What is a “jezebel spirit”?

[Asforme&myhouse]

see:



That is a separate concept from Jezebel spirit, although I think it get's mixed up with it.

There seems to be some variance in how Jezebel spirit is described. Although I can't help but notice how it covers a lot of the common sin's of women today. I tend to suspect it get's used as a catchall for "badly behaving woman". But women also have a carnal nature, and don't require demon possession to sin.

Yeah, I agree that our sin nature needs very little help in the, causing problems and sinning department.

—————————————————

The only place in scripture where Jezebel is mentioned, outside of the historical narrative in 1st and 2nd Kings is in Revelation.
Revelation 2:20 KJV
[20] Notwithstanding I have a few things against thee, because thou sufferest that woman Jezebel, which calleth herself a prophetess, to teach and to seduce my servants to commit fornication, and to eat things sacrificed unto idols.

Nothing in that warning sounds like what folks are calling a “Jezebel spirit” here.

We could actually get pretty carried away here talking about angels, demons, unclean spirits, etc ... And honestly, it’s an important discussion for believers to have! Too many Christians stick their head in that sand and ignore the kingdom of darkness!

I personally believe there’s a difference between angels and demons.

I agree, I don’t think we should put are heads in the sand about the enemy’s devices. I do think that we as christians oftentimes get distracted by things that peak our curiosity and forget to watch out for the things that we are warned about the most in scripture, like false teachers, false prophets, false anointed ones, and false apostles, that would be among us. The New Testament is chocked full of warnings about those people, but they still rarely get mentioned among believers.

 

[Asforme&myhouse]

I don't have any input on this topic, but no joke, I've known someone named Jezebel.

Close enough! Stone her!

 

[rockfox]

Nothing in that warning sounds like what folks are calling a “Jezebel spirit” here.

I wouldn't get caught up on the name itself or being pedantic about it not being literally called out in the Bible by name. What's more important is: Is the concept true?

There are a lot of things the Bible doesn't explain, but which obviously exist, especially in spiritual warfare. This may be one of them. It is at least worth considering but I wouldn't get too caught up on this subject one way or the other.

 

[FollowingHim]

What's more important is: Is the concept true?

Exactly. As @FollowingHim2 has outlined, some people clearly exhibit hyper-controlling tendencies, and appear to have demonic influences either causing or encouraging this.
I doubt there's one particular demon that goes by the name "Jezebel Spirit". However there's certainly something(s) that does this, and has been labelled as the "Jezebel spirit" by many people. This label is then a helpful tool when discussing it / them.

 

[steve]

This label is then a helpful tool when discussing it / them.

Quite so. The pattern occurs often enough to make it quite identifiable, and the label is a shortcut for the description.
And I just wanted to mention that the”Ahab spirit” is often seen in her male partner. Spiritual being or not, it describes his nature all too often.

 

[Asforme&myhouse]

I think it’s easy to blame demons for people’s personal sin and behavior. Not saying people are not influenced by the spiritual realm, but I think we often blame the spiritual realm when it’s just our stinking flesh.

 

[steve]

At the same time, I think that it is all too easy to ignore the influence of the enemy and his army.
The first sin, committed by eve, was definitely influenced by an interaction that was beyond just her desires.

 

[Cap]

Close enough! Stone her!

Only if her last name was Spirit.

 

[Cap]

I think it's pretty easy to relate the "Jezebel Spirit" to feminism.

 

[Asforme&myhouse]

At the same time, I think that it is all too easy to ignore the influence of the enemy and his army.
The first sin, committed by eve, was definitely influenced by an interaction that was beyond just her desires.

Yes, but remember that Eve didn’t have a sin nature at that time, we do.

 

[rockfox]

Exactly. As @FollowingHim2 has outlined, some people clearly exhibit hyper-controlling tendencies, and appear to have demonic influences either causing or encouraging this.
I doubt there's one particular demon that goes by the name "Jezebel Spirit". However there's certainly something(s) that does this, and has been labelled as the "Jezebel spirit" by many people. This label is then a helpful tool when discussing it / them.

There is an argument that it is a class of demons.

One must be careful however not to blame on a demon that which could simply be an extreme personality type. However, to say someone has a 'spirit of x' like 'spirit of pride' or somesuch in an colloquial/idiomatic sense may not necessarily mean demonic influence or possession. Could be wrong about that though.

And I just wanted to mention that the”Ahab spirit” is often seen in her male partner. Spiritual being or not, it describes his nature all too often.

Could you describe this?

 

[steve]

Could you describe this?

We may have more of the Ahab spirit than we have of the Jezebel spirit today in our society and the churches as men are taught that masculinity is toxic.
This is just from the top of my head, but Ahab, while being the king, allowed his wife to operate in his authority and she did so in evil ways. He allowed and empowered Jezebel to be a Jezebel.

(It’s funny how, even after using the name Jezebel several times, it took until this usage before auto-correct would recognize and suggest it.)

 

[rockfox]

We may have more of the Ahab spirit than we have of the Jezebel spirit today in our society and the churches as men are taught that masculinity is toxic.
This is just from the top of my head, but Ahab, while being the king, allowed his wife to operate in his authority and she did so in evil ways. He allowed and empowered Jezebel to be a Jezebel.

(It’s funny how, even after using the name Jezebel several times, it took until this usage before auto-correct would recognize and suggest it.)

Just sounds like Adam all over again.

 

[Verifyveritas76]

Something I found when studying on the Nicolaitans. Granted its from Tertullian and I’m not his biggest fan because of his later works but . . . . ?

But how far (are we to treat) of Paul; since even John appears to give some secret countenance to the opposite side? as if in the Apocalypse he has manifestly assigned to fornication the auxiliary aid of repentance, where, to the angel of the Thyatirenes, the Spirit sends a message that He "hath against him that he kept (in communion) the woman Jezebel, who calleth herself a prophet, and teacheth, and seduceth my servants unto fornicating and eating of idolsacrifice. And I gave her bounteously a space of time, that she might enter upon repentance; nor is she willing to enter upon it on the count of fornication. Behold, I will give her into a bed, and her adulterers with herself into greatest pressure, unless they shall have repented of her works." I am content with the fact that, between apostles, there is a common agreement in rules of faith and of discipline. For, "Whether (it be) I," says (Paul), "or they, thus we preach." Accordingly, it is material to the interest of the whole sacrament to believe nothing conceded by John, which has been taffy refused by Paul. This harmony of the Holy Spirit whoever observes, shall by Him be conducted into His meanings. For (the angel of the Thyatirene Church) was secretly introducing into the Church, and urging justly to repentance, an heretical woman, who had taken upon herself to teach what she had learnt from the Nicolaitans. For who has a doubt that an heretic, deceived by (a spurious baptismal) rite, upon discovering his mischance, and expiating it by repentance, both attains pardon and is restored to the bosom of the Church?



From <http://www.earlychristianwritings.com/text/tertullian32.html>

I’m not convinced that the woman’s name was actually Jezebel, rather that she was probably called that as a derogatory name because of her actions. I could be wrong bout that though.

 

[Slumberfreeze]

Where does the knowledge that a Jezebel spirit is a particular demon come from?

John Ramirez identifies the Jezebel spirit as a demonic entity, and I believe met her in the same vision that brought him out of satanism to become a christian. I know he's not the only one to have identified her as such, but if I may appeal to authority, he served with and under David Wilkerson. Wilkerson himself identified Jezebel as both a spirit and a doctrine. IMO the difference between a spirit and a doctrine is almost academic; not because the word spirit is a euphemism for doctrine, but because the nature of what a spirit is is closely aligned to embodying a concept as its essential and unchangeable nature.

 

[Asforme&myhouse]

John Ramirez identifies the Jezebel spirit as a demonic entity, and I believe met her in the same vision that brought him out of satanism to become a christian. I know he's not the only one to have identified her as such, but if I may appeal to authority, he served with and under David Wilkerson. Wilkerson himself identified Jezebel as both a spirit and a doctrine. IMO the difference between a spirit and a doctrine is almost academic; not because the word spirit is a euphemism for doctrine, but because the nature of what a spirit is is closely aligned to embodying a concept as its essential and unchangeable nature.

The doctrine of the Jezebel spirit came from David Wilkerson? Fascinating.
If you go to John Ramirez ministries home page, the first things to pop up are books he’s selling that seem to be advertised as giving a look into the demonic spiritual world that would seem to have previously been secret. Also fascinating.

 

[Asforme&myhouse]

Something I found when studying on the Nicolaitans. Granted its from Tertullian and I’m not his biggest fan because of his later works but . . . . ?

But how far (are we to treat) of Paul; since even John appears to give some secret countenance to the opposite side? as if in the Apocalypse he has manifestly assigned to fornication the auxiliary aid of repentance, where, to the angel of the Thyatirenes, the Spirit sends a message that He "hath against him that he kept (in communion) the woman Jezebel, who calleth herself a prophet, and teacheth, and seduceth my servants unto fornicating and eating of idolsacrifice. And I gave her bounteously a space of time, that she might enter upon repentance; nor is she willing to enter upon it on the count of fornication. Behold, I will give her into a bed, and her adulterers with herself into greatest pressure, unless they shall have repented of her works." I am content with the fact that, between apostles, there is a common agreement in rules of faith and of discipline. For, "Whether (it be) I," says (Paul), "or they, thus we preach." Accordingly, it is material to the interest of the whole sacrament to believe nothing conceded by John, which has been taffy refused by Paul. This harmony of the Holy Spirit whoever observes, shall by Him be conducted into His meanings. For (the angel of the Thyatirene Church) was secretly introducing into the Church, and urging justly to repentance, an heretical woman, who had taken upon herself to teach what she had learnt from the Nicolaitans. For who has a doubt that an heretic, deceived by (a spurious baptismal) rite, upon discovering his mischance, and expiating it by repentance, both attains pardon and is restored to the bosom of the Church?



From <http://www.earlychristianwritings.com/text/tertullian32.html>

I’m not convinced that the woman’s name was actually Jezebel, rather that she was probably called that as a derogatory name because of her actions. I could be wrong bout that though.

Terllian also claimed that ‘monogamy only’ was a new teaching of The Holy Spirit that was given in his time, but hadn’t been given to the Apostles. Interesting none the less, but I wouldn’t put much weight in his writings.

 

[Slumberfreeze]

The doctrine of the Jezebel spirit came from David Wilkerson? Fascinating.
If you go to John Ramirez ministries home page, the first things to pop up are books he’s selling that seem to be advertised as giving a look into the demonic spiritual world that would seem to have previously been secret. Also fascinating.

I'm reading a pretty heavy sarcastic tone here.

Point by point:
I did not say the doctrine came from or originated with David Wilkerson. I would be surprised if someone could show me that it did! I say that Wilkerson has taught about the Jezebel spirit which I take to be a testimony that it exists.

Your use of fascinating in both cases comes off to me as derisive. If you meant it like Spock, then disregard.

Is David Wilkerson not to be trusted? Why?

It seems you are attempting to undercut John Ramirez' credibility on a single point: That he's selling books.

seem to have previously been secret

That verbiage does not appear on the page. You're actually reading into his site a claim that does not exist based on your, what... gut feelings? And then using that to discredit him? That can't be wise.

The scripture records a deaf and dumb spirit. I don't know whether "deaf and dumb" is the spirit's proper name or merely an adequate descriptor of the spirit's effect. But it seems to me that there are lots of physical and spiritual maladies that can beset a human: i would not expect to see each one named. Especially when the catch-all of "unclean spirit" exists. If there is a spirit associated with Jezebel... does it need to be named as such in the bible to exist?

I don't get your objection.

 

[Asforme&myhouse]

I wouldn’t use this man’s word to establish christian doctrine. Christian doctrine comes from the written Word of God.

 

[Verifyveritas76]

Terllian also claimed that ‘monogamy only’ was a new teaching of The Holy Spirit that was given in his time, but hadn’t been given to the Apostles. Interesting none the less, but I wouldn’t put much weight in his writings.

Yep. I think I’m the one that found that. Anywho, some of his early works are more or less worth reading from before he developed a Montanist bent. I honestly don’t remember where this one lands in his timeline. Just thought it was an interesting late 2nd century perspective