THE EMPTY HOUSE
Matthew 12:43-45; Luke 11:24-25
George Lyons

Setting

Luke has in this section departed from the Markan order. However, the immediate setting of the parable in Luke is nearly identical to that of Matthew. Jesus gives the parable in response to a Beelzebul controversy.

The helpless victim who, as a result of the demon possession was dumb (Lk 11:14) and blind (Mt 12:22), after Jesus' healing (Mt) or exorcism (Lk) both spoke and saw. Every person out of whom Christ cast demons were living proof of the change he had made in their lives (Mt 12:44; Lk 11:24). Deranged personalities were restored to normal (Mk 1:23-28). Men who refused to be clothed or bound by chains, who raged in graveyards, and who were bent on self-destruction — in a moment's time began a normal, useful life (Mt 8:28-34; Mk 5:1-20; Lk 8:26-39).

The miracle had a startling effect on the onlooking crowds — they marveled (Lk 11:14) in amazement (Mt 12:23). The only feasible explanation possible was: "Can this be the Son of David?" (Mt 12:23). This was a popular designation for the Messiah (Stauffer 13-15). Jesus confirmed their hope — the Messiah had arrived at last and the Kingdom of God has come upon you." (Mt 12:28, Lk 11:20)

The Pharisees (Mt 12:24), scribes of Jerusalem (Mk 3:22), and other enemies (Lk 11:15-16) offered another explanation. Unable to deny his superhuman power and the reality of the miracle, they attempted to discredit Him with their pat answer, 'He is in league with Satan and casts out demons by an unclean spirit' (Mt 9:34, 12:24; Mk 3:22; Lk 11:15). The Fourth Gospel sheds further light on this tendency to attribute Jesus' miracles to uncleanness (Jn 8:33-49). Jesus denied the Pharisees' claim to be children of Abraham in no uncertain terms. Because they did not practice the works of their supposed father, they were without doubt children of their spiritual father, the devil (Jn 8:39-41a, 44). Their question regarding the legitimacy of his birth exposed their plot to kill him (Jn 8:40-41). Satan, "the father of all liars" and a "murderer from the beginning" was undoubtedly their father (8:44). They counterattacked, "You are a Samaritan and have a demon" (8:48), implying that he was born out of wedlock, the son of an unclean Gentile and a degenerate Jew (see Stauffer 17; and Klausner 27-30 for Talmudic evidence). Discrediting the Messiah and the miracle, the Pharisees smugly answered the crowds' rhetorical question: "Can this be the Messiah?" with, "It is only by Beelzebul, the prince of demons that this man casts out demons" (Mt 12:24).

The name Beelzebul probably originated from the name of the god of Ekron, Baal-zebub (2 Kings 1:1-17; see Foerster 605 and Fensham 362ff.) Very likely beelzebouvl is a cacophemy (easier expression) for Baal-zebub with the meaning, "lord of filth" (Hebrew zebel means "dung."), or "master of uncleanness." This helps to elucidate the use of this expression by Jesus' enemies and Jesus' response in the Parable of the Empty House. If Judaism of his day did not link the concept of Satan with that of demons and their princes (Foerster 606), Jesus apparently did (Mt 12:26-27; Mk 3:238-26; Lk 11:18-19).

Exegetical Analysis

[Anudro" tovpoi — "waterless places" or "uninhabitable deserts" were considered the natural abode of demons (= unclean spirits; see Lev 16:10; Tobit 8:5; Mt 4:1; Mk 1:13; Lk 4:1-2, 8:29). The action of the demon represented by ejxelqh/ ("has gone out") and ejxh'lqon ("came") might imply that the demon was not driven out (exorcised) but left his victim voluntarily (so M'Neille 183 and Plummer 185). But these active verbs might be an overly literal translation of the underlying Aramaic, which avoids the passive, and so mean "driven out" (Jeremias 197).

The translation of adverbial participle ejlqovn (Mt 12:44; Lk 11:25) as temporal ("when") seems to imply that the relapse was inevitable. However, the underlying Aramaic grammatical construction would be better translated conditionally ("if"). If upon returning to his former residence, he finds it scolavzonta — "empty," "standing idle," or "at leisure" (Mt 12:44); sesarwmevnon — "swept;" and kekosmevnon — "garnished," "decorated," "put in order" (Mt 12:44; Lk 11:25) — that is, suitably prepared to receive guests (Jeremias 197) — the house is easy prey for more extensive demonic seduction (this is the significance of the number seven), who katoike'i ejkei' — "make it their permanent dwelling."

Statement of Teaching

The sides had been clearly drawn in this bitter controversy. Some believed that Jesus truly exercised the power of God's Kingdom (Mt 9:33, 12:23, 28; Lk 11:20). Some, demanding more conclusive proof (Mt 12:38, Lk 11:16), attributed his miracles to Satan. Others apparently refusing to take sides, chose to remain neutral. Thus, Jesus introduces the parable: "He who is not with me scatters" (Mt 12:30, Lk 11:23). Neutrality is impossible.

The closing application in Matthew (12:45c; cf. Lk 11:28) shows the parable to been an earnest warning to the Jewish nation of Jesus' day. After the Exile, Israel had abandoned idolatry, pledging allegiance to the Torah. Too often this was only a superficial moral reformation, resulting in "sham virtues and hypocritical graces" (Plummer 185) and empty hearts. The preaching of John the Baptist and Jesus had produced momentary religious excitement. But repentance that was not followed by submission to God's Rule produced only temporary results. "Swept and garnished" scribes and Pharisees were the objects of Jesus' most severe criticisms (Matthew 23; Lk 11:37-52) — outwardly respectable, but inwardly corrupt. The majority of the Jewish nation became prey to even greater Satanic domination than they had experienced before the Exile. They finally crucified the Lord of the Kingdom. This wickedness would bring destruction on their generation (Mt 23:36, Lk 11:51). Their "house" would be left to them forsaken and desolate (Mt 23:38; Lk 13:35). The disaster of A.D. 70 came in spite of the faithful warning of Jesus: "I would have gathered your children . . . and you would not" (Mt 23:37; Lk 13:34).

Application

We live in the age between Easter and the Parousia. Jerusalem has fallen. Israel is obdurate — hardened, stubbornly resistant to the gospel (Rom. 11:25). What is the message of this parable to us? Earle (128) writes that Jesus here warns against the danger of having only a partial conversion, a reformation without regeneration.... if one has a moral reformation without a spiritual transformation, the result ma well be that the last state of that man is worse than the first.

    

This truth is reemphasized in 2 Pet 2:20-22. Good works never save a man (Eph 2:8-9). Human moral striving always results in failure (Rom 7:7-25). But what law could not do, the indwelling Spirit of Christ does "in order that the just requirement of the law might be fulfilled in us, who walk . . . according to be Spirit" (Rom 8:4).

Christians are redeemed from sin and purified to God as a people exclusively his possession by renewal in the Holy Spirit (Tit 2:14; 3:5). The cleansed Christian is designed to be "a dwelling place of God in the Spirit" (Eph 2:22). "If anyone is purified from what is ignoble, then he will be a vessel for noble use, sanctified and useful to the master of the house, ready for any good work" (2 Tim 2:21). Faith, supplemented with the inward experience of Christ, will keep the Christian from falling away (2 Pet 1:5-10). Backsliding is not something predetermined and inevitable, but something for which the man himself is responsible.  The house must not remain empty....  A new master must reign there, the word of Jesus must be its rule of life and the joy of the kingdom of God must pervade it (Jeremias 198)