Logic of Jesus' rebuttal? (Mt 12:22ff)

[KyleB]

Jesus' response to the Pharisees' accusation to being in league with the devil was basically along the lines that Satan wouldn't be casting out his own minions, because a house divided against itself cannot stand. I have always seen a bit of a flaw in this logic, I would like to see what others think. When I say "flaw", I hope you understand that I don't think Jesus used flawed logic, just that it seems there is a way to think around the defense that He used, and I'm not sure why the Pharisees didn't respond in this way.

Basically, I'm talking about double-agents. If the U.S. wanted to get one of their people in tight with an enemy nation, they would be willing to sacrifice a certain amount of vital information that could cause some real harm to the U.S., in order to obtain the higher goal of making their plant seem like a genuine and valuable defector.

In the same way, if Jesus was from Satan (which I don't actually think), then wouldn't Satan be willing to allow a certain number of demons to be "cast out" in order to make Jesus seem like a good guy? And then once he had Israel in the palm of his hand via Jesus, he could begin implementing his real agenda. If Satan wanted to plant a false Messiah, wouldn't that be a good way to make him seem legit?

[jriccitelli]

A house divided will not stand, true.
Satan ‘could’ cast out his own to endorse the greater evil, and sacrifice the lesser.

I also have thought the reasoning at this point doesn’t do much to prove Jesus’ case. Jesus doesn’t refute that either could be true. And they all seem to understand either could be true, but Jesus warns them to beware of denying their conscience, that is; when the Holy Spirit speaks to their conscience, they are then held responsible by God for their accusations of Jesus, even without possible forgiveness. This seems to be a stern warning to be cautious, and not be throwing accusations around loosely.

My wonder is to whether the Pharisees ‘knew’ their sons were doing so falsely. This would automatically cause some concern for the Pharisees. Maybe they knew their own exorcists were a bit shady, and Jesus’ warning possibly made them think ‘we know our exorcists are shady’ yet we are accusing Jesus ‘without evidence’ of suspicion.

My second wonder was whether the judges would be the demons, or their sons. I suppose the real scary warning would be in ‘having the demons be their judges’.

[Paidion]

Kyle, I've often wondered about this, too. Indeed, it seems that the Saviour defeats His own argument:

And if Satan casts out Satan, he is divided against himself. How then will his kingdom stand? And if I cast out demons by Beelzebul, by whom do your sons cast them out? Therefore they will be your judges. (Matthew 12:26,26)

Unless the Jewish leaders cast out demons though the power of God, then they, too must cast the out through the power of Satan. But if they did, then wouldn't that also be "Satan casting out Satan"?

I must be missing something here. Can anyone help me out?

[dwilkins]

I agree with the OP. This has never made sense to me.

Doug

[jriccitelli]

I looked this up in at least three commentaries and was surprised that they all took Jesus question in vs. 26 (“And if Satan cast out Satan, he is divided against himself; how shall then his kingdom stand?”) as if Jesus meant that it was ‘impossible’ to ever be divided against oneself *, rather than seeing that ‘it is possible’ to do so – yet ‘eventually’ it will fail Jesus says. Thus warning them that although it was possible to be deceitful for a short while, it will catch up to you and fail ‘because’ it is deceitful. It reminds me of Gamaliel’s remark in Acts 5:39 “But if it is from God, you will not be able to stop these men; you will only find yourselves fighting against God.

(Verse 26 seems like a reference to common sense, as in ‘you can fool some of the people some of the time but…’ or ‘go ahead and do so, but you will find out the hard way’ or ‘you reap what you sow’, etc.)
Jesus seems to be advising them to take a deep hard look into their conscience because they’re selfish motivations and hardness were about to award them with eternal consequences. This reminds me of this verse;
"If I had not come and spoken to them, they would not have sin, but now they have no excuse for their sin. 23"He who hates Me hates My Father also. 24"If I had not done among them the works which no one else did, they would not have sin; but now they have both seen and hated Me and My Father as well. 25"But [they have done this] to fulfill the word that is written in their Law, THEY HATED ME WITHOUT A CAUSE.' 26"When the Helper comes, whom I will send to you from the Father, [that is] the Spirit of truth who proceeds from the Father, He will testify about Me, (John 15:22-26)

And this verse;
"And He, when He comes, will convict the world concerning sin and righteousness and judgment; 9 concerning sin, because they do not believe in Me; (John 16:8-9)

* For example this is a comment from Gills Exposition Comm;
“Our Lord's argument, and which is his first, for others follow, is, that since Satan, who is so cunning and crafty, can never be thought to act such an opposite part to himself, subversive of his kingdom and government; and which would give so much credit to Christ, and serve so much to strengthen his interest, as to assist him in the casting out of devils; the weakness, and maliciousness of such a suggestion, must be clear and evident to all…”

Like you said Kyle; rather it seems clear to all that Satan ‘could’ do good works in order to deceive, as Paul said “Don’t marvel for Satan himself is transformed into an angel of light”

(Speaking of commentaries, I appreciate Matthew Henry also, but why does it often read like Shakespeare?)

[mattrose]

I think you are right to point out that the logic isn't fool-proof.

But I don't think Jesus was attempting to make an air-tight argument

I think he was making a more general statement... why would satan oppose his own domain?

Of course, as you suggested, Jesus' opponents could have replied.. "it's a double agent strategy!"

While technically possible, it may have made them look rather like conspiracy theorists teetering on the edge of sanity.

I don't think they wanted (or were ready), at that point, to put forward such a nuanced theory

[steve7150]

But I don't think Jesus was attempting to make an air-tight argument










I agree and would add that when Jesus usually responded to the Pharisees it seemed like he didn't really care about convincing them of the errors of their ways perhaps because they were not teachable and Jesus knew it.
Like in John when they accused him of claiming to be God he quoted Psalms and said "is it not written you shall all be gods." That kind of answer is not meant to defend himself or convince them of anything.

[jriccitelli]

I think what you meant Steve is that Jesus did not quote the verse in John to ‘prove’ men could not be gods, indeed they were, but to warn them of what they were doing, and implying that HE knew what they were doing. The John verse is a good example of the judgment they could expect for making such judgments, when their own hearts must be telling them otherwise. You are correct that Jesus was convicting them of their own unteachable spirit. Matt. 12:37 seems to summarize what Jesus was saying;
"But I tell you that every careless word that people speak, they shall give an accounting for it in the day of judgment. 37 "For by your words you will be justified, and by your words you will be condemned."

The verse in Matt 12:27 (they will be your judges) was meant to convict them in much the same way as the verse in Psalms 82 does, severely;
“God takes His stand in His own congregation; He judges in the midst of the rulers. 2 How long will you judge unjustly And show partiality to the wicked? … 5 They do not know nor do they understand; They walk about in darkness; All the foundations of the earth are shaken. 6 I said, "You are gods, And all of you are sons of the Most High. 7 "Nevertheless you will die like men and fall like [any] one of the princes." 8 Arise, O God, judge the earth! For it is You who possesses all the nations.”

I noticed Matt 12:34 is a similar argument;
"You brood of vipers, how can you, being evil, speak what is good? For the mouth speaks out of that which fills the heart" Obviously evil people can speak good at times, but the intention of our own heart is ours to consider, and be warned to discern, thus we deceive ourselves and are held accountable (see vs.37).

[KyleB]

Thanks for all the help everybody, the different ideas help me get new perspectives on this.