Accusation that Jesus was serving the devil

[cloudyday2]

Most people are familiar with the scene in the synoptic gospels when the opponents of Jesus suggested that he was serving the devil and that was why his miracles often challenged a strict interpretation of the Jewish Law. Jesus responded according to Mark 3:23-27 RSV as follows:
'23 And he called them to him, and said to them in parables, “How can Satan cast out Satan? 24 If a kingdom is divided against itself, that kingdom cannot stand. 25 And if a house is divided against itself, that house will not be able to stand. 26 And if Satan has risen up against himself and is divided, he cannot stand, but is coming to an end. 27 But no one can enter a strong man’s house and plunder his goods, unless he first binds the strong man; then indeed he may plunder his house.'
Bible Gateway passage: Mark 3:23-27 - Revised Standard Version

Does this seem like a very weak argument to anybody else? Modern Christians routinely accuse miracle workers from other religions of serving the devil (knowingly or unknowingly). Empowering a false messiah to perform miracles in a way that would lead the Jews to disobey the Jewish Law would be a natural strategy for the devil. The expected behavior of the Antichrist is an example of this strategy. In our modern world the strategy is called a "false flag" quoting from Wikipedia:
'A false flag is a covert operation designed to deceive; the deception creates the appearance of a particular party, group, or nation being responsible for some activity, disguising the actual source of responsibility. ... The term today extends beyond naval encounters to include countries that organize attacks on themselves and make the attacks appear to be by enemy nations or terrorists, thus giving the nation that was supposedly attacked a pretext for domestic repression and foreign military aggression.'
( False flag - Wikipedia )

Any thoughts? It seems to me that Jesus could have responded better.

I would also be interested in discussing better responses that Jesus might have given. Maybe there isn't any better response. It seems that there should be a better response, but nothing is coming to mind yet.

 

[Sanoy]

That is a good question. On several occasions I have thought the same thing in reading this verse, though I have never been able to to construct a better argument than the one Jesus made. The accusation is that His power comes from Beelzebub, so it would be circular to prove Himself by a demonstration of power. Seems like the only other way would be to present a logical flaw in the accusation. I believe His statement relies upon contextual knowledge of the day that we are not privy to in regards to exorcism. For example, I have read in exorcism material that demons obey the adversary as if they are one and the same as him.

 

[cloudyday2]

That is a good question. On several occasions I have thought the same thing in reading this verse, though I have never been able to to construct a better argument than the one Jesus made. The accusation is that His power comes from Beelzebub, so it would be circular to prove Himself by a demonstration of power. Seems like the only other way would be to present a logical flaw in the accusation. I believe His statement relies upon contextual knowledge of the day that we are not privy to in regards to exorcism. For example, I have read in exorcism material that demons obey the adversary as if they are one and the same as him.

The concern that Jesus was serving the devil seemed to arise primarily from Jesus' habit of performing miracles on the Sabbath. Jesus might have responded to the Sabbath issue (as he did at other times in the gospel). Jesus might have found an example from the OT where an authentic servant of God performed a miracle on the Sabbath. Jesus might have argued that the Sabbath is a day for remembering God and what better reminder of God than a miracle. Jesus might have argued that outward, literal obedience to the Law was in fact disobedience and that Jesus was hoping to encourage true obedience by offending the sensibilities of the self-righteous nit-pickers.

 

[Sanoy]

The concern that Jesus was serving the devil seemed to arise primarily from Jesus' habit of performing miracles on the Sabbath. Jesus might have responded to the Sabbath issue (as he did at other times in the gospel). Jesus might have found an example from the OT where an authentic servant of God performed a miracle on the Sabbath. Jesus might have argued that the Sabbath is a day for remembering God and what better reminder of God than a miracle. Jesus might have argued that outward, literal obedience to the Law was in fact disobedience and that Jesus was hoping to encourage true obedience by offending the sensibilities of the self-righteous nit-pickers.

I think it would be best to formulate a better rebuttal and compare it to the one given. It's not clear to me what those rebuttals would be, or why they would be better against this accusation. To me it seems He is arguing from a logical contradiction or impossibility, which if successful, and that would be due to the spiritual context of that day, is pretty strong. Structural defeaters are usually more concrete than ones that work within the structure of an objection.

 

[cloudyday2]

I think it would be best to formulate a better rebuttal and compare it to the one given. It's not clear to me what those rebuttals would be, or why they would be better against this accusation. To me it seems He is arguing from a logical contradiction or impossibility, which if successful, and that would be due to the spiritual context of that day, is pretty strong. Structural defeaters are usually more concrete than ones that work within the structure of an objection.

Maybe you can explain your thoughts about exorcism mentioned in post #2. You said:
"I have read in exorcism material that demons obey the adversary as if they are one and the same as him."

I didn't follow that.

 

[cloudyday2]

A related topic is the way that demons identify Jesus as the "Holy One of God" and so forth. This behavior was consistent with the accusation that the demons were only pretending to be the foes of Jesus. What motive would the demons have for testifying in public that Jesus was the Messiah? What motive did Jesus have for silencing the demons?

One theory I have heard is that Jesus didn't want to be publicly identified as the Messiah until he was ready to be crucified, because the title was a death sentence.

 

[Sanoy]

Maybe you can explain your thoughts about exorcism mentioned in post #2. You said:
"I have read in exorcism material that demons obey the adversary as if they are one and the same as him."

I didn't follow that.

Sure. And I don't know if this is what Jesus meant, but that it could be. It seems from what I have read from Gabrielle Amorth, the chief exorcist of Rome, and the book hostage to the devil that any particular possession is the work of several demons that glom on, like muscle fibers until they reach enough strength to subdue the person. They form a whole identity, with their own name, like Legion. The same seems the be the case if you think of all demons as a whole. That would also be the adversary since they are all subservient like one body. To do harm to here is to do harm to yourself.

 

[paul1149]

Does this seem like a very weak argument to anybody else?

It would but for the context. Jesus had done not just one, not just a few, but many miracles. He had healed people physically and soulically. He had imparted hope. He had perfectly modeled the character of the loving God. He at one point dared His opponents to convict Him of sin. None could. At some point, to deny Him, and then even to dare to ascribe His good works to the devil, is inexcusable.

 

[Sanoy]

A related topic is the way that demons identify Jesus as the "Holy One of God" and so forth. This behavior was consistent with the accusation that the demons were only pretending to be the foes of Jesus. What motive would the demons have for testifying in public that Jesus was the Messiah? What motive did Jesus have for silencing the demons?

One theory I have heard is that Jesus didn't want to be publicly identified as the Messiah until he was ready to be crucified, because the title was a death sentence.

A scholar over at JSTOR ties this as a naming convention in regards to exorcism. It does make a lot of sense in that in a traditional exorcism the exorcist will compel the possessed to reveal it's name. This is something they try to resist because it is the last step to defeat. So this scholar believes it may be a threat rather than a confession. However Michael Heiser reveals that the title given for Jesus varies depending on whether Jesus is in the promised land or outside it. Unfortunately I can't remember the significance of that , other than it has to do with geographic cosmology and God's allotted Israel vs the Nations.

 

[cloudyday2]

Sure. And I don't know if this is what Jesus meant, but that it could be. It seems from what I have read from Gabrielle Amorth, the chief exorcist of Rome, and the book hostage to the devil that any particular possession is the work of several demons that glom on, like muscle fibers until they reach enough strength to subdue the person. They form a whole identity, with their own name, like Legion. The same seems the be the case if you think of all demons as a whole. That would also be the adversary since they are all subservient like one body. To do harm to here is to do harm to yourself.

The problem with that argument is that the demons could have been only pretending to have been forcibly evicted from the possessed person. They might have done some squealing and begging to put on a show for the crowd, but maybe they were all working together towards the common goal of encouraging the Jews to break the Sabbath rules and skip the ritual hand-washing ceremony and so forth.

 

[cloudyday2]

A scholar over at JSTOR ties this as a naming convention in regards to exorcism. It does make a lot of sense in that in a traditional exorcism the exorcist will compel the possessed to reveal it's name. This is something they try to resist because it is the last step to defeat. So this scholar believes it may be a threat rather than a confession. However Michael Heiser reveals that the title given for Jesus varies depending on whether Jesus is in the promised land or outside it. Unfortunately I can't remember the significance of that , other than it has to do with geographic cosmology and God's allotted Israel vs the Nations.

One commentator said that a theme of the gospel of Mark was the stupidity of the disciples. Everybody in the gospel recognizes Jesus as the Messiah (including demons) except for the people who know Jesus best - the disciples. So that might provide a literary explanation for the demonic recognition of Jesus.

I don't know about the name thing. I actually had an exorcism performed on me, and I remember the priest pronouncing various names from his exorcism prayer. So I know the names are important in the modern procedure, but I don't recall that Jesus ever asked the name of the demons except for "Legion". I think some of the focus on names comes from the tradition that beings had secret magical names that would give others power over them if publicized.

 

[Sanoy]

So I know the names are important in the modern procedure, but I don't recall that Jesus ever asked the name of the demons except for "Legion". I think some of the focus on names comes from the tradition that beings had secret magical names that would give others power over them if publicized.

Jesus doesn't need this method, He created the very things He is speaking to. There is a cultural context about names for demons which is what that article is about.

 

[Sanoy]

The problem with that argument is that the demons could have been only pretending to have been forcibly evicted from the possessed person. They might have done some squealing and begging to put on a show for the crowd, but maybe they were all working together towards the common goal of encouraging the Jews to break the Sabbath rules and skip the ritual hand-washing ceremony and so forth.

There isn't a response that would not entail the possibility that the demons are acting except for a logical challenge to the structure of the argument. This is why it is necessary to propose a better argument to compare it with.

 

[Nihilist Virus]

Most people are familiar with the scene in the synoptic gospels when the opponents of Jesus suggested that he was serving the devil and that was why his miracles often challenged a strict interpretation of the Jewish Law. Jesus responded according to Mark 3:23-27 RSV as follows:
'23 And he called them to him, and said to them in parables, “How can Satan cast out Satan? 24 If a kingdom is divided against itself, that kingdom cannot stand. 25 And if a house is divided against itself, that house will not be able to stand. 26 And if Satan has risen up against himself and is divided, he cannot stand, but is coming to an end. 27 But no one can enter a strong man’s house and plunder his goods, unless he first binds the strong man; then indeed he may plunder his house.'
Bible Gateway passage: Mark 3:23-27 - Revised Standard Version

Does this seem like a very weak argument to anybody else? Modern Christians routinely accuse miracle workers from other religions of serving the devil (knowingly or unknowingly). Empowering a false messiah to perform miracles in a way that would lead the Jews to disobey the Jewish Law would be a natural strategy for the devil. The expected behavior of the Antichrist is an example of this strategy. In our modern world the strategy is called a "false flag" quoting from Wikipedia:
'A false flag is a covert operation designed to deceive; the deception creates the appearance of a particular party, group, or nation being responsible for some activity, disguising the actual source of responsibility. ... The term today extends beyond naval encounters to include countries that organize attacks on themselves and make the attacks appear to be by enemy nations or terrorists, thus giving the nation that was supposedly attacked a pretext for domestic repression and foreign military aggression.'
( False flag - Wikipedia )

Any thoughts? It seems to me that Jesus could have responded better.

I would also be interested in discussing better responses that Jesus might have given. Maybe there isn't any better response. It seems that there should be a better response, but nothing is coming to mind yet.

This is similar to something that I had argued in the past. Christianity is consistent with something that Satan might invent:

1. It nullifies the existing covenant between God and his people

2. It encourages the worship of another god (recall that the trinity would not be concocted until centuries later)

If you're Satan and it's the year 300BC, how is Christianity not a good idea to you? Certainly Satan could appear as a man and perform miracles. That would have been within his power. Basically, he had the motive and opportunity.

Apparently we are supposed to believe that Satan is powerful, evil, cunning, and motivated against God, and yet he has accomplished next to nothing over thousands of years since the fall of man.

 

[cloudyday2]

This is similar to something that I had argued in the past. Christianity is consistent with something that Satan might invent:

1. It nullifies the existing covenant between God and his people

2. It encourages the worship of another god (recall that the trinity would not be concocted until centuries later)

If you're Satan and it's the year 300BC, how is Christianity not a good idea to you? Certainly Satan could appear as a man and perform miracles. That would have been within his power. Basically, he had the motive and opportunity.

Apparently we are supposed to believe that Satan is powerful, evil, cunning, and motivated against God, and yet he has accomplished next to nothing over thousands of years since the fall of man.

Take any Christian heresy as an example. The leader of the heresy often claims divine inspiration, and the orthodox Christians accuse that leader of either being a liar or delusional or deceived by the devil or even possessed. The reaction of the orthodox Jews of that era to Jesus was very similar, so why does Jesus get off so easily? Jesus seems to argue that it would be better to keep an open mind than to mistakenly dismiss divine inspiration of the Holy Spirit. Maybe Jesus is suggesting that "repent for the Kingdom of Heaven is near (or even upon us)" is a teaching somewhat like a fire alarm or an air raid siren - better safe than sorry. (Of course that argument is less convincing after 2000 years of waiting.)

 

[ananda]

Most people are familiar with the scene in the synoptic gospels when the opponents of Jesus suggested that he was serving the devil and that was why his miracles often challenged a strict interpretation of the Jewish Law. Jesus responded according to Mark 3:23-27 RSV as follows:
'23 And he called them to him, and said to them in parables, “How can Satan cast out Satan? 24 If a kingdom is divided against itself, that kingdom cannot stand. 25 And if a house is divided against itself, that house will not be able to stand. 26 And if Satan has risen up against himself and is divided, he cannot stand, but is coming to an end. 27 But no one can enter a strong man’s house and plunder his goods, unless he first binds the strong man; then indeed he may plunder his house.'
Bible Gateway passage: Mark 3:23-27 - Revised Standard Version

Does this seem like a very weak argument to anybody else? Modern Christians routinely accuse miracle workers from other religions of serving the devil (knowingly or unknowingly). Empowering a false messiah to perform miracles in a way that would lead the Jews to disobey the Jewish Law would be a natural strategy for the devil. The expected behavior of the Antichrist is an example of this strategy. In our modern world the strategy is called a "false flag" quoting from Wikipedia:
'A false flag is a covert operation designed to deceive; the deception creates the appearance of a particular party, group, or nation being responsible for some activity, disguising the actual source of responsibility. ... The term today extends beyond naval encounters to include countries that organize attacks on themselves and make the attacks appear to be by enemy nations or terrorists, thus giving the nation that was supposedly attacked a pretext for domestic repression and foreign military aggression.'
( False flag - Wikipedia )

Any thoughts? It seems to me that Jesus could have responded better.

I would also be interested in discussing better responses that Jesus might have given. Maybe there isn't any better response. It seems that there should be a better response, but nothing is coming to mind yet.

IMO the "better response" would've been an in-depth discussion of the scripture his opponents believed in, as a way to dispel ignorance.

 

[Sanoy]

∆I'm sure some posts in this thread will be moderated for being blasphemous, which is against the rules and the spirit of this forum. The vacancy of response has nothing to do with the viability of the assertion but the perceived pointlessness in engaging with some posters. Behaving poorly gives you posts that no one responds to, not the ability to claim victory because no one wants to talk to you.

 

[A_Thinker]

Most people are familiar with the scene in the synoptic gospels when the opponents of Jesus suggested that he was serving the devil and that was why his miracles often challenged a strict interpretation of the Jewish Law. Jesus responded according to Mark 3:23-27 RSV as follows:
'23 And he called them to him, and said to them in parables, “How can Satan cast out Satan? 24 If a kingdom is divided against itself, that kingdom cannot stand. 25 And if a house is divided against itself, that house will not be able to stand. 26 And if Satan has risen up against himself and is divided, he cannot stand, but is coming to an end. 27 But no one can enter a strong man’s house and plunder his goods, unless he first binds the strong man; then indeed he may plunder his house.'
Bible Gateway passage: Mark 3:23-27 - Revised Standard Version

Does this seem like a very weak argument to anybody else? Modern Christians routinely accuse miracle workers from other religions of serving the devil (knowingly or unknowingly). Empowering a false messiah to perform miracles in a way that would lead the Jews to disobey the Jewish Law would be a natural strategy for the devil. The expected behavior of the Antichrist is an example of this strategy. In our modern world the strategy is called a "false flag" quoting from Wikipedia:
'A false flag is a covert operation designed to deceive; the deception creates the appearance of a particular party, group, or nation being responsible for some activity, disguising the actual source of responsibility. ... The term today extends beyond naval encounters to include countries that organize attacks on themselves and make the attacks appear to be by enemy nations or terrorists, thus giving the nation that was supposedly attacked a pretext for domestic repression and foreign military aggression.'
( False flag - Wikipedia )

Any thoughts? It seems to me that Jesus could have responded better.

I would also be interested in discussing better responses that Jesus might have given. Maybe there isn't any better response. It seems that there should be a better response, but nothing is coming to mind yet.

I think that Jesus' answer can be better understood in regard to the "nature" of the works he was performing ... in that, He was doing "good".

Jesus healed persons, released persons from demonic oppression, fed people, raised persons from death, etc.

Perhaps Jesus was saying that ... whatever works Satan might perform or inspire, they wouldn't be "good" works.

Luke 14

1 One Sabbath, Jesus went to eat in the home of a leading Pharisee, and those in attendance were watching Him closely. 2 Right there before Him was a man with dropsy. 3 So Jesus asked the experts in the law and the Pharisees, “Is it lawful to heal on the Sabbath or not?”

4 But they remained silent.

Then Jesus took hold of the man, healed him, and sent him on his way. 5 And He asked them, “Which of you whose son or ox falls into a pit on the Sabbath day will not immediately pull him out?”

6 And they were unable to answer these questions.

 

[A_Thinker]

The concern that Jesus was serving the devil seemed to arise primarily from Jesus' habit of performing miracles on the Sabbath. Jesus might have responded to the Sabbath issue (as he did at other times in the gospel). Jesus might have found an example from the OT where an authentic servant of God performed a miracle on the Sabbath. Jesus might have argued that the Sabbath is a day for remembering God and what better reminder of God than a miracle. Jesus might have argued that outward, literal obedience to the Law was in fact disobedience and that Jesus was hoping to encourage true obedience by offending the sensibilities of the self-righteous nit-pickers.

Jesus essential and consistent response to the charge that He was violating the Sabbath was ... "that it is good ... to do good on the Sabbath".

Jesus also did relate from the Old Testament episodes where a strict parsing of the Law ... was not the best for the situation.

He did this when the Jewish religious leaders accused Him of allowing His disciples to glean from the fields on the Sabbath.

Jesus reminded His critics that ... when David was on the run from Saul, ... he requested, and was given access to the Temple shewbread, which by the Law was only available to the priests.

Matthew 12

1 At that time Jesus went through the grainfields on the Sabbath. His disciples were hungry and began to pick the heads of grain and eat them. 2 When the Pharisees saw this, they said to Him, “Look, Your disciples are doing what is unlawful on the Sabbath.”

3 Jesus replied, “Have you not read what David did when he and his companions were hungry? 4 He entered the house of God, and he and his companions ate the consecrated bread, which was not lawful for them to eat, but only for the priests.

5 Or haven’t you read in the Law that on the Sabbath the priests in the temple break the Sabbath and yet are innocent? 6 But I tell you that something greater than the temple is here.

7 If only you had known the meaning of ‘I desire mercy, not sacrifice,’ you would not have condemned the innocent. 8 For the Son of Man is Lord of the Sabbath.”

 

[A_Thinker]

Jesus had done not just one, not just a few, but many miracles. He had healed people physically and soulically. He had imparted hope. He had perfectly modeled the character of the loving God. He at one point dared His opponents to convict Him of sin. None could. At some point, to deny Him, and then even to dare to ascribe His good works to the devil, is inexcusable.

And it was, simply, incredulous that any persons would ascribe such exemplary behaviour to enemies of the good ...