Why did some people say Jesus had a demon in John 10:20? Historical Background: Demon Accusations In Second-Temple Judaism Claims of demonization were the common Jewish way to explain a teacher whose actions were viewed as spiritually dangerous (cf. 1 Samuel 18:10; 2 Kings 9:11). Rabbinic tradition after A.D. 70 likewise labels Jesus a sorcerer (t. Sanhedrin 9.7; b. Sanhedrin 43a), confirming that hostile listeners chose supernatural malignancy—not mere error—to account for His power. Pattern Of Repeated Accusations • John 7:20: “You have a demon.” • John 8:48, 52: same charge after the “I AM” statements. • John 10:20: climactic repetition. The Gospel writer highlights an entrenched narrative of unbelief rather than an isolated insult. Immediate Causes For John 10:20 1. Radical Self-Claims • “I am the good shepherd” (10:11). • “I lay down My life... I have authority to take it up again” (10:18). • Implied equality with Yahweh of Ezekiel 34, prompting shock (cf. 10:30). To opponents, such claims crossed from messianic hope to blasphemous delusion. 2. Sabbath Controversy and Messianic Signs The healing of the congenitally blind man (chap. 9) occurred on a Sabbath (9:14). Religious leaders who could not deny the miracle labeled the miracle-worker himself demonic to protect their Sabbath traditions (cf. Mark 3:22). 3. Threat to Religious Hierarchy Jesus called false shepherds “thieves and robbers” (10:8). Those exposed responded with character assassination—a recognized social defense mechanism. 4. Messianic Misconceptions Many expected a political liberator. A non-violent, self-sacrificial shepherd seemed inconsistent, permitting critics to brand Him irrational. Theological Explanation: Spiritual Blindness John 10:26—“But you do not believe because you are not My sheep.” Scripture locates the root of the accusation in hardened unbelief (Isaiah 6:9-10; 2 Corinthians 4:4), not in evidential inadequacy. Contrasting Evidence: Jesus’ Works Vs. Demonic Activity • Demons produce destruction (Mark 5:4-5); Jesus restores wholeness (John 9:25). • Demons fear Christ’s authority (Luke 4:34); they do not empower Him. • Logic posed by the crowd: “Can a demon open the eyes of the blind?” (10:21). The rhetorical question mirrors Jesus’ own argument in Matthew 12:24-28—evil cannot sustainably oppose itself. Extra-Biblical Corroboration Josephus notes Jesus as a doer of “paradoxical works” (Ant. 18.63–64). The Babylonian Talmud, though hostile, admits “Yeshu” performed wonders. Both sources affirm real phenomena, leaving attribution (God or demons) as the hinge of interpretation. Pastoral Application Believers should expect similar slurs (Matthew 10:25). The correct response is gracious proclamation and appeal to the works of God evident in changed lives and historical fact. Conclusion The charge in John 10:20 sprang from hardened unbelief confronted by undeniable miracle and unprecedented self-revelation. Scripture, historical testimony, rational analysis, and the risen Christ all converge to show that the accusation reveals more about the accusers’ blindness than about Jesus’ identity. |
    |