Proponents of the demonization (or demonic possession) of Christians first point out that this passage exemplifies a situation where a woman was freed from Satan who bound her for several years.  This is not terribly controversial; however, those same proponents argue that the woman who was delivered from Satan was a believer since she was “in one of the synagogues,” “praised God” after her healing, and was called a “daughter of Abraham” by Jesus.  In this case it is said that the demonization of a believer is biblically demonstrable.

            There are some serious flaws with this explanation.  First, it is not true that being “in one of the synagogues” is a sufficient condition for being a believer.  We know of many examples that abound today where some professing Christians appear in churches every Sunday who do not embrace a genuine faith in Jesus.  Secondly, the fact that the woman praised God subsequent to her healing in no way suggests that the woman was historically and consistently a believer.  Her confession could be as the man who was healed of his blindness and confessed Jesus as his savior as a result of the miracle (John 9).  Thirdly, the peculiar phrase “daughter of Abraham” carries a connotation other than a woman being declared part of the church elect.

            Early Jewish beliefs about the status of women suggested that women were not socially equal with men.  The Jewish community during the Second Temple period was particularly not too flattering with respect to women’s status.  The esteemed scholar Bruce Metzger points out that women “had become second-class Jews, excluded from the worship and teaching of God, with status scarcely above that of slaves” (Bruce M. Metzger and M. D. Coogan, The Oxford Companion to the Bible, (New York: Oxford University Press, 1993), pp. 806-18.).  Since the phrase “daughter of Abraham” is never used as a common expression, it is more likely used to parallel “son of Abraham” which is (clearly) used exclusively for men.

Jesus is no doubt using the phrase to demonstrate the equality of the healed woman in the midst of her fellow Jewish believers.  The point of its inclusion in Jesus’ discourse here is to explain that someone who is one of Judaism’s own, a kinsman of every Jew worthy of God’s affection, deserves to be healed even on the Sabbath.  Thus, it probably does not suggest that the woman was being declared an elect person whose salvation would be secured on the basis of her Jewish heritage – a feature that even Luke disarms ten chapters earlier (Luke 3:8-9, “’Produce fruit in keeping with repentance. And do not begin to say to yourselves, “We have Abraham as our father.” For I tell you that out of these stones God can raise up children for Abraham. The ax is already at the root of the trees, and every tree that does not produce good fruit will be cut down and thrown into the fire.’”  It may be better to see “daughter of Abraham” as being similar to “daughter of Zion” or “daughter of Jerusalem” (Isaiah 37:22) where the phrases denote one’s point of origin or to what they belonged.).

           Finally, Luke 13 may not be a reference to demon possession (or demonization) at all since the affliction appears to be external.  The Greek phrase gune pneuma echousa astheneias is translated variably as “a woman had a spirit of infirmity” or “a woman had a crippling spirit,” depending on the translation.  But in any case only a Western, 21st century reading through the lens of a deliverance presupposition would extract “a woman demonized by the spirit of infirmity” as the meaning of the phrase.  This phrase only suggests that a spirit afflicted the woman.  Nothing more is to be presumed by the passage.  And given that Jesus does not exorcise any demons from the woman supposes that the demonic encounter was a completed act and that the affliction was the residual or net effect.

            Therefore, I find that Luke 13 in no way disseminates the the idea that Christians can be indwelt by demonic forces.