay on the empire of God

Setting

The Fellows generally agreed that Jesus did perform exorcisms. Q, Mark and John (8:48, 52; 10:20) agree that he himself was accused of being possessed by an evil power, a charge that no Christian source is apt to have invented. Yet Q (Luke 11:14-15//Matt 12:22-24 and 9:32-34) was probably the only record of these two facts being related. The Beelzebul that Mark and Q mention was originally a name for the high god of the pagan Canaanites (Hebrew: Ba'al zebul, meaning: "Lord of Heaven"). Here, it is used as a slur to portray Jesus as agent of an order opposed to the God of Israel. This charge was so serious that it required rebuttal. The question is, however, whether the rebuttal recorded by Q and Mark was created by Jesus or a later follower.

Contents

Q's rebuttal to the Beelzebul charge contained two parallel proverbs and a rhetorical question. After observing that governments and families are doomed if they are divided, the speaker asks what internal division would do to Satan's power. Both Matthew and Luke made slight editorial changes. Matthew expanded the proverb about divided households to include cities. Luke explains that Satan and Beelzebul refer to the same power.

Mark has more extensive differences in wording and grammar. He uses three parallel conditional statements to present the observations in Q's elements. And he locates a rhetorical question about Satan at the beginning rather than the end.

Each version of this rebuttal effectively portrays Satan's power as ended. But none directly addresses the elements in the charge against Jesus: demon-possession and the influence of "Beelzebul." "Satan" (Hebrew for "adversary") was the old Israelite name for the power that tested men rather than a force opposed to the supreme God (see Job 1:6-12; Mark 1:12-13). Luke 11:18 is the first text to explicitly equate Beelzebul and Satan. This raises the question of whether these sayings originated in reply to the Beelzebul charge.

Attribution

Beelzebul	%	Red	Pink	Grey	Black	WA	Print
Luke 11:17b-18 Matt 12:25b-26 Mark 3:23b-26		10 10 10	70 50 45	0 20 13	20 20 32	57 50 44	pink grey grey

The two proverbs about empires and households are observations that anyone might make. This, together with the fuzzy logical relationship of charge and retort made several Fellows question whether this saying presents Jesus' own reply to the Beelzebul accusation. On the other hand, a disarming use of concrete images as ironic metaphors is characteristic of many authentic Jesus sayings. Instead of accepting the opponents' terms, this retort seizes the initiative by posing a riddle that totally inverts the sense of the accusation. The majority of the Fellows thought that this type of repartee was typical of Jesus. This saying, however, was obviously open to paraphrase. Most thought Q's version is more likely original than Mark's. Luke's parenthetical comment about Beelzebul was not judged to alter the structure of Q's saying. Matthew, on the other hand, makes two editorial changes that were probably not in the original:

• the mention of cities in the second proverb; and
• the blending of Mark's rhetorical question (3:23) with Q's (Luke 11:18).

So, there were more reservations about accepting the text of Matthew as an accurate reflection Jesus' own logic. Thus, the weighted average for Matthew's version of this saying fell right on the border between pink and grey.

By whose power?	%	Red	Pink	Grey	Black	WA	Print
Luke 11:19-20 Matt 12:27-28		29 21	50 42	4 21	17 17	64 56	pink pink

Logic

Q is the sole source of the one saying in this cluster that is directly related to the charge that Jesus is an agent of Beelzebul. Instead of denying the accusation, Jesus conditionally accepts it and invites his accusers to consider the implications of what they have just said. The opponents grant that Jesus performed exorcisms. The origin of such power is the only question. Jesus infers that calling his power unholy slanders all exorcists. He assumes, however, that his critics will defend exorcisms by their own group as acts of God. So, he concludes, if they are consistent, they should see his own exorcisms as evidence that God is really in control. Such logic not only undermines the accusation but challenges the opponents to recognize Jesus as agent of God's rule.

Style

This retort is similar to several ironic Q sayings that unmask the inconsistency of critics. Moreover, it puts the principles of Q's opening sermon into practice. Jesus does not retaliate but turns a slap shot to his advantage by using his enemies' own words to embarrass them. The judgment comes from their mouths, not his.

Attribution

The majority of the Fellows trace this saying to Jesus because it is consistent with both the style and content of other genuine Jesus sayings. Unlike Christian preachers who condemned those who did not accept Jesus (e.g., Luke 10:12-15//Matt 11:20-24), the speaker disarms a serious challenge with remarks that are both witty and subtle. God is seen to establish his rule in a way that includes everybody, even enemies (see Luke 11:20b//Matt 12:28b; compare Luke 6:35//Matt 5:44-45). Christian writers usually looked for this to happen sometime in the future. But the author of this saying claims it has already happened.  Finally, this retort fits the reported context better than any other saying in this cluster.

Three considerations, however, prevented this saying from being weighted red. It is not in Mark, so it may not have been part of the original Beelzebul cluster. The claim that opponents will be judged (Luke 11:19b//Matt 12:27b) is like warnings in Q that probably did not come from Jesus. And a key word is in doubt because of Matthew or Luke's editing. Matthew's "spirit of God" provides a fitting contrast to the theme of demons. But more Fellows thought Luke's "finger of God" was original. The evidence of editorial activity makes pink an appropriate evaluation.

Thom 35	Mark 3:27	Matt 12:29	Luke 11:21-22
1 Jesus said:
		29 "Or how	21 "When
"You can't enter	27 "No one can enter	can anyone enter
a strong man's	a strong man's	a strong man's	a strong man
			is fully armed
			and guards
house	house	house	his courtyard
and take it	to plunder	and plunder
by force	his belongings	his belongings,	his possessions
			are safe.
without	unless	unless	22 But when
			a stronger man
			attacks
tying his hands.	he first ties him up.	he first ties him up?	and overpowers him,
			He takes away
			the weapons
			on which
			he was relying
2 Then	Only then	Only then	and
you can loot	does he plunder	does he plunder	divides up
his house."	his house."	his house."	his loot."

Versions

This saying was preserved in three sources: Mark, Q and Thomas. Mark and Q link it to the Beelzebul charge; Thomas does not. Only the synoptic setting makes the saying a metaphor for a spiritual struggle. The vivid images themselves refer to burglary rather than exorcism. Surprisingly the burglar is not condemned. Rather, Matthew, Mark and Thomas present a general rule for carrying out a successful burglary. Luke changes the setting to a pitched battle between two barons, probably to avoid the implied equation of Jesus with a burglar.

Attribution

Strong man's house	%	Red	Pink	Grey	Black	WA	Print
Luke 11:21-22 Matt 12:29 Mark 3:27 Thom 35:1-2		24 24 24 24	41 45 45 45	17 14 14 14	17 17 17 17	57 59 59 59	pink pink pink pink

This was apparently a well-known but shocking Jesus saying. It is hard to imagine early Christians ascribing it to him if he did not say something like it. It takes a bold stroke to cite unethical behavior as a positive example. But several genuine Jesus sayings do just that. The Seminar decided the parable of the dishonest steward (Luke 16:1-9) should be printed red and the parable of the assassin (Thom 98) pink. This saying was rated less than red, not because of its amoral advice, but because of questions about its original application.

Thom 35 indicates that this saying was known and circulated as a Jesus saying apart from the Beelzebul charge. Still, Jesus clearly did not invent the general principle that robbers should bind their victims. And why he would have invoked it except to prove a point is not totally clear. Yet, neither he nor his original audience---the poor and oppressed peasants of first century Galilee---were known to support the values of wealthy and powerful landlords. So, this bit of street wisdom might have been originally invoked as a cautionary corollary of his proclamation that the empire of God was truly theirs (Luke 6:20//Thom 54).

* For more on this pericope see this author's essay "The Person in Power."

Matt 12:30	Luke 11:23
30 "Those who aren't with me	23 "Those who aren't with me
are against me,	are against me,
and those who don't gather	and those who don't gather
with me, scatter."	with me, scatter."
	Luke 9:49-50	Mark 9:38-40
	49 John said in response,	38 John said to him,
	"Master,	"Teacher,
	we saw someone	we saw someone
	driving out demons	driving out demons
	in your name,	in your name,
	and we tried to stop him	and we tried to stop him
	because	because
	he isn't one of your followers."	he isn't one of our followers."
	50 But he said to him,	39 Jesus responded,
	"Don't stop him;	"Don't stop him.
		You see,
		no one
		who performs a miracle
		in my name
		will then turn around
		and curse me.
	for	40 For
	whoever is not against you	whoever is not against us
	is on your side."	is on your side."

Inversion

Q's Beelzebul cluster included a two-part saying about allegiance to Jesus, with parallel definitions:

• not with = against
• not gather = scatter.

In a different context Mark credits Jesus with the opposite formula:

• not against = for.

The contradiction could be accidental. These may be two versions of the same logical core, with the place of "against" simply switched. Luke is the only source who records both versions.

Attribution

For or against	%	Red	Pink	Grey	Black	WA	Print
Luke 11:23 Matt 12:30 Luke 9:50a Luke 9:50b Mark 9:39 Mark 9:40		6 6 6 13 6 13	31 31 13 13 6 25	19 19 25 31 6 31	44 44 56 44 81 44	33 33 23 31 13 35	grey grey black grey black grey

If the aphorisms in Q and Mark are based on the same saying, it is attested in independent sources. But it has also been thoroughly edited to fit different contexts. Some Fellows voted red or pink on Mark's version because tolerance of outsiders was more characteristic of Jesus than of the later church. More, however, voted black because the audience is viewed as a sect, suspicious of non-members. This attitude was more typical of Christians after Jesus' death than during his lifetime. Q's version got black votes because it contradicts the tolerance of opponents in genuine Jesus sayings (see Luke 6:29-36//Matt 6:46-48). Many Fellows were ready to trace Q's concern for gathering to Jesus. But this is not mentioned by Mark. In any case, the variations make it hard to identify a common core that distinguishes the voice of Jesus from the viewpoints of others.

Luke 11:24-26	Matt 12:43-45
24 "When an unclean* spirit leaves a person,	43 "When an unclean* spirit leaves a person,
it wanders through waterless places	it wanders through waterless places
in search of a place to rest.	in search of a place to rest.
When it doesn't find one,	When it doesn't find one,
it says,	44 it then says,
'I will go back	'I will return
to the home I left.'	to the home I left.'
25 It then returns,	It then returns,
and finds the place	and finds the place empty,
swept and put in order.	swept and put in order.
26 Next it goes out	45 Next it goes out
and brings back seven other spirits	and brings back seven other spirits
more vile than itself,	more vile than itself,
who enter and settle in there.	who enter and settle in there.
So that person ends up worse off	So that person ends up worse off
than when he started."	than when he started.
	That is how it will be
	for this evil generation."

*Greek: ἀκάθαρτον

Focus

Q is the sole source of this strange saying. Although the characters are spirits, the setting is quite concrete. All details are thoroughly Semitic. Yet the conclusion challenges Jewish concern for cleanliness and order. Eviction of the unclean invites even greater evils. If the original context for this saying involved exorcisms, it emphasized the futility of this practice.

Attribution

Evil spirit returns	%	Red	Pink	Grey	Black	WA	Print
Luke 11:24-26 Matt 12:43-45		4 0	67 48	11 33	19 19	52 43	pink grey

The inversion of ordinary Jewish and Christian values makes it hard to trace this saying to anyone other than Jesus. Its style and terms are not typical of Q. Its perspective is compatible with Jesus' attitude toward defilement in other sources. There he is presented as accepting those who were generally regarded as unclean like lepers (Mark 1:41), tax collectors and sinners (Mark 2:15), a menstruating woman (Mark 5:25ff), those who failed to wash (Mark 7:2ff). And he identifies the source of defilement as "what comes out of a person" (Mark 7:15). Though Fellows voted these passages pink, many thought Q's moralizing conclusion about the final condition of the host person in this saying was probably created by someone other than Jesus. Matthew's interpretation of the saying as a condemnation of "this evil generation" was deemed a blatant attempt to make a hard saying more acceptable for those who regarded purity laws as sacred.