and when a household is divided against itself, it will not be able to last.
load bearing walls
carry removal consequences
simple houses are clear
remove a certain wall and all collapses
those which have lasted a while
cannot easily tell essentials any more
historians and structural architects
are called to put their skills to use
is this plank in a creed now needed
what about the whole of the doctrine
a beautiful wall covering
claiming structural authority
confuses DIYs and professionals
about options helpful and disastrous
who can tell truth from falsehood
asks cummings’ Santa Claus
to which comes our fatal flaw
saying more than we know
with load bearing language suspect
all falls down
In good Hebraic fashion the effect of a divided land is put in parallel—kingdom and house.
Myers sees Mark’s use of these terms, here and elsewhere, to turn the tables. “Kingdom” is equated with a centralized state and “House” or Temple its symbolic center.
This far removed from the debate means we need to engage our imaginations to begin getting a better flavor of the vigor of the argument. This is not just a fine point being made, but a broad stroke aimed to take off a head.
If we were present at the time we may have heard in the original complaint that Jesus was taking orders from Beelzebul. That title can be seen as “Baal-zebul”, a Canaanite deity translatable as “Lord of the House”.
Again we have come around from an accusation playing on an image of a “house” to moving toward a response both dividing that house and re-assigning it to the defendant, Jesus. This rapid-fire response builds through parallel referents as though it were a flash flood washing away all in its path.
First, division is not being is at stake here, but a reordering of all.
Second, a kingdom divided is now or soon will be at civil war.
Third, a house empty on the inside will fall down.