Harry Whittaker, who was a leading defender of Christadelphian theology, commented on the problematic nature of the popular “accommodation” theory most Christadelphians use when discussing the reference to “demons” in the Gospels (Christadelphian theology rejects the ontological existence of supernatural evil [Satan & Demons]) in his chapter 30 of Studies in the Gospels:
The “Accommodation” Theory
The explanation which seems to have found most favour among the readers of these studies assumes that Jesus, whilst not at all believing in or teaching the existence of unclean spirits, nevertheless fell in with the thinking of his contemporaries, tacitly adopting demonic modes of speech but without supporting or encouraging such ways of thinking.
The sheet anchor of this interpretative approach is the Baalzebub controversy: “If I by Baalzebub cast out devils, by whom do your children (i.e. your disciples) cast them out?” (Mt. 12: 27).
Here, it is suggested, Jesus adopted the standpoint of his adversaries simply for the sake of argument, solely in order to expose the illogicality of their thinking. And if he did so in this instance, may it not be safely assumed that in all his other references to demons he was following precisely the same method?
The simple answer is: It may not be so assumed! For this tacit adoption, for the sake of argument, of an erroneous point of view only crops up in discussion when seeking to confute a seriously false assumption made by one’s adversary (as in Mt. 12: 27). But in no other mention of demons was Jesus attempting to say: “Out of thine own mouth will I judge thee.”
On the contrary, in a score of places and more, when the Lord found himself confronted with a demoniac, he seems almost gladly to have fallen in with the idea, positively encouraging those who heard him to believe in the existence of such beings. And, equally important, the inspired gospel writers have, time after time, adopted precisely the same approach in a way which almost demands of the reader that he believe in demons.
An emphatic but quite typical example is Mark’s account (ch. 5) of the Gadarene demoniac:
· “A man with an unclean spirit” (v. 2: Mark’s ‘narrative).
· “He (Jesus) said unto him, Come out of the man, thou unclean spirit” (v. 8).
· “And all the devils besought him, saying, Send us into the swine” (v. 12: Mark’s narrative).
· “And forthwith Jesus gave them leave. And the unclean spirits went out, and entered into the swine” (v. 13: Mark’s narrative).
· “And they come and see him that was possessed with the devil...sitting, and clothed, and in his right mind” (v. 15: Mark’s narrative).
· “He that had been possessed with the devil prayed him that he might be with him” (v. 18: Mark’s narrative).
· Thus, five times in this God-guided account and once in the words of Jesus the reader is being steered to a belief in the reality of demons. In this fairly lengthy passage (20 verses) there is no hint that such a belief is an error of either major or minor importance.
It would be no difficult matter to assemble thirty or forty other verses from the gospels all of which similarly make tacit assumption that unclean spirits really exist — and all of them putting this idea in the very words of Jesus or of the men who were inspired to write about him.
This is the real problem. This is the big difficulty. And the “accommodation” theory is utterly unable to cope with it. Only by shutting one’s eyes to the frequency and plainness of such passages as those just cited is it possible to say that Jesus fell in with grossly mistaken ideas just for the sake of convenience.
Let the fact be faced that in any of these exorcism episodes the Lord could have set the whole matter straight in a couple of clear incisive sentences — yet he didn’t!
Accurate New Testament Diagnosis
Another much neglected fact of considerable importance is this: In a marked majority of instances, alongside the mention of demons, the gospels also provide a plain simple matter-of-fact diagnosis of the disabilities Jesus healed.
“A dumb man possessed with a devil, (Mt. 9: 32). “One possessed with a devil, blind and dumb: and he healed him” (12: 22). “(His friends said) He is beside himself. And the scribes said, He hath Baalzebub ... “ (Mk. 3: 21,22). The Gadarene demoniac was found “sitting, and clothed, and in his right mind” (Mk. 5: 15). “Lord, have mercy on my son: for he is epileptic... and Jesus rebuked the devil...” (Mt. 17: 15,18 RV). “And they that were vexed with unclean spirits were healed” (Lk. 6: 18). “A woman which had a spirit of infirmity... and was bowed together, and could in no wise lift up herself” (Lk. 13: 11). “He hath a devil, and is mad” (Jn. 10: 20; the same idea is implied in 7: 20 and 8: 48).
Let it be clearly understood, then, that in most instances the maladies from which these unfortunates suffered were clearly recognised and described. Mention of demons could be omitted without any loss of intelligibility — indeed, there might well be a gain in lucidity.
Thus the problem of demon terminology becomes more acute than ever.
Thomas Farrar, a former Christadelphian, has an excellent refutation of the (subversive) “accommodation” theory of demons/demon possession by Christadelphian apologists (e.g., Jonathan Burke; Duncan Heaster) at:
For more interactions with Christadelphian theology, see:
Support this blog:
Paypal