The New Testament presents other
examples of Jesus being portrayed as a cultural and religious deviant from the
perspective of the Judaic religious leaders. One of the strongest is found in
the Beelzebul/Beelzebub caricature in Luke 11:14-23.[1]
Character assassination is nothing new to human culture and society. Neither is
the use of imagery or metaphor to try to destroy an opponent’s credibility.
This is seen in the New Testament concerning Jesus.
The
Beelzebul caricature indicates that the religious elite thought Jesus’ ability
to cast out demons was devious in origin, that origin being Satan. This
represents a direct labeling of Jesus as a deviant. D.A. Carson writes about
this controversy, “The Pharisees thought that they could
explain away the casting out of demons by saying that Jesus was empowered by
the devil.”[2]
Carson also notes, “Others thought the matter could be settled if Jesus could
provide some clearer sign that he had God’s backing.”[3]
The Pharisees interpret the practices and strategies, particularly the practice
of casting out demons, of Jesus as deviating from the normative practices of
his culture. Jewish exorcists were not uncommon, but possibly or most likely
Jesus operated outside of sanctioned practices approved for them. Due to the
reaction that the Judaic leadership expresses toward Jesus’ practice of casting
out demons they view Jesus as a deviant and clearly label him as such. Wright emphasizes,
Accusing Jesus like this was,
for the opponents, an ideal way not only of rejecting Jesus’ message about the
kingdom, but of launching a propaganda attack against him. ‘Ah,’ they were
saying, ‘don’t just look at the outward effects! You need to understand what’s
going on behind. Then you’ll see he’s a scoundrel – in league with the devil
himself![4]
It should be noted that Jesus’ activities demonstrate a
posturing of association not with the powerful within the culture, or the
elite, but a definite association with the marginalized. This practice and
strategy of associating with the marginalized brought attention to them
attentions the Judaic leaders did not appreciate. Jesus’ practice of casting
out demons from those possessed and healing the sick and the lame brought into
view the lack of concern for the marginalized amid the cultural and religious
leaders. Thereby, revealing their lack of concern for the poor and afflicted.
The Pharisees inner attitudes towards the marginalized and afflicted were
exposed for the community to view. This was damaging publicity. This exposure,
such as the Pharisees experience when Jesus cares for the marginalized and
afflicted, creates a defensive posture and response. The Pharisees respond by
attacking Jesus’ character and person.
The use of semiotics (metaphor/imagery/signs) was a
defensive tactic by the Pharisees in an attempt to project certain imagery upon
Jesus character, thereby neutralizing or inflicting damage upon Jesus by
associating his ability to cast out demons with the prince of demons,
Beelzebul. Association is a powerful political tool when dealing with a rival
or what appears to be a challenge to the status quo. The use of the Beelzebul
caricature would fall into this category. Wright comments about the use of the
Beelzebul caricature, Beelzebul “was a kind of nickname, originally meaning
something like ‘Lord of the Flies.’ By Jesus’ day it was simply a way of
referring to a personal source of evil without giving it, or him, a more
precise definition.”[5]
The semiotic/image association strategy employed by the Pharisees attempts to
discredit Jesus’ work of casting out demons by association with a source of
evil intent. The Beelzebul imagery employed by Jesus’ accusers represents a
denouncement of Jesus in order to label him as in league with the ultimate
deviant, Satan. Jesus’ deviant practices and strategies challenged the status
quo of the Judaic culture and religious leadership of his day. The defensive
response from those whom Jesus challenged was to demonize him by association,
thereby labeling him as deviant within the Judaic culture. The Pharisees in
this text are clearly characterized as viewing Jesus as deviating from Judaic
culture.
[1]
Parallel passages include Mt. 12:22-30, 43-45; Mk 3:22-27.
[2] D. A. Carson, New
Bible Commentary: 21st Century Edition, 4th ed. (Leicester, England;
Downers Grove, Ill., USA: Inter-Varsity Press, 1994), Lk 11:14–54.
[3] Ibid.
[4] N.T. Wright, Luke for Everyone (Westminster John Knox
Press, 2004), 137.
[5] Wright, 137.
No comments:
Post a Comment