The Return of
the Unclean Spirit
Matthew 12:43-45 (parallel:
Luke 11:24-26)
Kim Hersey
SETTING
In Matthew, this parable is part of a long discourse in response to the Pharisees, who had accused Jesus of being able to cast out demons only by Beelzebul, the prince of demons (Matt. 12:24). Jesus responds, as Matthew recounts it, with several parables about the power of God and the danger of attributing that power to Satan (Matt. 12:25-37). The Pharisees then ask for a sign (Matt. 12:38), presumably to prove that he is not acting by Satan’s power. Jesus again responds with teaching and parables, teaching that no sign will be given except the sign of Jonah (Matt. 12:39-42). The parable he tells is the parable of the unclean spirit returning to the empty house. So, this parable is told in a setting of conflict between Jesus and the Pharisees. [1]
Throughout the Gospels, the evangelists make references to
evil spirits, or demons. It seems that the idea of evil spirits was widely accepted in
Jesus time. These evil spirits seemed to cause various sorts of problems in peoples’
lives. [2] On numerous occasions, Jesus commands evil spirits to come out of men. [3]
Thus, the element of supernatural beings in this parable is not outside the realm of
"everyday life" that is so characteristic of Jesus’ parables.
EXEGETICAL ANALYSIS
The beginning of this parable is not unexpected. The audience was familiar with unclean spirits coming out of people. One belief held about these evil spirits was that they inhabited the desert regions of Israel. [4] Thus, speaking of an evil spirit going out of a man and passing through "waterless places" is not new; Jesus is merely telling the story as the audience would expect it to happen.
When the unclean spirit returns, he finds the house "empty, swept, and put in order." Matthew’s account of this parable is the only one to add "unoccupied," indicating an empty house expecting a new tenant (Harrington 191). Joachim Jeremias expands this idea to suggest that the house is "prepared for the ceremonious reception of a guest" (197, emphasis added). Whether the house is waiting for someone important to arrive, as Jeremias hints, or just a new tenant, the fact remains that "empty houses never remain empty" (Buttrick 404).
The evil spirit returns, bringing with him seven spirits more evil than himself. The house is unoccupied and ready for their return. Jeremias writes, of the seven demons, "Seven is the number of totality; the seven evil spirits represent every form of demonic seduction and wickedness" (197). The obvious result of the story is that the man is now much worse off than before.
At first glance this seems to be a problem. If the man is worse off than before, then having the spirit go out of him is meaningless. Jeremias explains that the Semitic grammar for v. 44b-45 is a conditional "if-then" construction, and not merely a matter of fact (197).
Only Matthew’s account of this parable adds the
conclusion, "So shall it be also with this evil generation." Harrington seems to
think that Matthew is applying this parable within a more accurate historical context,
linking its application to the original audience, whereas Luke’s omission of the
phrase makes it a more individualized context and application (191). Jeremias does not see
it as a more accurate context; he notes that the Greek phrase applying the parable to the
Jewish people is found twelve times in Matthew’s gospel and is found only in Matthew
(84, n. 74). He concludes, and is likely correct, that this conclusion is a secondary
literary characteristic of Matthaean origin (Jeremias 106).
MESSAGE
The parable describes one who has been freed from an evil spirit. To whom is that metaphor referring? William E. McCumber notes three main possibilities:
The physically exorcised individuals who did not become spiritual followers of Jesus
The crowds who came to hear Jesus teach but did not enter the Kingdom of God
The Jewish nation, delivered from bondage and captivity, who fell victim to a legalistic religious system (93)
The message of the parable allows it to be true of all three, but the literary setting in Matthew leans toward the third option, at least as the meaning of the parable for the Evangelist. As with many of Jesus’ parables, this one invites a response from His hearers, the Pharisees.
The message of this parable must have been a powerful one to the Pharisees. They were the ones who worked to have their lives "clean, swept, and in order." The parable is "illustrative of one for whom religion is basically negative" (Augsberger 163). The Pharisees were enamored with Jewish ritual, Law, and custom. They could not, or would not, see that Jesus was changing lives by the power of God, not the prince of demons.
Jesus’ answer to them, through this parable, was to show them that simply avoiding or removing evil was not enough. There must be a new tenant in the house. Jesus’ difference from the ritual and Law was that with Him, "the kingdom itself comes and fills the heart" (Schweizer 294). As Jeremias puts it, "The house must not remain empty when the spirit hostile to God has been expelled. 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" (198). It was not enough to clean up their lives, and avoid the evil around them. They must make internal room for Jesus to change them, inside and then out.
APPLICATION
McCumber’s three possible applications are true today as well. On an individual level, a person who has been forgiven and cleansed can choose not to have the new tenant move in. The house is ready, as Jeremias noted, for the ceremonious arrival of a guest of honor—the Holy Spirit. It is sadly true that one can reject His arrival and moving in to reign over one’s life.
On a societal level today, as with the crowds who heard Jesus teach, there is much interest in spirituality. There is interest in purifying one’s soul, getting rid of evil, and achieving harmony with one’s inner self. The crowds are interested, in large measure, in the teachings of Jesus. Yet, they are listening and choosing not to enter the Kingdom of God. Sadly, the parable indicates that their final condition will be worse than the first.
Finally, as a Church, we must hear the message of the parable as it applied to the Jewish nation, God’s people. Our rituals are not enough. We cannot legislate holiness. We cannot simply look pure or righteous from the outside. We must allow the new tenant, the Spirit of God, to move in and reign as Lord of our lives, personally and corporately. We must allow Him to fill our houses awaiting His arrival after they have been swept clean. We must not allow a cleaning and then refuse the new tenant, with His new life and new reign, or we will find ourselves much worse off than ever before.