Accusation that Jesus was serving the devil

[eleos1954]

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.

Gospels of Matthew, Mark, and Luke, which describe events from a similar point of view, as contrasted with that of John.

The synoptic (Matthew, Mark, Luke) gospels need to be studied together, as more details are given within/between them.

Matthew 12:22-30
Luke 11:14-23

 

[2PhiloVoid]

@2PhiloVoid and @FireDragon76 , it seems to me that the scribes had a very legitimate concern. The devil as the prince of darkness had authority over demons, and he was clever enough to sometimes add a sugar coating to his temptations. Look at the temptations faced by Jesus in the gospels. The devil offered Jesus authority over all the governments of the world in exchange for disobeying one of God's commandments. Why was it unreasonable for the scribes to be concerned that Jesus might be a false Messiah in the service of the devil? Observing the Sabbath was one of God's most important commandments. According to tradition, a Jewish army was slaughtered by their enemies, because they refused to defend themselves on the Sabbath. Jesus disrupted the solemnity of the synagogue with his miracle. The head of the synagogue politely asked Jesus to defer his miracles to a more appropriate time and place. Imagine if Benny Hinn had performed some healings on Easter at the Church of the Holy Sepulcher. St. Paul had similar concerns when some Corinthians were disrupting church by speaking in tongues and so forth.

Yes, but Jesus, as the Alpha and Omega God that He is, has Authority over the Sabbath. Hence, this context is important to grasp since it is being inferred by Mark in his Gospel. To see that in heremeneutical array, we just need to back up to, say, to Chapter 1, verse 1, and then take everything written from Chapter 1, 2 and on into 3, as we see the themes increasingly pertain to this eventual "confrontation" between Jesus and the Scribes (and by proxy, the Pharisees).

As Jesus says, He healed because the Sabbath was made for man, not man for the Sabbath, and He wished to give them 'signs' of His Authority and compassion, at that time. Of course, we all wish He'd do the same now.

 

[cloudyday2]

Yes, but Jesus, as the Alpha and Omega God that He is, has Authority over the Sabbath. Hence, this context is important to grasp since it is being inferred by Mark in his Gospel. To see that in heremeneutical array, we just need to back up to, say, to Chapter 1, verse 1, and then take everything written from Chapter 1, 2 and on into 3, as we see the themes increasingly pertain to this eventual "confrontation" between Jesus and the Scribes (and by proxy, the Pharisees).

As Jesus says, He healed because the Sabbath was made for man, not man for the Sabbath, and He wished to give them 'signs' of His Authority and compassion, at that time. Of course, we all wish He'd do the same now.

Take a step back and look at the big picture from a Christian perspective. I can't remember the details, but I believe Jesus healed a withered hand and thereby disrupted the Sabbath observance of all the Jews in that community. Ordinarily those Jews would have been studying the Torah to heal their withered SPIRITS. So Jesus put the withered hand of one person ahead of the withered SPIRITS of many people. Jesus said many times that people should focus their efforts on spiritual problems rather than physical problems. Just as people have been accused of selling their souls to the devil to gain temporary Earthly benefits, in this story Jesus encouraged that very same carnal thinking. ... Think of the story of Essau trading his birthright to Jacob for a bowl of stew to satisfy his physical hunger. ... Think also about the 666 video that you linked in another thread. The narrator found that King Solomon received 666 talents of gold each year and contrasted the carnal wisdom of Solomon (possible archetype of the Antichrist) with the spiritual wisdom of Jesus.

Of course the primary purpose of the miracles of Jesus was not benevolence. The purpose was to demonstrate that Jesus was the Messiah.

 

[cloudyday2]

Gospels of Matthew, Mark, and Luke, which describe events from a similar point of view, as contrasted with that of John.

The synoptic (Matthew, Mark, Luke) gospels need to be studied together, as more details are given within/between them.

Matthew 12:22-30
Luke 11:14-23

Can you elaborate?

 

[eleos1954]

Can you elaborate?

The miracles of Jesus were too many and too amazing to deny. A power more than human was at work in Him, but the spies who dogged His footsteps seeking to find grounds to accuse Him refused to admit the obvious—that He was the Son of God. Instead, they tried to argue that Jesus was in league with Beelzebub, the devil.

Mark 3:22-27.

By a simple but effective reply Jesus demolished the accusation of the teachers of the law. Jesus' work tore down the kingdom of Satan: He cast out demons, healed the sick, and set men and women free from the chains of sin and bad habits by which they were bound.

He pointed out clearly ... this was just the opposite of the manner in which Satan works (and they knew that) ... that is ... your accusations are contrary to what God is about.

His point was this ...

If (I) Jesus were in league with the devil, (I) He would do the works of Satan and build up Satan's kingdom, not destroy it.

House divided can not stand. Opposing forces can not stand together (side by side) without falling.

He was pointing out the Opposites ... good verses evil ... satan verses God.

 

[FireDragon76]

Jesus didn't put religion above helping people, and that's why I like him. I don't think I would like the pharisees at all.

 

[cloudyday2]

The miracles of Jesus were too many and too amazing to deny. A power more than human was at work in Him, but the spies who dogged His footsteps seeking to find grounds to accuse Him refused to admit the obvious—that He was the Son of God. Instead, they tried to argue that Jesus was in league with Beelzebub, the devil.

Mark 3:22-27.

By a simple but effective reply Jesus demolished the accusation of the teachers of the law. Jesus' work tore down the kingdom of Satan: He cast out demons, healed the sick, and set men and women free from the chains of sin and bad habits by which they were bound.

He pointed out clearly ... this was just the opposite of the manner in which Satan works (and they knew that) ... that is ... your accusations are contrary to what God is about.

His point was this ...

If (I) Jesus were in league with the devil, (I) He would do the works of Satan and build up Satan's kingdom, not destroy it.

House divided can not stand. Opposing forces can not stand together (side by side) without falling.

He was pointing out the Opposites.

Here is the link again to "false flag" operations ( False flag - Wikipedia ). If modern governments are clever and cynical enough to attack themselves (using covert operators pretending to be enemies) then wasn't it reasonable for the scribes to worry about this possibility with Jesus? The Bible itself mentions false Messiahs prior to Jesus and false Messiahs after Jesus. Modern Christians worry about religious cult members who are wonderful people but lead Christians astray (think of the Jehovah's Witnesses).

 

[eleos1954]

Here is the link again to "false flag" operations ( False flag - Wikipedia ). If modern governments are clever and cynical enough to attack themselves (using covert operators pretending to be enemies) then wasn't it reasonable for the scribes to worry about this possibility with Jesus? The Bible itself mentions false Messiahs prior to Jesus and false Messiahs after Jesus. Modern Christians worry about religious cult members who are wonderful people but lead Christians astray (think of the Jehovah's Witnesses).

No doubt deceptions goes on. In the verses He was talking to people who believed in God (not governments) ... and He let them know, reminded them .... God is not in cahoots with the devil, God is against the devil. ie Does God do good (healing a man with a demon) to promote evil or to promote good?

The story is also centered on the Sabbath. The Pharisees considered healing a "work" and prohibited any "work" on the Sabbath and Jesus let them know this is not so ... it is ok to do good on the Sabbath.

Luke 6:6-11
Mark 3:1-6

This *miracle astonished the crowds. However, some *Pharisees said, ‘No! This man sends *demons away by the power of Beelzebub [the devil], who is the prince of *demons’. (Matthew 12:24)

The *Pharisees themselves tried to cure people who were in the control of *demons. So, Jesus asked this question as a reply to these *Pharisees:

If Jesus did this with the help of *demons, how did the *Pharisees do it?

That is ... if you are claim you are trying to or do heal people... then are you the devil?

Pointed out their hypocrisies.

 

[cloudyday2]

This *miracle astonished the crowds. However, some *Pharisees said, ‘No! This man sends *demons away by the power of Beelzebub [the devil], who is the prince of *demons’. (Matthew 12:24)

The *Pharisees themselves tried to cure people who were in the control of *demons. So, Jesus asked this question as a reply to these *Pharisees:

If Jesus did this with the help of *demons, how did the *Pharisees do it?

That is ... if you are claim you are trying to or do heal people... then are you the devil?

Pointed out their hypocrisies.

If you temporarily forget who made that argument and think about the argument itself, I think you will realize that it was very weak. For one thing, the Pharisees were not encouraging Jews to be lax in their observance of the Sabbath rules as seemed to be the case with Jesus.

 

[FireDragon76]

Jesus didn't put religion above helping people, and that's why I like him. I don't think I would like the pharisees at all.

Yuval Harari, the award-winning Israeli historian, often ridicules this sort of notion of religion and this view of God in his lectures, BTW ("God the stickler for petty rules"). I don't think he likes that kind of religion one bit. And there's still plenty of it going on in Israel, so he probably knows what he's talking about.

 

[FireDragon76]

If you temporarily forget who made that argument and think about the argument itself, I think you will realize that it was very weak. For one thing, the Pharisees were not encouraging Jews to be lax in their observance of the Sabbath rules as seemed to be the case with Jesus.

As Jesus said, the Sabbath was made for man, not man for the Sabbath.

Christians have not fully internalized Jesus' teachings still. Every time an act of kindness or compassion is sacrificed in the name of religious propriety, Jesus is crucified all over again (like in the case of certain bakers or florists).

 

[cloudyday2]

One thought in defense of the naivety of the argument presented by Jesus is that "false flag" operations are designed to sway some body of public opinion in the direction desired by the instigator. Prior to modern democracies there may have been little thought given to "false flag" operations. Of course, regardless of whether or not Jesus and his audience had considered the possibility of "false flag" operations the devil would have given them consideration.

 

[FireDragon76]

Here is the link again to "false flag" operations ( False flag - Wikipedia ). If modern governments are clever and cynical enough to attack themselves (using covert operators pretending to be enemies) then wasn't it reasonable for the scribes to worry about this possibility with Jesus? The Bible itself mentions false Messiahs prior to Jesus and false Messiahs after Jesus. Modern Christians worry about religious cult members who are wonderful people but lead Christians astray (think of the Jehovah's Witnesses).

It might have been "reasonable", but Jesus is appealing to something beyond that sort of reason. He's appealing to our humanity that predates patriarchal religion.

 

[cloudyday2]

As Jesus said, the Sabbath was made for man, not man for the Sabbath.

Give that saying some thought. If the Sabbath was made for man's benefit then shouldn't it be respected?

 

[FireDragon76]

Give that saying some thought. If the Sabbath was made for man's benefit then shouldn't it be respected?

Not at the expense of works that benefit actual human beings. Healing would qualify as that.

BTW, most Jews today believe it is acceptable to work at hospitals on the Sabbath.

 

[2PhiloVoid]

Take a step back and look at the big picture from a Christian perspective.

... I thought that was what I was already doing.

 

[eleos1954]

If you temporarily forget who made that argument and think about the argument itself, I think you will realize that it was very weak. For one thing, the Pharisees were not encouraging Jews to be lax in their observance of the Sabbath rules as seemed to be the case with Jesus.

This is true and is exactly why they had a problem with Him (Jesus) healing on the on the Sabbath. It may "seem" like a weak argument to us ... but to the Jews in the day ... it was the law ... the law and the LAW! ;o) Very very strict adherence was expected by the Pharisees.

Jesus taught to keep the Sabbath .... but basically don't be stupid about it .... Jesus taught it's ok to do good on the Sabbath.

Luke 14

4But they remained silent. Then Jesus took hold of the man, healed him, and sent him on his way. 5And He asked them, “Which of you whose son or ox falls into a pit on the Sabbath day will not immediately pull him out?”

 

[cloudyday2]

... I thought that was what I was already doing.

Would you agree that one feature distinguishing Christianity from other forms of Judaism and the contemporary "pagan" religions was its focus on our fate in a future world (such as heaven or a Messianic age) and indifference to our fate in the current world?

If so, then how could the gospel writer have dismissed the traditional Sabbath activities in preference for healing a withered hand that was destined to rot in a grave in a short time regardless?

 

[FireDragon76]

Would you agree that one feature distinguishing Christianity from other forms of Judaism and the contemporary "pagan" religions was its focus on our fate in a future world (such as heaven or a Messianic age) and indifference to our fate in the current world?

Early followers of Jesus (and Jews today) simply did not think that way. Your are reading into the text a religious perspective that wouldn't exist until centuries later, onto the New Testament.

Keep in mind Jesus healing comes shortly after reading from the Isaiah scroll. Through his healing he is proclaiming his mission to fulfill the messianic prophecy. That's how early Christians understood Jesus, as the Jewish messiah. Not primarily as the supernatural figure imbued with metaphysical significance of later Christian theology.

 

[2PhiloVoid]

Would you agree that one feature distinguishing Christianity from other forms of Judaism and the contemporary "pagan" religions was its focus on our fate in a future world (such as heaven or a Messianic age) and indifference to our fate in the current world?

If so, then how could the gospel writer have dismissed the traditional Sabbath activities in preference for healing a withered hand that was destined to rot in a grave in a short time regardless?

Seriously? My answer would be "no" to your first question above. As to your second question, since Jesus was showing that He is Lord OVER the Sabbath, then He can do works of beneficence on it that He sees fit to do. Besides, even on the Sabbath, one must still eat and do the beneficial act of drawing the spoon from the bowl up to one's mouth, so to speak. Neither was it against the Law to help others "eat" on the Sabbath; and likewise, the Jews should have known that it wasn't against the Law to show grace, mercy, love or beneficence on the Sabbath either.

But did I also mention that Jesus is Lord OVER the Sabbath as well? ...Oh, yes. Yes He IS! So, let's give Him a break! Maybe just this once.