Thursday, 22 April
I put up a good fight, but I was spectacularly defeated in the end.
By the end of Tuesday afternoon, my theory that Jesus was possessed by
the Holy Spirit lay in ruins, shot to pieces by Leonard’s counter-attack.
Unsurprisingly, Leonard’s explanation of the relationship that existed between
Jesus and the Holy Spirit was entirely to the contrary of my spirit-possession
model; Leonard believes that Jesus was the dominant, controlling force in the
relationship and that Jesus had possession of the Holy Spirit in
the same way that the magicians of antiquity had possession of their magically-acquired spirits.
He began his counter-hypothesis by pointing
out that the Gospel writers reveal that Jesus was able to transfer his miracle-working
powers to his twelve disciples (and to a further seventy-two disciples in the
Gospel of Luke) in order to grant them the ability to cast out demons, heal the
sick and raise the dead, therefore the power source that enabled Jesus to
perform miracles could not have been exclusive to Jesus alone and it could be transmitted
to others at will. Furthermore Leonard said that Jesus and the disciples are
capable of summoning these powers entirely at will and whenever a miracle is
required and this contradicts the standard model of possession in which it is
the possessing spirit that dictates at what time and to whom a possession episode
will manifest itself.
Leonard also mentioned that
the behaviours that are typically associated with spirit possession are absent
in the Gospel accounts of Jesus’ life. He said that since spirit-possessed
prophets and demon-possessed demoniacs were commonplace in the ancient world, Jesus’
contemporaries would surely have recognised the symptoms of spirit possession
and we would expect to encounter allegations made by observers, in the
polemical materials at least, that Jesus was exhibiting possession-like
behaviour. However this is not the case and the evidence is, in fact, to the
contrary.
Take, for example, the
hypnotic or somnambulistic form of possession in which the individual loses
awareness of himself and he is left with no memory of the events that took
place while he was in the possession trance. Leonard argued that if Jesus
performed miracles while in a somnambulistic state then he would experience moments
of disorientation or confusion immediately following a miracle and he may even
be unaware that he had performed a miracle. But not only do the Gospels authors
fail to record any amnesiac or disorientated behaviour in their accounts of
Jesus’ life, they promote a strong and recurrent theme that is entirely to the
contrary; each time the Gospel authors include a response from the crowds
immediately following a healing or exorcism the crowds do not comment on Jesus’
passive state but instead on the notable degree of authority that he exerts over his miracle-working powers.
To illustrate his point, Leonard
quoted from one or two Gospel passages in which the witnesses to Jesus’
miracles comment on the remarkable authority that Jesus has over his miracle-working
powers and he drew my attention to the recurrent theme of ‘exousia’ (a Greek
term meaning ‘authority’) that appears time and time again throughout the
Gospels. Then, as conclusive evidence for Jesus’ governance over his powers, he
asked me to read the temptation narrative in Matthew 4:1-11 and Luke 4:1-13. Leonard’s
argument followed that if the Gospel authors intended the reader to believe
that Jesus was spirit-possessed throughout his temptation in the wilderness,
then the dialogue should not be understood as taking place between the devil
and the person of Jesus, but between the devil and the possessing power (the
Holy Spirit), therefore interpreting the temptation narrative in terms of spirit-possession
paints the bizarre picture of the Holy Spirit - a spiritual power deriving
ultimately from God - being tested in its faithfulness to God. On the contrary,
Leonard believes that Jesus cannot be spirit-possessed in this instance since the
Gospel writers present the devil as repeatedly attempting to exploit Jesus’ human nature by tempting him to use his
powers for self-gratification (‘command that these stones be made
bread’), to frivolously test the strength
of his powers (‘cast yourself down: for it is written, He shall give his
angels charge concerning you: and in their hands they shall bear you up’) and to further his own authority
and self-importance (‘all these things I will give to you...if you will fall
down and worship me’).
By portraying the devil as appealing directly to Jesus’ human weaknesses,
the authors of Matthew and Luke affirm that Jesus himself directly determines
how his powers are employed and he can use his powers for beneficial purposes
or for evil/selfish gain if he so chooses. Therefore, Leonard argued, the implication
that Jesus had absolute autonomy in the application of his powers invalidates
the possibility that he was subject to passive divine-possession and indicates,
to the contrary, that he exerted a degree of authority and control over his spiritual
powers that was comparable to the proficiency in magical spirit manipulation that
was demonstrated by the magicians of the ancient world.
There is no doubt that I will recall further details from this
conversation over the next few weeks, but I have covered the main points here.
One thing was for certain that afternoon - it is unlikely that Leonard will be
joining the local church electoral roll anytime soon...
