Showing posts with label demons. Show all posts
Showing posts with label demons. Show all posts
Thursday, 24 July 2014
DEVIL’ AND ‘SATAN’ IN A POLITICAL CONTEXT
DEVIL’ AND ‘SATAN’ IN A POLITICAL CONTEXT
These words ‘devil’ and ‘satan’ are also used to describe the wicked, sinful world order in which we live. The social, political and pseudo-religious hierarchies of mankind can be spoken of in terms of ‘the devil’. The devil and satan in the New Testament often refer to the political and social power of the Jewish or Roman systems. Thus we read of the devil throwing believers into prison (Rev. 2:10), referring to the Roman authorities imprisoning believers. In this same context we read of the church in Pergamos being situated where satan’s throne, was - i.e. the place of governorship for a Roman colony in Pergamos, where there was also a group of believers. We cannot say that satan himself, if he exists, personally had a throne in Pergamos.
Individual sin is defined as a transgression against God’s law (1 Jn. 3:4). But sin expressed collectively as a political and social force opposed to God is a force more powerful than individuals; it is this collective power which is sometimes personified as a powerful being called the devil. In this sense Iran and other Islamic powers have called the United States, “the great satan” - i.e. the great adversary to their cause, in political and religious terms. This is how the words ‘devil’ and ‘satan’ are often used in the Bible.
In conclusion, it is probably true to say that in this subject more than any other, it is vital to base our understanding upon a balanced view of the whole Bible, rather than building doctrines on a few verses containing catch-phrases which appear to refer to the common beliefs concerning the devil. Study 6.1 and this section will repay careful, prayerful re-reading. It is submitted that the doctrinal position outlined there is the only way of being able to have a reasonable understanding of all the passages which refer to the devil and satan. Those words can be used as ordinary nouns, or in some places they refer to the sin which is found within our own human nature. Some of the most widely misunderstood passages which are quoted in support of the popular ideas are considered in the Digressions which accompany this study.
Those who have problems in accepting our conclusions need to ask themselves: (1) Is sin personified? Clearly it is. (2) Is it true that ‘satan’ can be used just as an noun? Yes, it is. What real problem, therefore, can there be in accepting that sin is personified as our enemy/satan? The world is often personified in John’s letters and Gospel (see R.V.); what better title for this personification than ‘satan’ or ‘the devil’?
These words ‘Devil’ and ‘Satan’ are also used to describe the wicked, sinful world order in which we live. The social, political and pseudo-religious hierarchies of mankind can be spoken of in terms of ‘the Devil’, not least because they are structured around human, sinful desires- the great adversary to God's Spirit. Hence 1 Pet. 4:2,3 parallels living "in the flesh, to the lusts of men" with "working the will of the Gentiles". The will of the world is the will of the flesh, and is thus adversarial, 'satanic', to the will of God. The Devil and Satan in the New Testament often refer to the political and social power of the Jewish or Roman systems. Thus we read of the Devil throwing believers into prison (Rev. 2:10), referring to the Roman authorities imprisoning believers. In this same context we read of the church in Pergamos being situated where Satan’s throne, was - i.e. the place of governorship for a Roman colony in Pergamos, where there was also a group of believers. We cannot say that Satan himself, if he exists, personally had a throne in Pergamos. The Bible repeatedly stresses that human political authority, civil authorities etc. are God given, deriving their power from Him (Rom. 13:1-7; 1 Pet. 2:13-17); never are they said to derive their authority from 'Satan'. Yet they can be called 'Satan' in that they are adversarial at times to His people.
Individual sin is defined as a transgression against God’s law (1 Jn. 3:4). But sin expressed collectively as a political and social force opposed to God is a force more powerful than individuals; it is this collective power which is sometimes personified as a powerful being called the Devil. In this sense Iran and other Islamic powers have called the United States, “the great Satan” - i.e. the great adversary to their cause, in political and religious terms. This is how the words ‘Devil’ and ‘Satan’ are often used in the Bible. And again I repeat the path of logic used a few paragraphs above: 1) Is sin personified? Clearly it is. 2) Is it true that ‘Satan’ can be used just as an noun? Yes, it is. What real problem, therefore, can there be in accepting that sin is personified as our enemy/Satan? The world is often personified in John’s letters and Gospel (see R.V.); what better title for this personification than ‘Satan’ or ‘the Devil’?
It has been observed, however, by many a thoughtful mind- that the total evil in the world does so often appear greater than the sum of all the individual personal sin / evil which there is committed by and latent within each person. In this context, let's hear Tom Wright again: "All corporate institutions have a kind of corporate soul, an identity which is greater than the sum of its parts... industrial companies, governments or even (God help us) churches, can become so corrupted with evil that the language of "possession" at a corporate level becomes the only way to explain the phenomena before us" (17). In the same way as collective bodies of persons somehow achieve an identity greater than the sum of the individual contribution of each person, so, I submit, there appears a corporate evil / sin in our world which is greater than the sum of what each individual person contributes towards it. But in the same way as there is no literal 'ghost in the machine', so this phenomena doesn't mean that there is actually a personal superhuman being called 'Satan'. But it would be fair enough to use the term "the Satan", the adversary, to describe this globally encompassing corporation of 'sin' which we observe. For it's not solely our own personal sinfulness which is our great enemy, but also the kind of corporate sin which exists in our world. Arthur Koestler's work The Ghost In The Machine analyzes the progressive self-destructiveness of humanity over history, and seeks to address the question of how the total evil in the world is simply so huge (18). He takes the perspective that there is no personal Satan responsible, but rather the human mind has progressively developed in evil so that impulses of hate, anger etc. overpower- and progressively are overpowering- what he calls "cognitive logic"; i.e. we do what we know is unwise, illogical and wrong.
In conclusion, it is probably true to say that in this subject more than any other, it is vital to base our understanding upon a balanced view of the whole Bible, rather than building doctrines on a few verses containing catch-phrases which appear to refer to the common beliefs concerning the Devil. It is submitted that the doctrinal position outlined here is the only way of being able to have a reasonable understanding of all the passages which refer to the Devil and Satan. I submit it's the key which turns every lock. Some of the most widely misunderstood passages which are quoted in support of the popular ideas are considered in Chapter 5.
Sunday, 20 July 2014
Demonic Possession
Demonic Possession
G. H. Twelftree reviews demonism in Jewish/Hellenistic Literature and
summarizes as follows: ―In Greek thought the word daimonion was used in a
variety of ways: for a deity (Philo Vit. Mos. 1.276), a lesser deity (Plutarch
Rom. 51), a divine power or unknown supernatural force (Josephus J.W.
1.69), the human element in touch with the divine (Galen De Placitis 5.6.4)
and an intermediary between humans and the gods (Corp. Herm. XVI.18).
When a demon overtook a person and caused sickness or frenzy and was
life-threatening, it was thought necessary to expel it (J.W. 7.185). The
demons were popularly thought to be spirits of the dead (J.W. 1.599, 607;
6.47; Lucian Philops. 29; Pliny Nat. Hist. 18.118)‖.
1
The NT authors prefer to use the term ‗unclean spirit‘ (Matt 12:43; Mark
1:23, 26; 3:30; 5:2, 8; Luke 8:29; 9:42; 11:24). Even when the term ‗devils‘ or
‗demons‘ is encountered (for Gentile audiences?), it is in association with
‗unclean spirits‘. 2 The constant referral to the state of being unclean has
cultic overtones; particularly the ritual element proscribed in the cleanliness
laws of Leviticus. The holiness codes in Leviticus regulated ritual cleanliness–
unclean animals could not be touched or eaten, unclean diseases and unclean
bodily discharges underwent cleansing rituals and quarantine. The priest
inspected the impure person and pronounced judgment after certain
purification ceremonies. The diagnosis of an unclean spirit is essentially a
priestly diagnosis and that God often described the Jews themselves as an
unclean people
The Healing of Legion
Probably the most important exorcism performed in the NT is the healing of
Legion. It is instructive to compare the synoptic parallel accounts (Matt 8:28-
1 G. H. Twelftree, ―Demons‖ in Dictionary of Jesus and the Gospels (eds., J. B.
Green, S. McKnight, I.H. Marshall; Leicester: Inter Varsity Press, 1992), 163-
164.
2 Whereas, Mark 1:23-28 has ‗unclean spirit‘ the parallel in Luke 4:33 has
‗spirit of an unclean devil‘ (cf. Rev.18: 2).
34//Mark 5:1-13//Luke 8:26-33) as they have significant nuances. Legion is
a paradigm for the nation of Israel:
―And always, night and day, he was in the mountains, and in the
tombs, crying, and cutting himself with stones.‖ (Mark 5:5)
Mark is obviously drawing on Isaiah‘s description of the people; ―A
rebellious people......which sit among the graves.....and eat swine‘s flesh‖ (Isa
65:4). The ―cutting with stones‖ is (in this context) a reference to the rite of
circumcision–originally performed with sharpened flints (Josh 5:2). The
binding of the man (cf. Pss 2:3) and the request not to be ‗sent away out of
the country‘ (Mark 5:10) is typical of the threat of exile in Deut 28:64-68 and
the imprisonment and deportation of Zedekiah in chains (Jer 52: 11).
Moreover, it has parallels with the prodigal son (although his departure was
voluntary), who went to a far country and subsisted on pigs swill.
The Eschatology of the Exorcism
Matthew introduces an eschatological element into the narrative with the
demoniac‘s objection; ‗art thou come hither to torment us before the time?‘
as if to say, ‗you are early, it‘s not time yet‘. It is an allusion to the ―timely‖
man who released the goat (sent it to Azazel) on the Day of Atonement.
In this exorcism Jesus functions in the role of the ‗fit‘ or ‗timely‘ man, who
sends the scapegoat bearing the nations impurities (the goat for ‗Azazel‘) into
the wilderness during the atonement ritual:
―And shall send him away at the hand of a fit man into the
wilderness‖ (Lev.16:22)
The Revised Version renders this as ―a man (Adam) that is in readiness‖ with
the marginal notation stating ―a man of opportunity‖. These interpretations
carry the idea of a man that has been specifically prepared for the task;
although Herbert Rand suggests that it should be understood adverbially.
Herbert Rand suggests that the word ittîy in Lev. 16:21 be translated
adverbially, i.e., emphasizing the temporary status of the one sending away
the scapegoat: ―and shall dispatch [it] by someone [ad hoc] into the
The original Hebrew ’ittîy carries the meaning of timely and derives from êth
– time, in due season. Essentially this expresses the same meaning – a man
appointed for this time or season. Note that the ―fit man‖ who released the
goat became contaminated by the act and as a consequence had to wash his
clothes and his body before re-entering the camp.
Jesus transferred the ‗unclean spirit‘ into an ‗unclean‘ animal (this in contrast
with the ‗clean‘ scapegoat). Swine were unclean animals, and for a Jewish
narrator it would be highly appropriate for ‗unclean spirits‘ to inhabit them.
The oscillation between singular and plural in the narrative denotes that the
man represented the collective state of the nation. The man answers with the
Latin loan word legio meaning a legion or regiment of soldiers. This suggests
that the word expresses the man‘s feeling of being inhabited by a multitude
of evil spirits.
Legion and The Apocalypse
The Legion incident resonates with apocalyptic typology – the echoes and
allusions can best be observed when the chapter division between Matthew
8:28 – Matthew 9:8 (the healing and forgiveness of the paralytic) is ignored:
Matthew 8:28-9:8 Revelation 11
‗Country of the Gadarenes which is
over against Galilee‘ (Luke 8:26),
i.e. Galilee of the Gentiles
‗It is given unto the Gentiles‘
(11:2)
‗Art thou come hither to torment
us before the time?‘(Matt 8:29)
‗These two prophets tormented
them that dwelt on the earth‘
(11:10).
The unclean beast sent into the sea
- (abyss in Luke 8:31)
‗The beast that cometh up out
the abyss (abyss) shall make war
against them, and kill them‘
(11:7).
Matthew 8:28-9:8 Revelation 11
wilderness‖, H. Rand, ―The Translator's Dilemma: What is itti?‖, Jewish Bible
Quarterly 22 (1994):110-114.
The paralytic raised: ‗Arise, and
walk‘ (Matt 9:1).
The dead witnesses raised:
‗Come up hither‘ (11:12)
‗But when the multitudes saw it
they were afraid (RV) and glorified
God, which had given such power
to men‘ (Matt 9:8).
‗And the rest were affrighted,
and gave glory to the God of
heaven‘ (11:13).
The synoptic narrative is connected with the emergence of the apocalyptic
beast from the abyss and the murder of the (two?) witnesses; resulting in the
rejoicing of the people because the ‗two prophets had tormented them‘ with
their words. The parallelism is not accidental for the trumpet section in the
apocalypse is based on Day of Atonement liturgy 1
– Jesus had come to
remove the unclean spirit – he warned that that unless the unclean spirit was
replaced with the wholesomeness of the gospel it would re-emerge in a more
virulent form (Luke 11: 24-36). The work of the witnesses is a continuation
of the work of Jesus Christ and meets with the same resistance from the
beast (possessed with the unclean spirit) that he had banished two millennia
earlier.
Conclusion
It is obvious that healing of the ‗demon possessed‘ in the NT are more than
mere exorcisms–they are enacted parables –teaching the people
profound lessons. Do the exorcisms have a historical basis? Most certainly,
Jesus had such a reputation as an exorcist that his name was used in
imprecations by fellow exorcists, and there is no reason to doubt the
fundamental historicity of the accounts.
Jesus healed real people with recognized illnesses–Legion was most probably
a schizophrenic hearing voices–but these voices articulated the words of the
1
Significantly the trumpet section (Rev 8:3-11:19) commences with a parody
of the Yom Kippûr ritual, for instead of the priestly blessing (and forgiveness)
being pronounced on the nation of Israel upon exiting the ―Most Holy‖
place (the heavenly sanctuary), the angel executes retribution. A series of
escalating calamities befall the people until the introduction of the eschaton at
the sounding of the seventh trumpet.
Old Testament and challenged Jesus‘ authority. Jesus‘ exorcisms were an
outward expression of the nation‘s impurity. Jesus had the power to remove
the contamination of sin –but that removal would only achieve permanence
if the ‗unclean attitude‘ was replaced with the Gospel (cf. the healed
demoniac sitting at Jesus‘ feet fully clothed), if this did not happen the
patient‘s condition would become much worse. This was indeed the case in
the first century with a collective descent into insanity and rebellion that
resulted in the nation, like the scapegoat, being expelled from the land for
nearly 2,000 years. However, even in this sinful state of alienation the nation
is under divine protection (protected like Cain), for God will not allow the
nation to become completely extinct.
G. H. Twelftree reviews demonism in Jewish/Hellenistic Literature and
summarizes as follows: ―In Greek thought the word daimonion was used in a
variety of ways: for a deity (Philo Vit. Mos. 1.276), a lesser deity (Plutarch
Rom. 51), a divine power or unknown supernatural force (Josephus J.W.
1.69), the human element in touch with the divine (Galen De Placitis 5.6.4)
and an intermediary between humans and the gods (Corp. Herm. XVI.18).
When a demon overtook a person and caused sickness or frenzy and was
life-threatening, it was thought necessary to expel it (J.W. 7.185). The
demons were popularly thought to be spirits of the dead (J.W. 1.599, 607;
6.47; Lucian Philops. 29; Pliny Nat. Hist. 18.118)‖.
1
The NT authors prefer to use the term ‗unclean spirit‘ (Matt 12:43; Mark
1:23, 26; 3:30; 5:2, 8; Luke 8:29; 9:42; 11:24). Even when the term ‗devils‘ or
‗demons‘ is encountered (for Gentile audiences?), it is in association with
‗unclean spirits‘. 2 The constant referral to the state of being unclean has
cultic overtones; particularly the ritual element proscribed in the cleanliness
laws of Leviticus. The holiness codes in Leviticus regulated ritual cleanliness–
unclean animals could not be touched or eaten, unclean diseases and unclean
bodily discharges underwent cleansing rituals and quarantine. The priest
inspected the impure person and pronounced judgment after certain
purification ceremonies. The diagnosis of an unclean spirit is essentially a
priestly diagnosis and that God often described the Jews themselves as an
unclean people
The Healing of Legion
Probably the most important exorcism performed in the NT is the healing of
Legion. It is instructive to compare the synoptic parallel accounts (Matt 8:28-
1 G. H. Twelftree, ―Demons‖ in Dictionary of Jesus and the Gospels (eds., J. B.
Green, S. McKnight, I.H. Marshall; Leicester: Inter Varsity Press, 1992), 163-
164.
2 Whereas, Mark 1:23-28 has ‗unclean spirit‘ the parallel in Luke 4:33 has
‗spirit of an unclean devil‘ (cf. Rev.18: 2).
34//Mark 5:1-13//Luke 8:26-33) as they have significant nuances. Legion is
a paradigm for the nation of Israel:
―And always, night and day, he was in the mountains, and in the
tombs, crying, and cutting himself with stones.‖ (Mark 5:5)
Mark is obviously drawing on Isaiah‘s description of the people; ―A
rebellious people......which sit among the graves.....and eat swine‘s flesh‖ (Isa
65:4). The ―cutting with stones‖ is (in this context) a reference to the rite of
circumcision–originally performed with sharpened flints (Josh 5:2). The
binding of the man (cf. Pss 2:3) and the request not to be ‗sent away out of
the country‘ (Mark 5:10) is typical of the threat of exile in Deut 28:64-68 and
the imprisonment and deportation of Zedekiah in chains (Jer 52: 11).
Moreover, it has parallels with the prodigal son (although his departure was
voluntary), who went to a far country and subsisted on pigs swill.
The Eschatology of the Exorcism
Matthew introduces an eschatological element into the narrative with the
demoniac‘s objection; ‗art thou come hither to torment us before the time?‘
as if to say, ‗you are early, it‘s not time yet‘. It is an allusion to the ―timely‖
man who released the goat (sent it to Azazel) on the Day of Atonement.
In this exorcism Jesus functions in the role of the ‗fit‘ or ‗timely‘ man, who
sends the scapegoat bearing the nations impurities (the goat for ‗Azazel‘) into
the wilderness during the atonement ritual:
―And shall send him away at the hand of a fit man into the
wilderness‖ (Lev.16:22)
The Revised Version renders this as ―a man (Adam) that is in readiness‖ with
the marginal notation stating ―a man of opportunity‖. These interpretations
carry the idea of a man that has been specifically prepared for the task;
although Herbert Rand suggests that it should be understood adverbially.
Herbert Rand suggests that the word ittîy in Lev. 16:21 be translated
adverbially, i.e., emphasizing the temporary status of the one sending away
the scapegoat: ―and shall dispatch [it] by someone [ad hoc] into the
The original Hebrew ’ittîy carries the meaning of timely and derives from êth
– time, in due season. Essentially this expresses the same meaning – a man
appointed for this time or season. Note that the ―fit man‖ who released the
goat became contaminated by the act and as a consequence had to wash his
clothes and his body before re-entering the camp.
Jesus transferred the ‗unclean spirit‘ into an ‗unclean‘ animal (this in contrast
with the ‗clean‘ scapegoat). Swine were unclean animals, and for a Jewish
narrator it would be highly appropriate for ‗unclean spirits‘ to inhabit them.
The oscillation between singular and plural in the narrative denotes that the
man represented the collective state of the nation. The man answers with the
Latin loan word legio meaning a legion or regiment of soldiers. This suggests
that the word expresses the man‘s feeling of being inhabited by a multitude
of evil spirits.
Legion and The Apocalypse
The Legion incident resonates with apocalyptic typology – the echoes and
allusions can best be observed when the chapter division between Matthew
8:28 – Matthew 9:8 (the healing and forgiveness of the paralytic) is ignored:
Matthew 8:28-9:8 Revelation 11
‗Country of the Gadarenes which is
over against Galilee‘ (Luke 8:26),
i.e. Galilee of the Gentiles
‗It is given unto the Gentiles‘
(11:2)
‗Art thou come hither to torment
us before the time?‘(Matt 8:29)
‗These two prophets tormented
them that dwelt on the earth‘
(11:10).
The unclean beast sent into the sea
- (abyss in Luke 8:31)
‗The beast that cometh up out
the abyss (abyss) shall make war
against them, and kill them‘
(11:7).
Matthew 8:28-9:8 Revelation 11
wilderness‖, H. Rand, ―The Translator's Dilemma: What is itti?‖, Jewish Bible
Quarterly 22 (1994):110-114.
The paralytic raised: ‗Arise, and
walk‘ (Matt 9:1).
The dead witnesses raised:
‗Come up hither‘ (11:12)
‗But when the multitudes saw it
they were afraid (RV) and glorified
God, which had given such power
to men‘ (Matt 9:8).
‗And the rest were affrighted,
and gave glory to the God of
heaven‘ (11:13).
The synoptic narrative is connected with the emergence of the apocalyptic
beast from the abyss and the murder of the (two?) witnesses; resulting in the
rejoicing of the people because the ‗two prophets had tormented them‘ with
their words. The parallelism is not accidental for the trumpet section in the
apocalypse is based on Day of Atonement liturgy 1
– Jesus had come to
remove the unclean spirit – he warned that that unless the unclean spirit was
replaced with the wholesomeness of the gospel it would re-emerge in a more
virulent form (Luke 11: 24-36). The work of the witnesses is a continuation
of the work of Jesus Christ and meets with the same resistance from the
beast (possessed with the unclean spirit) that he had banished two millennia
earlier.
Conclusion
It is obvious that healing of the ‗demon possessed‘ in the NT are more than
mere exorcisms–they are enacted parables –teaching the people
profound lessons. Do the exorcisms have a historical basis? Most certainly,
Jesus had such a reputation as an exorcist that his name was used in
imprecations by fellow exorcists, and there is no reason to doubt the
fundamental historicity of the accounts.
Jesus healed real people with recognized illnesses–Legion was most probably
a schizophrenic hearing voices–but these voices articulated the words of the
1
Significantly the trumpet section (Rev 8:3-11:19) commences with a parody
of the Yom Kippûr ritual, for instead of the priestly blessing (and forgiveness)
being pronounced on the nation of Israel upon exiting the ―Most Holy‖
place (the heavenly sanctuary), the angel executes retribution. A series of
escalating calamities befall the people until the introduction of the eschaton at
the sounding of the seventh trumpet.
Old Testament and challenged Jesus‘ authority. Jesus‘ exorcisms were an
outward expression of the nation‘s impurity. Jesus had the power to remove
the contamination of sin –but that removal would only achieve permanence
if the ‗unclean attitude‘ was replaced with the Gospel (cf. the healed
demoniac sitting at Jesus‘ feet fully clothed), if this did not happen the
patient‘s condition would become much worse. This was indeed the case in
the first century with a collective descent into insanity and rebellion that
resulted in the nation, like the scapegoat, being expelled from the land for
nearly 2,000 years. However, even in this sinful state of alienation the nation
is under divine protection (protected like Cain), for God will not allow the
nation to become completely extinct.
Demons, Medicine and Jesus
Jesus exorcised demons and used the language of exorcism. Many
commentators would say that therefore Jesus believed in demons. However,
it can not be simply assumed that Jesus believed in demons because he used
the language of exorcism. He may have used such language because it was
the language of the day. The question arises therefore as to how this issue
can be settled either way.
1 For a detailed interpretation of Isaiah 13-14 in an Assyrian context, see J. D.
Watts, Isaiah 1-33, (WBC; Nashville: Thomas Nelson, 1984), 187-188; for a
review of the history of the period see J. Oates, Babylon, (London: Thames
Hudson, 1986), 115-120, J. Bright, A History of Israel, (London: SCM Press,
1977), ch. 7.
The purpose of this article is to show that the language of exorcism was not
the only language of the day available to Jesus. Magic was not the only
medicine; orthodox medicine was critical of magic and sceptical of its claims.
So why is there no record of Jesus’ criticizing the thought-world of exorcism?
The situation of the 1c. was not unlike that today where we have traditional
medicine and “alternative” medicine. The Hippocratic Writings are a
benchmark of orthodoxy and one of these writings, On the Sacred Disease,
1
castigates those who treat epilepsy as symptomatic of demon-possession.
The writer comments,
“I do not believe that the ‘Sacred Disease’ is any more divine
or sacred than any other disease but, on the contrary, has
specific characteristics and a definite cause. Nevertheless,
because it is completely different from other diseases, it has
been regarded as a divine visitation by those who, being only
human, view it with ignorance and astonishment. This theory
of divine origin, though supported by the difficulty of
understanding the malady, is weakened by the simplicity of
the cure, consisting merely of ritual purification and
incantation. If remarkable features in a malady were evidence
of divine visitation,2
then there would be many ‘sacred
diseases’...” On the Sacred Disease 1
3
The natural explanation, (which we need not elaborate), offered by the writer
of this treatise, appears fantastical by today’s measures. However, it is not his
explanation that is of interest to us, but rather his criticism of the magical
tradition. As part of the Hippocratic corpus, this criticism would have been
central to Greek medical training. However, it is the method that it is
1G. E. R. Lloyd, ed., Hippocratic Writings, (London: Penguin, 1978). All
subsequent quotations from the Hippocratic corpus are from this edition.
2The notion of ‘divine visitation’ includes demon-possession as indicated by
the writer’s latter expression, ‘divine visitation and possession by devils’, On
the Sacred Disease 3.
3For an extended discussion of this text, see G. E. R. Lloyd, Magic, Reason and
Experience, (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1979), ch. 1.
important: - look for regular natural causes of disease.1 The method and
theory shows that recourse to the supernatural (demon possession or
possession by the gods) was not the only approach in the ancient world.
The influence of the Hippocratic tradition in medicine can be seen in Jewish
medicine. For example, a positive attitude to medicine is illustrated in the
Jewish book of wisdom – Sirach (ca. 2c. BCE).2 This text (e.g. Sir 38:1-15)
illustrates a dependence on God and a use of natural remedies, along with
prayer and sacrifice. Or again, Josephus reports in his Wars of the Jews3
that the
Essenes researched medicinal roots and properties of stones for the healing
of diseases:
“They also take great pains in studying the writings of the
ancients, and choose out of them what is most for the
advantage of their soul and body; and they inquire after such
roots and medicinal stones as may cure distempers” War
2.135, cf. Ant. 8.1364
We can also see the influence of the Hippocratic tradition in Roman medical
writings of the period, like those of Celsus (14-37 CE) or Galen (129-199 CE).
One scholar comments:
“The idea that human disease is the consequence of divine
wrath does not appear in Greek medicine; Galen mentions it
only to add that so few believe. Similarly rejected is the
concept, which probably originated with the Persians, and
which strongly influenced Judaism in the post-exilic period as
1The same approach can be found in other Hippocratic writings, for
example, in On Airs Waters Places, 22, and in On the Diseases of Young Girls. See
the commentary in Lloyd, Magic, Reason and Experience, 28.
2For an overview, see W. D. Osterley, ed., The Books of the Apocrypha,
(London: Scott, 1914), 321-345.
3 All citations from Josephus are from the edition, W. Whiston, The Works of
Josephus, (Peabody: Hendrickson, 1987).
4
See also Philo’s comments on the TherapeutÖ in On the Contemplative Life, 2
in C. D. Yonge, ed., The Works of Philo, (Peabody: Hendrickson, 1993).
well as early Christianity, that sickness is the consequence of
demonic possession.”1
This brief characterization of the Hippocratic tradition illustrates that Jesus
doesn’t stand in this tradition — he has more in common with the language
of Jewish exorcism.
The contrast between magic and medicine shows that disease and illness are
social constructs and diagnosis and prognosis reflect social beliefs. That is,
the description of symptoms and behaviours is determined by belief systems.
Such belief systems condition the message of the “exorcist” or “doctor”.
Gerd Theissen and Annette Merz comment, “Just as social expectations and
patterns of explanation are a constitutive part of the sicknesses and
infirmities, so too social expectations and interpretations play a part in the
charisma of the miracle-worker.”2 Their argument here is that Jesus knew
how to combine his extraordinary gift of healing with a message about the
kingdom of God, which was to some extent cast in terms that the people
understood. In short, there is a symbolic layer of meaning to Jesus’
exorcisms, a symbology to do with the kingdom of God.
The question posed at the beginning of this article can be restated. Does
Jesus employ the language of the day in order to function as a healer? Does
he exorcise demons in order to teach about the kingdom of God, but
without belief on his part in any reality of demons? How can this issue be
settled? Our proposal is that it can only be settled if the records show that
Jesus exorcised demons in such a way as to make it clear that he did not
believe in the corresponding demonology. This question will be investigated
in future issues.
1H. C. Kee, Medicine, Miracle and Magic, (Cambridge: Cambridge University
Press, 1986), 61.
2G. Theissen and Annette Merz, The Historical Jesus: A Comprehensive Guide,
(London: SCM Press, 1998), 312-313.
commentators would say that therefore Jesus believed in demons. However,
it can not be simply assumed that Jesus believed in demons because he used
the language of exorcism. He may have used such language because it was
the language of the day. The question arises therefore as to how this issue
can be settled either way.
1 For a detailed interpretation of Isaiah 13-14 in an Assyrian context, see J. D.
Watts, Isaiah 1-33, (WBC; Nashville: Thomas Nelson, 1984), 187-188; for a
review of the history of the period see J. Oates, Babylon, (London: Thames
Hudson, 1986), 115-120, J. Bright, A History of Israel, (London: SCM Press,
1977), ch. 7.
The purpose of this article is to show that the language of exorcism was not
the only language of the day available to Jesus. Magic was not the only
medicine; orthodox medicine was critical of magic and sceptical of its claims.
So why is there no record of Jesus’ criticizing the thought-world of exorcism?
The situation of the 1c. was not unlike that today where we have traditional
medicine and “alternative” medicine. The Hippocratic Writings are a
benchmark of orthodoxy and one of these writings, On the Sacred Disease,
1
castigates those who treat epilepsy as symptomatic of demon-possession.
The writer comments,
“I do not believe that the ‘Sacred Disease’ is any more divine
or sacred than any other disease but, on the contrary, has
specific characteristics and a definite cause. Nevertheless,
because it is completely different from other diseases, it has
been regarded as a divine visitation by those who, being only
human, view it with ignorance and astonishment. This theory
of divine origin, though supported by the difficulty of
understanding the malady, is weakened by the simplicity of
the cure, consisting merely of ritual purification and
incantation. If remarkable features in a malady were evidence
of divine visitation,2
then there would be many ‘sacred
diseases’...” On the Sacred Disease 1
3
The natural explanation, (which we need not elaborate), offered by the writer
of this treatise, appears fantastical by today’s measures. However, it is not his
explanation that is of interest to us, but rather his criticism of the magical
tradition. As part of the Hippocratic corpus, this criticism would have been
central to Greek medical training. However, it is the method that it is
1G. E. R. Lloyd, ed., Hippocratic Writings, (London: Penguin, 1978). All
subsequent quotations from the Hippocratic corpus are from this edition.
2The notion of ‘divine visitation’ includes demon-possession as indicated by
the writer’s latter expression, ‘divine visitation and possession by devils’, On
the Sacred Disease 3.
3For an extended discussion of this text, see G. E. R. Lloyd, Magic, Reason and
Experience, (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1979), ch. 1.
important: - look for regular natural causes of disease.1 The method and
theory shows that recourse to the supernatural (demon possession or
possession by the gods) was not the only approach in the ancient world.
The influence of the Hippocratic tradition in medicine can be seen in Jewish
medicine. For example, a positive attitude to medicine is illustrated in the
Jewish book of wisdom – Sirach (ca. 2c. BCE).2 This text (e.g. Sir 38:1-15)
illustrates a dependence on God and a use of natural remedies, along with
prayer and sacrifice. Or again, Josephus reports in his Wars of the Jews3
that the
Essenes researched medicinal roots and properties of stones for the healing
of diseases:
“They also take great pains in studying the writings of the
ancients, and choose out of them what is most for the
advantage of their soul and body; and they inquire after such
roots and medicinal stones as may cure distempers” War
2.135, cf. Ant. 8.1364
We can also see the influence of the Hippocratic tradition in Roman medical
writings of the period, like those of Celsus (14-37 CE) or Galen (129-199 CE).
One scholar comments:
“The idea that human disease is the consequence of divine
wrath does not appear in Greek medicine; Galen mentions it
only to add that so few believe. Similarly rejected is the
concept, which probably originated with the Persians, and
which strongly influenced Judaism in the post-exilic period as
1The same approach can be found in other Hippocratic writings, for
example, in On Airs Waters Places, 22, and in On the Diseases of Young Girls. See
the commentary in Lloyd, Magic, Reason and Experience, 28.
2For an overview, see W. D. Osterley, ed., The Books of the Apocrypha,
(London: Scott, 1914), 321-345.
3 All citations from Josephus are from the edition, W. Whiston, The Works of
Josephus, (Peabody: Hendrickson, 1987).
4
See also Philo’s comments on the TherapeutÖ in On the Contemplative Life, 2
in C. D. Yonge, ed., The Works of Philo, (Peabody: Hendrickson, 1993).
well as early Christianity, that sickness is the consequence of
demonic possession.”1
This brief characterization of the Hippocratic tradition illustrates that Jesus
doesn’t stand in this tradition — he has more in common with the language
of Jewish exorcism.
The contrast between magic and medicine shows that disease and illness are
social constructs and diagnosis and prognosis reflect social beliefs. That is,
the description of symptoms and behaviours is determined by belief systems.
Such belief systems condition the message of the “exorcist” or “doctor”.
Gerd Theissen and Annette Merz comment, “Just as social expectations and
patterns of explanation are a constitutive part of the sicknesses and
infirmities, so too social expectations and interpretations play a part in the
charisma of the miracle-worker.”2 Their argument here is that Jesus knew
how to combine his extraordinary gift of healing with a message about the
kingdom of God, which was to some extent cast in terms that the people
understood. In short, there is a symbolic layer of meaning to Jesus’
exorcisms, a symbology to do with the kingdom of God.
The question posed at the beginning of this article can be restated. Does
Jesus employ the language of the day in order to function as a healer? Does
he exorcise demons in order to teach about the kingdom of God, but
without belief on his part in any reality of demons? How can this issue be
settled? Our proposal is that it can only be settled if the records show that
Jesus exorcised demons in such a way as to make it clear that he did not
believe in the corresponding demonology. This question will be investigated
in future issues.
1H. C. Kee, Medicine, Miracle and Magic, (Cambridge: Cambridge University
Press, 1986), 61.
2G. Theissen and Annette Merz, The Historical Jesus: A Comprehensive Guide,
(London: SCM Press, 1998), 312-313.
Demons in the Pseudepigrapha
There is no consensus in ancient literature about the nature of demons
or evil spirits. The early Jesus traditions pre-suppose or assume an
understanding of demons; the Gospel authors assume their readers1 will
readily understand the mention of demons.
Sources for understanding demons include Greco-Roman and Jewish
literature before and after the time of Jesus, the Greek Magical Papyri
(PGM), curse tablets, and amulets.2 Curse tablets and magical amulets
have been discovered from all over the Mediterranean world, dating
1 For an overview of issues relating to identifying the readers of the
Gospels, see Richard Bauckham, ed., The Gospels for All Christians:
Rethinking the Gospel Audiences (Edinburgh: T&T Clark, 1998).
2 The magical texts have been published in, K. Preisendanz and A.
Henrichs, eds., Papyri Graecae Magicae (2 vols; Stuttgart: Teubner, 1973-
4). The curse tablets have been published in J. G. Gager, Curse Tablets
and Binding Spells from the Ancient World (Oxford, Oxford University
Press, 1992). The magical amulets have been published in E. R.
Goodenough, Jewish Symbols of the Greco-Roman Period (13 vols; New
York, Pantheon Press, 1953-64).
both before and after our period. The magical papyri are dated later (3c.
CE and onwards), but they reflect the earlier traditions embodied in the
curse tablets and magical amulets. Further, we cannot ignore the wider
Near East and its possible influence on thinking about demons in first
century Palestine.1 These various sources are often highly syncretistic;
there was a significant cross-fertilisation of ideas about demons and gods
in the Ancient World.
The differences in source material can be characterised in the following
way: in philosophical and literary works, the references to demons are
more likely to be discursive and theoretical, whereas in the magical
texts, curse tablets and amulets, references to demons are essential to the
practical use of these texts in everyday life. It is these latter types of text
that are more relevant to the traditions about Jesus‖ exorcisms simply
because they are set in everyday social contexts.
-------------
Plutarch (c. 46 - c.120 C.E.) is the principal philosophical source for 1c.
views on demons. His main writing on the subject, Oracles in Decline,
2
is
a dialogue set in Delphi, discussing the question of why Oracles were
less used than in previous generations. Plutarch‖s characters represent
two views on demons – they are either intermediary to the gods and/or
they are the souls of the departed dead.3
1 For example, see the entry under “Demons and Monsters” in J. Black
and A. Green, eds., Gods, Demons and Symbols of Ancient Mesopotamia
(London: The British Museum Press, 1992).
2
See Oracles in Decline, 414-417, 431 in Plutarch: Selected Essays and
Dialogues, (ed., D. Russell; Oxford, Oxford University Press, 1993).
3 For a study on the extensive evidence showing the popularity of the
“ghosts view” of demons, see P. G. Bolt, “Jesus, The Daimons and the
Dead” in The Unseen World (ed., A. N. S. Lane; Carlisle: Paternoster,
1996).
Plutarch‖s characters adduce information about demons from the
religious rituals and mysteries of the day. Demons are required because
the gods cannot directly participate in men‖s affairs. They are souls
because they manifest the same behavioural characteristics as humans
who are essentially “souls”. Generally, they are the souls of the dead,
however, some are souls that have never been united with human bodies
and are therefore independent spirits—intermediate beings between the
gods and men. Demons may be good or evil.1 Plutarch represents views
about demons derived from Plato,2 who may be considered to have
moulded the consensus view for the educated Hellenized classes.
These two views represent alternative understandings that Jesus and/or
his disciples may have entertained.3 However, there is no Gospel-based
evidence that Jesus or the disciples subscribed to Hellenistic views. It is
more likely that they derived their conceptions from the surrounding
Jewish culture, including Jewish literature and Jewish Scripture. We
should also bear in mind that Jesus may have entertained a different
point of view to that of the disciples on this question.
The main evidence for Jesus‖ view on demons is the passage known as
the “Beelzebub Controversy”. In this controversy Jesus is accused of
being possessed by Beelzebub. This accusation is well attested in early
1 Philo voices the same view, “But as men in general speak of good and
evil demons, and in like manner of good and evil souls, so also do they
speak of angels…”, On The Giants, 16, in The Works of Philo (ed., C. D.
Yonge; Peabody: Hendrickson, 1993).
2
See Symposium 202d-203, Timaeus 40d, Cratylus 397d-398b, Republic,
427b, 469a, 540c, and Laws 909b in Plato: Complete Works (ed., J. M.
Cooper; New York: Hackett 1997). All subsequent quotations of Plato
are from this edition.
3 That the disciples may have believed in ghosts – see Matt 14:26, Luke
24:37 cf. Acts 23:8-9.
tradition (Luke/Q 11:14-18a, 19-20, 23,1 Mark 3:19b-30), and the central
charge may well have been made on more than one occasion (cf. Matt
9:32-34, 10:25, John 7:20, 8:48-52, 10:20-21). Likewise, Jesus‖ answers to
the charge have multiple attestations (e.g. GThom 35 as well as Q and
Mark). This variety of independent evidence leads scholars to regard the
Beelzebub Controversy as genuine.2
Mark‖s narrative comment on this controversy is that Jesus‖ opponents
had accused him of having an unclean spirit (Mark 3:30) – and this
suggests that Beelzebub was an unclean spirit – a demon. In a Jewish
context, “Beelzebub”,
3
the prince of demons (Mark 3:22), is another title
for the leading demon in the Story of the Watchers (cf. Dan 4:17) –
“Mastema” or “Satan” in Jubilees or Semyaz or Azaz‖el4
in 1 Enoch.
1 For a popular introduction to the theory behind Q, which includes a
reconstructed text of Q, see Burton L. Mack, The Lost Gospel: The Book
of Q and Christian Origins (Shaftsbury: Element, 1993). For a
presentation of Q with critical apparatus and parallels with other
gospels, see John S. Kloppenborg, Q Parallels (Sonoma: Polebridge,
1988). We follow Kloppenborg in his assessment of the content of Q.
2 For a discussion see Gerd Theissen and Annette Merz, The Historical
Jesus: A Comprehensive Guide (London: SCM Press, 1998), 298-299.
3 The meaning of this title is disputed but we favour the view that it
connotes “Baal, the Prince”. This is suggested by archaeological
discoveries at Ras Shamra (Ugarit), which have uncovered uses of the
title zbl. bc
l for Baal. See A. S. Kapelrud, The Ras Shamra Discoveries and
the Old Testament (Oxford: Basil Blackwell, 1965), 33, 37; U. Oldenberg,
The Conflict Between El and Baal in Canaanite Religion (Leiden: E. J.
Brill, 1969), 82, n. 1; T. Jemmielty, Satire and the Hebrew Prophets
(Louisville: WJK Press, 1992), 88.
4 For a discussion of the names of the leading angel see, M. E. Mills,
Human Agents of Cosmic Power (Sheffield: Sheffield Academic Press,
1990), ch. 5.
These texts develop a Midrash on Genesis 6 and offer an account of the
origin of demons.1
In 1 Enoch, the sons of God (fallen angels) marry the daughters of men
and give birth to giants (1 Enoch 6:1-2, 7:1-2). These angels (led by
Semyaz or Azaz‖el) are imprisoned in the earth but the spirits of these
giants are allowed to roam the earth:
But now the giants who are born from the (union of) the spirits
and the flesh shall be called evil spirits2
upon the earth, because
their dwelling shall be upon the earth and inside the earth. Evil
spirits have come out of their bodies. Because from the day they
were created from the holy ones they became Watchers; their
first origin is the spiritual foundation. They shall become evil
upon the earth and shall be called evil spirits. The dwelling of
the spiritual beings of heaven is heaven; but the dwelling of the
spirits of the earth, which are born upon the earth, is the earth.
The spirits of the giants oppress each other; they will corrupt,
fall, be excited, and fall upon the earth, and cause sorrow. They
eat no food, nor become thirsty, nor find obstacles. And these
spirits shall rise up against the children of the people and against
the women, because they have proceeded from them. 1 Enoch
15:8-12
They have defiled the people and will lead them into error so
that they will offer sacrifices to the demons as unto gods, until
the great Day of Judgment... 1 Enoch 19:1
1 Quotations from 1 Enoch are from the translation in J. H.
Charlesworth, ed., The Old Testament Pseudepigrapha (2 vols; New
York: Doubleday, 1983-85).
2 This concept of “evil spirit” is different to the one found in the Old
Testament, which is associated with angels (Jud 9:23, 1 Sam 16:14, Ps
78:49) – here in 1 Enoch they are the spirits of dead giants.
These spirits “which come from the flesh” will do their work until the
consummation of the age.
This is only a brief and simple survey of the story of the Watchers.
There are complex issues of interpretation raised by the text, which we
have ignored. These do not affect our objective in considering 1 Enoch,
because we are just concerned with how the work accounts for the
origin of demons.1
1 Enoch provides a precise explanation of a) why
there are evil spirits; b) why these beings are “spirit”; and c) why they
dwell on earth.
Jubilees is the other major surviving source from the inter-testamental
period that describes the fall of angels from heaven. O. S. Wintermute
comments,
If Jubilees is dated between 161-149 BC, it becomes an
important primary source for studying the evolution of the
various religious parties which became prominent in Judea just
before the birth of Christ.2
Jubilees gives a slightly different caste to the story of the Watchers. The
leading evil spirit, Mastema or Satan, is one of the giants and left free to
supervise other evil spirits; in 1 Enoch, Azaz‖el or Semyaz is a fallen
angel and imprisoned in the earth.
1 For a discussion of the Story of the Watchers in 1 Enoch see N.
Forsyth, The Old Enemy (Princeton: Princeton University Press, 1987),
chs. 7-9.
2 O. S. Wintermute, “Introduction” to Jubilees in Charlesworth, ed.,
Pseudepigrapha, 1:46.
In response to the prayer of Noah for protection against the spirits of
the giants, God instructs his angels to “bind them” in the earth. In
response to this command Mastema addresses God:
And the Lord God bade us to bind all. And the chief of the
spirits, Mastema, came and said:
―Lord, Creator, let some of them remain before me and let them
hearken to my voice, and do all that I shall say unto them; for if
some of them are not left to me, I shall not be able to execute
the power of my will on the children of men because they are
intended to corrupt and lead astray before my judgement
because the evil of the sons of men is great.‖
And he said:
―Let the tenth part of them remain before him, and let nine
parts descend into the place of condemnation.‖
And one of us he commanded that we should teach Noah all
their medicines; for he knew that they would not walk in
uprightness, nor strive in righteousness. And we did according
to all his words: all the malignant evil ones we bound in the
place of condemnation, and a tenth part of them we left that
they might be subject before Satan on the earth. And we
explained to Noah all the medicines of their diseases, together
with their seductions, how he might heal them with herbs of
the earth. And Noah wrote down all things in a book as we
instructed him concerning every kind of medicine. Thus the evil
spirits were precluded from hurting the sons of Noah. Jubilees
10:1-141
This translation is from H. C. Kee, ed., The Origins of Christianity:
Sources and Documents (London: SPCK, 1973).
The dimension that Jewish literature adds to Hellenistic ideas about
demons is the nomination of a leading demon: the Devil and Satan. In
Greek religion, demons might be the intermediaries of the gods, but no
one particular “god” is signalled out as a leader of demons.1
In Jubilees,
Mastema or Satan is given a recurring adversarial role in Israelite
history.2
The scholarly consensus is that Jewish demonologies developed after the
Exile as a result of contact with Persian thinking:
The idea that demons were responsible for all moral and
physical evil had penetrated deeply into Jewish religious
thought in the period following the Babylonian exile, no doubt
as a result of Iranian influence on Judaism in the fifth and the
fourth centuries BC when Palestine as well as Jews from the
eastern Diaspora were subject to Persian rule.3
Of the two traditions, Jubilees is closer than 1 Enoch to Jesus‖
controversy with his opponents. Mastema was a “prince”, and being a
“prince” is a characteristic of Beelzebub. Jesus shows understanding of
Jewish thinking in this area: he accepts that Beelzebub is a “prince”—for
he talks of a kingdom and he accepts the casting out of demons “by” a
figure of power. Jesus also substitutes “Satan” for the title “Beelzebub”,
which is also a title for Mastema.
1 See W. Burkert, Greek Religion (Oxford: Basil Blackwell, 1985), 179-
181, 329-332.
2 See Jubilees 11:15, 17:15-18:13, 23:29, 46:1-2, 48:2, 12, and 50:5.
3 G. Vermes, Jesus the Jew (London: SCM Press, 1993), 61. See also,
Forsyth, The Old Enemy, 147 and H. C. Kee, Medicine, Miracle and
Magic (Cambridge, Cambridge University Press, 1986), 70.
In terms of Jesus and his disciples‖ thinking on demons, it is likely that
some rendition of the Watchers Story informed their dealings with the
people. Its popularity is evidenced in the number of surviving 1c. texts
that mention the story, for example, in the Essene documents—the
Genesis Apocryphon (1QapGen 2:1), and the Damascus Document (CD
2:14-20);1
and in various inter-testamental works.2
1 Another Dead Sea fragment, 4Q180, also mentions Azaz‖el and the
fallen angels. Unless otherwise noted all references to the Dead Sea
Scrolls are to the edition, Geza Vermes, The Complete Dead Sea Scrolls in
English (London: Penguin, 1998).
2 The theme is also mentioned in the largely 2c. B.C.E. work, Testament
of the Twelve Patriarchs – T. Reuben 5:6-7, T. Naphtali 3:2, 5. The giants
are mentioned in the Wisdom of Solomon 14:6, (1c. B.C.E.), Sirach 16:7,
(2c. B.C.E.), Baruch 3:26, (1c.-3c. B.C.E.), 3 Maccabees 2:4, (1c. B.C.E.).
This spread of witness to the story shows that it was a popular belief.
All of these works can be found in Charlesworth, ed., Pseudepigrapha.
or evil spirits. The early Jesus traditions pre-suppose or assume an
understanding of demons; the Gospel authors assume their readers1 will
readily understand the mention of demons.
Sources for understanding demons include Greco-Roman and Jewish
literature before and after the time of Jesus, the Greek Magical Papyri
(PGM), curse tablets, and amulets.2 Curse tablets and magical amulets
have been discovered from all over the Mediterranean world, dating
1 For an overview of issues relating to identifying the readers of the
Gospels, see Richard Bauckham, ed., The Gospels for All Christians:
Rethinking the Gospel Audiences (Edinburgh: T&T Clark, 1998).
2 The magical texts have been published in, K. Preisendanz and A.
Henrichs, eds., Papyri Graecae Magicae (2 vols; Stuttgart: Teubner, 1973-
4). The curse tablets have been published in J. G. Gager, Curse Tablets
and Binding Spells from the Ancient World (Oxford, Oxford University
Press, 1992). The magical amulets have been published in E. R.
Goodenough, Jewish Symbols of the Greco-Roman Period (13 vols; New
York, Pantheon Press, 1953-64).
both before and after our period. The magical papyri are dated later (3c.
CE and onwards), but they reflect the earlier traditions embodied in the
curse tablets and magical amulets. Further, we cannot ignore the wider
Near East and its possible influence on thinking about demons in first
century Palestine.1 These various sources are often highly syncretistic;
there was a significant cross-fertilisation of ideas about demons and gods
in the Ancient World.
The differences in source material can be characterised in the following
way: in philosophical and literary works, the references to demons are
more likely to be discursive and theoretical, whereas in the magical
texts, curse tablets and amulets, references to demons are essential to the
practical use of these texts in everyday life. It is these latter types of text
that are more relevant to the traditions about Jesus‖ exorcisms simply
because they are set in everyday social contexts.
-------------
Plutarch (c. 46 - c.120 C.E.) is the principal philosophical source for 1c.
views on demons. His main writing on the subject, Oracles in Decline,
2
is
a dialogue set in Delphi, discussing the question of why Oracles were
less used than in previous generations. Plutarch‖s characters represent
two views on demons – they are either intermediary to the gods and/or
they are the souls of the departed dead.3
1 For example, see the entry under “Demons and Monsters” in J. Black
and A. Green, eds., Gods, Demons and Symbols of Ancient Mesopotamia
(London: The British Museum Press, 1992).
2
See Oracles in Decline, 414-417, 431 in Plutarch: Selected Essays and
Dialogues, (ed., D. Russell; Oxford, Oxford University Press, 1993).
3 For a study on the extensive evidence showing the popularity of the
“ghosts view” of demons, see P. G. Bolt, “Jesus, The Daimons and the
Dead” in The Unseen World (ed., A. N. S. Lane; Carlisle: Paternoster,
1996).
Plutarch‖s characters adduce information about demons from the
religious rituals and mysteries of the day. Demons are required because
the gods cannot directly participate in men‖s affairs. They are souls
because they manifest the same behavioural characteristics as humans
who are essentially “souls”. Generally, they are the souls of the dead,
however, some are souls that have never been united with human bodies
and are therefore independent spirits—intermediate beings between the
gods and men. Demons may be good or evil.1 Plutarch represents views
about demons derived from Plato,2 who may be considered to have
moulded the consensus view for the educated Hellenized classes.
These two views represent alternative understandings that Jesus and/or
his disciples may have entertained.3 However, there is no Gospel-based
evidence that Jesus or the disciples subscribed to Hellenistic views. It is
more likely that they derived their conceptions from the surrounding
Jewish culture, including Jewish literature and Jewish Scripture. We
should also bear in mind that Jesus may have entertained a different
point of view to that of the disciples on this question.
The main evidence for Jesus‖ view on demons is the passage known as
the “Beelzebub Controversy”. In this controversy Jesus is accused of
being possessed by Beelzebub. This accusation is well attested in early
1 Philo voices the same view, “But as men in general speak of good and
evil demons, and in like manner of good and evil souls, so also do they
speak of angels…”, On The Giants, 16, in The Works of Philo (ed., C. D.
Yonge; Peabody: Hendrickson, 1993).
2
See Symposium 202d-203, Timaeus 40d, Cratylus 397d-398b, Republic,
427b, 469a, 540c, and Laws 909b in Plato: Complete Works (ed., J. M.
Cooper; New York: Hackett 1997). All subsequent quotations of Plato
are from this edition.
3 That the disciples may have believed in ghosts – see Matt 14:26, Luke
24:37 cf. Acts 23:8-9.
tradition (Luke/Q 11:14-18a, 19-20, 23,1 Mark 3:19b-30), and the central
charge may well have been made on more than one occasion (cf. Matt
9:32-34, 10:25, John 7:20, 8:48-52, 10:20-21). Likewise, Jesus‖ answers to
the charge have multiple attestations (e.g. GThom 35 as well as Q and
Mark). This variety of independent evidence leads scholars to regard the
Beelzebub Controversy as genuine.2
Mark‖s narrative comment on this controversy is that Jesus‖ opponents
had accused him of having an unclean spirit (Mark 3:30) – and this
suggests that Beelzebub was an unclean spirit – a demon. In a Jewish
context, “Beelzebub”,
3
the prince of demons (Mark 3:22), is another title
for the leading demon in the Story of the Watchers (cf. Dan 4:17) –
“Mastema” or “Satan” in Jubilees or Semyaz or Azaz‖el4
in 1 Enoch.
1 For a popular introduction to the theory behind Q, which includes a
reconstructed text of Q, see Burton L. Mack, The Lost Gospel: The Book
of Q and Christian Origins (Shaftsbury: Element, 1993). For a
presentation of Q with critical apparatus and parallels with other
gospels, see John S. Kloppenborg, Q Parallels (Sonoma: Polebridge,
1988). We follow Kloppenborg in his assessment of the content of Q.
2 For a discussion see Gerd Theissen and Annette Merz, The Historical
Jesus: A Comprehensive Guide (London: SCM Press, 1998), 298-299.
3 The meaning of this title is disputed but we favour the view that it
connotes “Baal, the Prince”. This is suggested by archaeological
discoveries at Ras Shamra (Ugarit), which have uncovered uses of the
title zbl. bc
l for Baal. See A. S. Kapelrud, The Ras Shamra Discoveries and
the Old Testament (Oxford: Basil Blackwell, 1965), 33, 37; U. Oldenberg,
The Conflict Between El and Baal in Canaanite Religion (Leiden: E. J.
Brill, 1969), 82, n. 1; T. Jemmielty, Satire and the Hebrew Prophets
(Louisville: WJK Press, 1992), 88.
4 For a discussion of the names of the leading angel see, M. E. Mills,
Human Agents of Cosmic Power (Sheffield: Sheffield Academic Press,
1990), ch. 5.
These texts develop a Midrash on Genesis 6 and offer an account of the
origin of demons.1
In 1 Enoch, the sons of God (fallen angels) marry the daughters of men
and give birth to giants (1 Enoch 6:1-2, 7:1-2). These angels (led by
Semyaz or Azaz‖el) are imprisoned in the earth but the spirits of these
giants are allowed to roam the earth:
But now the giants who are born from the (union of) the spirits
and the flesh shall be called evil spirits2
upon the earth, because
their dwelling shall be upon the earth and inside the earth. Evil
spirits have come out of their bodies. Because from the day they
were created from the holy ones they became Watchers; their
first origin is the spiritual foundation. They shall become evil
upon the earth and shall be called evil spirits. The dwelling of
the spiritual beings of heaven is heaven; but the dwelling of the
spirits of the earth, which are born upon the earth, is the earth.
The spirits of the giants oppress each other; they will corrupt,
fall, be excited, and fall upon the earth, and cause sorrow. They
eat no food, nor become thirsty, nor find obstacles. And these
spirits shall rise up against the children of the people and against
the women, because they have proceeded from them. 1 Enoch
15:8-12
They have defiled the people and will lead them into error so
that they will offer sacrifices to the demons as unto gods, until
the great Day of Judgment... 1 Enoch 19:1
1 Quotations from 1 Enoch are from the translation in J. H.
Charlesworth, ed., The Old Testament Pseudepigrapha (2 vols; New
York: Doubleday, 1983-85).
2 This concept of “evil spirit” is different to the one found in the Old
Testament, which is associated with angels (Jud 9:23, 1 Sam 16:14, Ps
78:49) – here in 1 Enoch they are the spirits of dead giants.
These spirits “which come from the flesh” will do their work until the
consummation of the age.
This is only a brief and simple survey of the story of the Watchers.
There are complex issues of interpretation raised by the text, which we
have ignored. These do not affect our objective in considering 1 Enoch,
because we are just concerned with how the work accounts for the
origin of demons.1
1 Enoch provides a precise explanation of a) why
there are evil spirits; b) why these beings are “spirit”; and c) why they
dwell on earth.
Jubilees is the other major surviving source from the inter-testamental
period that describes the fall of angels from heaven. O. S. Wintermute
comments,
If Jubilees is dated between 161-149 BC, it becomes an
important primary source for studying the evolution of the
various religious parties which became prominent in Judea just
before the birth of Christ.2
Jubilees gives a slightly different caste to the story of the Watchers. The
leading evil spirit, Mastema or Satan, is one of the giants and left free to
supervise other evil spirits; in 1 Enoch, Azaz‖el or Semyaz is a fallen
angel and imprisoned in the earth.
1 For a discussion of the Story of the Watchers in 1 Enoch see N.
Forsyth, The Old Enemy (Princeton: Princeton University Press, 1987),
chs. 7-9.
2 O. S. Wintermute, “Introduction” to Jubilees in Charlesworth, ed.,
Pseudepigrapha, 1:46.
In response to the prayer of Noah for protection against the spirits of
the giants, God instructs his angels to “bind them” in the earth. In
response to this command Mastema addresses God:
And the Lord God bade us to bind all. And the chief of the
spirits, Mastema, came and said:
―Lord, Creator, let some of them remain before me and let them
hearken to my voice, and do all that I shall say unto them; for if
some of them are not left to me, I shall not be able to execute
the power of my will on the children of men because they are
intended to corrupt and lead astray before my judgement
because the evil of the sons of men is great.‖
And he said:
―Let the tenth part of them remain before him, and let nine
parts descend into the place of condemnation.‖
And one of us he commanded that we should teach Noah all
their medicines; for he knew that they would not walk in
uprightness, nor strive in righteousness. And we did according
to all his words: all the malignant evil ones we bound in the
place of condemnation, and a tenth part of them we left that
they might be subject before Satan on the earth. And we
explained to Noah all the medicines of their diseases, together
with their seductions, how he might heal them with herbs of
the earth. And Noah wrote down all things in a book as we
instructed him concerning every kind of medicine. Thus the evil
spirits were precluded from hurting the sons of Noah. Jubilees
10:1-141
This translation is from H. C. Kee, ed., The Origins of Christianity:
Sources and Documents (London: SPCK, 1973).
The dimension that Jewish literature adds to Hellenistic ideas about
demons is the nomination of a leading demon: the Devil and Satan. In
Greek religion, demons might be the intermediaries of the gods, but no
one particular “god” is signalled out as a leader of demons.1
In Jubilees,
Mastema or Satan is given a recurring adversarial role in Israelite
history.2
The scholarly consensus is that Jewish demonologies developed after the
Exile as a result of contact with Persian thinking:
The idea that demons were responsible for all moral and
physical evil had penetrated deeply into Jewish religious
thought in the period following the Babylonian exile, no doubt
as a result of Iranian influence on Judaism in the fifth and the
fourth centuries BC when Palestine as well as Jews from the
eastern Diaspora were subject to Persian rule.3
Of the two traditions, Jubilees is closer than 1 Enoch to Jesus‖
controversy with his opponents. Mastema was a “prince”, and being a
“prince” is a characteristic of Beelzebub. Jesus shows understanding of
Jewish thinking in this area: he accepts that Beelzebub is a “prince”—for
he talks of a kingdom and he accepts the casting out of demons “by” a
figure of power. Jesus also substitutes “Satan” for the title “Beelzebub”,
which is also a title for Mastema.
1 See W. Burkert, Greek Religion (Oxford: Basil Blackwell, 1985), 179-
181, 329-332.
2 See Jubilees 11:15, 17:15-18:13, 23:29, 46:1-2, 48:2, 12, and 50:5.
3 G. Vermes, Jesus the Jew (London: SCM Press, 1993), 61. See also,
Forsyth, The Old Enemy, 147 and H. C. Kee, Medicine, Miracle and
Magic (Cambridge, Cambridge University Press, 1986), 70.
In terms of Jesus and his disciples‖ thinking on demons, it is likely that
some rendition of the Watchers Story informed their dealings with the
people. Its popularity is evidenced in the number of surviving 1c. texts
that mention the story, for example, in the Essene documents—the
Genesis Apocryphon (1QapGen 2:1), and the Damascus Document (CD
2:14-20);1
and in various inter-testamental works.2
1 Another Dead Sea fragment, 4Q180, also mentions Azaz‖el and the
fallen angels. Unless otherwise noted all references to the Dead Sea
Scrolls are to the edition, Geza Vermes, The Complete Dead Sea Scrolls in
English (London: Penguin, 1998).
2 The theme is also mentioned in the largely 2c. B.C.E. work, Testament
of the Twelve Patriarchs – T. Reuben 5:6-7, T. Naphtali 3:2, 5. The giants
are mentioned in the Wisdom of Solomon 14:6, (1c. B.C.E.), Sirach 16:7,
(2c. B.C.E.), Baruch 3:26, (1c.-3c. B.C.E.), 3 Maccabees 2:4, (1c. B.C.E.).
This spread of witness to the story shows that it was a popular belief.
All of these works can be found in Charlesworth, ed., Pseudepigrapha.
Saturday, 19 July 2014
What are Unclean Spirits?
Matthew 12:22 ¶ Then was brought unto him one possessed with a demon, blind and dumb: and he healed him, insomuch that the dumb man spake and saw.
23 And all the multitudes were amazed, and said, Can this be the son of David?
24 But when the Pharisees heard it, they said, This man doth not cast out demons, but by Beelzebub the prince of the demons.
25 And knowing their thoughts he said unto them, Every kingdom divided against itself is brought to desolation; and every city or house divided against itself shall not stand:
26 and if Satan casteth out Satan, he is divided against himself; how then shall his kingdom stand?
27 And if I by Beelzebub cast out demons, by whom do your sons cast them out? therefore shall they be your judges.
28 But if I by the Spirit of God cast out demons, then is the kingdom of God come upon you.
44 Then he saith, I will return into my house whence I came out; and when he is come, he findeth it empty, swept, and garnished.
45 Then goeth he, and taketh with himself seven other spirits more evil than himself, and they enter in and dwell there: and the last state of that man becometh worse than the first. Even so shall it be also unto this evil generation.
This passage is in the context of Matthew 12:22–28, where Jesus uses the common ideas of the Pharisees to disprove their own argument: “Every city or house divided against itself shall not stand: and if Satan cast out Satan, he is divided against himself... and if I by Beelzebub cast out devils (demons), by whom do your children cast them out?”. So Jesus was not saying He believed in Satan or Beelzebub – indeed, Beelzebub is clearly defined as a pagan idol in 2 Kings 1:2 – but He was using the language of the day to confound the Jews. So it is not surprising that a few verses later He is talking in parabolic language again about unclean spirits. In the same way as He did not believe in Beelzebub, so He did not believe in unclean spirits.
Verse 45 concludes: “Even so shall it be also unto this wicked generation”, showing that this passage is meant to be understood as a parable. “Unclean spirit” is a phrase often synonymous with “demons” in the Gospels. We showed in chapter 4 that Jesus was using the language of the day when talking about demons, and so He was here. Jesus was effectively saying, “In the same way as you believe unclean spirits can go out of a man and re-enter him, so this generation was once cleansed, but is soon going to become even worse than it was initially”.
Christ's conformity to popular language did not commit him to popular delusions. In one case, he apparently recognizes the god of the Philistines: "If I by Beelzebub cast out demons, by whom do your children cast them out?" (Matt. 12:27). Now, Beelzebub signifies the god of flies, a god worshipped by the Philistines of Ekron (2 Kings 1:6), and Christ, in using the name, takes no pains to dwell upon the fact that Beelzebub was a heathen fiction; it was a mere accommodation to popular speech on the subject of demons.
Sin comes from within and nothing from outside a man can enter him and defile him (Mk. 7:15).
Careful reading indicates that “the unclean spirit” is synonymous with the man, as a deaf demon refers to a deaf man in v. 22 of the same chapter. “When the unclean spirit is gone out of a man, he walks through dry places...”. Walking through a wilderness and deciding to return to one’s house is clearly language applicable to a man. This is all confirmed by the fact that Jesus is almost certainly alluding to a verse in the Septuagint version (which was the Bible in common use in Christ’s time) at Proverbs 9:12, although it is omitted for some reason in the A.V. This verse clearly speaks of a man, not a spirit, “(the scorner of instruction) walks through a waterless waste, through a land that is desert, and with his hands garners barrenness”.
The “spirit” often refers to the attitude of mind (e.g. Dt. 2:30; Prov. 25:28; Is. 54:6; 61:3; Ez. 18:31; Mk. 14:38; Lk. 2:40; 2 Cor. 2:13; 12:18; Eph. 4:23). an “unclean spirit” may possibly refer to an unclean state of mind, which would fit the context in vv. 34–36. Because “as a man thinks in his heart, so is he” (Prov. 23:7), the spirit would be synonymous with the man. Thus the parable would describe a man’s attitude of mind being cleansed and then his going into an even more degenerate state as happened when Saul’s ‘unclean spirit’ was cured by David playing the harp, and then it returned even worse. Notice that we read of “an evil spirit from the Lord” affecting Saul (1 Sam. 16:14); this attitude of mind was sent by God, not a super–human evil being.
Grk. akathartos =impure (Y) from ‘a’ (as a negative particle) and a presumed derivative meaning ‘cleansed’. The word therefore, means ‘impure’ both ceremonially and morally (i.e. lewd) or especially demoniac. (S). It means in this context a religion not purged, pruned or cleansed.
3 see notes on Matt. 12:43
ruwach: can represent the mind of an individual: Gen. 26:35 (mind); 41:8, 45:27; Ex. 6:9; Ex. 35:21; Num 5:14, 30; Deut. 2:30, Joshua 2:11 (courage); Joshua 5:1; Judges 8:3 (their anger); 9:23; 1 Sam. 1:15; 1 Sam. 16:14-16, 23; 18:10; 19:9; 1 Kings 21:5; 2 Chron. 36:22; Ezra 1:1,5; Job 7:11 (spirit); 15:13; 20:3; 21:4; 32:8,18; Psa. 32:2; 34:18 (spirit); 51:10, 17; 77:3,6; 78:8 (spirit); Psa. 106:33; 142:3; 143:4; Prov. 1:23; 11:13; 14:29; 15:13; Prov. 16:2,18,19,32; 17:22,27; 29:11 (his mind); 29:23; Ecc. 1:14,17; 2:11,17,26; 3:21; 4:4,6,16; 6:9; 7:8,9; 10:4; Isa. 11:2; 29:24; 30:1; 54:6; 57:15; 61:3; 65:14; 66:2; Jer. 51:11; Ezek. 3:14; 11:5 (spirit, mind), 19; 13:3; 18:31; 20:32 (mind); Ezek. 21:7; 36:26; Dan. 2:1,3; 5:12, 20 (mind); 6:3; 7:15; Hab. 1:11 (mind); Hag. 1:14; Mal. 2:16.
Clean Heart: See Psa. 51:10, 73:1; Prov. 20:9. This is the opposite to an unclean heart or possibly spirit.
Right Mind: See Mark 5:15; Luke 8:35.
Spirit: relates to the sentient element in man by which he perceives, reflects, feels and desires.” H.P. Mansfield “To The Strangers Scattered Abroad” on 1 Peter 3:19.
Pneuma (pneuma): can represent the mind of an individual as well as his mental state and disposition. Matt. 5:3; 26:41; Mark 2:8, 8:12; 14:38; Luke 1:47,80; 2:40; Luke 10:21; John 3:5-8; 4:23,24; 11:33; 13:21; Acts 17:16; Acts 18:5,25; 19:21; 20:22; Rom. 1:4,9; 2:29; 7:6; Rom. 8:1,4,5,6,9,10,11,13,14,15,16,26,27; 11:8; 12:11; 14:17; 1 Cor. 2:11,12; 3:16; 4:21; 5:3-5; 6:17,18,20; 7:34; 16:18; 2 Cor. 2:13; 3:3,6; 4:13; 7:1,13; 12:18; Gal. 3:3; 4:6,29; Gal. 5:5,16,17,18,22,25; 6:1,8,18; Eph. 1:17; 2:2,18,22; 4:3,4,23; 5:9; 6:18; Phil. 1:19,27; Col. 1:8; 2:5; 1 Thess. 5:23; 1 Tim 4:12; 2 Tim 1:7; Philemon 25; Heb. 4:12; 12:9,23; James 4:5; 1 Pet. 3:4,19; 1 Pet. 4:6,14; Jude 19,20.
Jud 9:23 Then God sent an evil spirit between Abimelech and the men of Shechem; and the men of Shechem dealt treacherously with Abimelech:
That is God let develop a bad attitude between Abimelech and the landowners of Shechem
1Sa 16:14 But the Spirit of the LORD departed from Saul, and an evil spirit from the LORD troubled him.
What does this tell us one Yahweh is in control of the evil spirit not Satan the demon. Second the spirit of Yahweh is his holy spirit. The evil spirit does God’s will not Satan’s will. The Hebrew word translated “evil” may refer to the character of the spirit or to its effect upon Saul. If the latter, another translation option might be “an injurious spirit”; cf. NLT “a tormenting spirit.”
Thus the holy spirit or spirit of Yahweh is supernatural the evil spirit is not, it is a feeling of ill will between two parties as the above usage show us and the spirit of Yahweh is always used thought-out the Hebrew Bible as the holy spirit
1Sa 16:15 And Saul’s servants said unto him, Behold now, an evil spirit from God troubleth thee.
They believe that this is an affliction sent by God. Where is satan in all this?
1Sa 16:16 Let our lord now command thy servants, which are before thee, to seek out a man, who is a cunning player on an harp: and it shall come to pass, when the evil spirit from God is upon thee, that he shall play with his hand, and thou shalt be well.
They recommend that they find a skilled musician, insisting that when the musician plays, Saul will be well. They make no suggestion that anything supernatural is occurring.
Now do you recommend that the best response to an attack by one of satan's minions is to play some music, in order to send it away? If not - why not?
1Sa 16:23 And it came to pass, when the evil spirit from God was upon Saul, that David took an harp, and played with his hand: so Saul was refreshed, and was well, and the evil spirit departed from him.
Whenever David plays, Saul is 'refreshed and well', and the 'evil spirit' goes away. There is no suggestion that anything supernatural is occurring. We are told very bluntly that music causes evil spirits to leave, though we know that this 'evil spirit' returned to Saul at times.
1Sa 18:10 And it came to pass on the morrow, that the evil spirit from God came upon Saul, and he prophesied in the midst of the house: and David played with his hand, as at other times: and there was a javelin in Saul’s hand.
Does the text say that the supernatural minion of satan, or a troubled spirit sent by God as an affliction? The evidence, I believe, points to the latter. This interpretation is also verifiable. Show me someone 'possessed' with an evil spirit, and let's have some good music and see what happens.
1Sa 19:9 And the evil spirit from the LORD was upon Saul, as he sat in his house with his javelin in his hand: and David played with his hand.
The real problem for people who believe that these 'evil spirits' referred to in these two places of the Old Testament are supernatural beings, is that they cannot escape the fact that Scripture insists that supernatural means are not required to send them away. Just some good music is all that is necessary.
And the reason why these passages remain such a stumblingblock to thise who believe that they refer to supernatural beings, is that these 'evil spirits' are described in the Scriptural record as:
1) Being sent by God to do His will, not as the minions of satan.
2) Behaving in a manner identical to psychological distress.
The fact that these 'evil spirits' are sent away by taking steps which people naturally use to soothe their troubled feelings, is very telling.
So What was that 'evil spirit' sent by God to Saul?
I believe it was a psychological affliction. Let's see what an earlier 'evil spirit' sent by God is:
Judges 9:
22When Abimelech had reigned three years over Israel,
23Then God sent an evil spirit between Abimelech and the men of Shechem; and the men of Shechem dealt treacherously with Abimelech:
1) If these 'evil spirits' are supernatural beings who are the buddies of satan and do his evil will, then why does God always send them?
2) How do you send an supernatural evil being 'between' two groups of people? Do they have to share?
3) What do other translations say?
TLB:
22-23Three years later God stirred up trouble between King Abimelech and the citizens of Shechem, and they revolted.
NAB:
22 When Abimelech had ruled Israel for three years,
23 God put bad feelings between Abimelech and the citizens of Shechem, who rebelled against Abimelech.
NKJV:
22 After Abimelech had reigned over Israel three years,
23 God sent a spirit of ill will between Abimelech and the men of Shechem; and the men of Shechem dealt treacherously with Abimelech,
NLT:
22 After Abimelech had ruled over Israel for three years,
23 God stirred up trouble between Abimelech and the people of Shechem, and they revolted.
CEV:
22 Abimelech had been a military commander of Israel for three years,
23-24 when God decided to punish him and the leaders of Shechem for killing Gideon’s seventy sons.
So God turned the leaders of Shechem against Abimelech.
TEV:
22 Abimelech ruled Israel for three years.
23Then God made Abimelech and the men of Shechem hostile to each other, and they rebelled against him.
23 And all the multitudes were amazed, and said, Can this be the son of David?
24 But when the Pharisees heard it, they said, This man doth not cast out demons, but by Beelzebub the prince of the demons.
25 And knowing their thoughts he said unto them, Every kingdom divided against itself is brought to desolation; and every city or house divided against itself shall not stand:
26 and if Satan casteth out Satan, he is divided against himself; how then shall his kingdom stand?
27 And if I by Beelzebub cast out demons, by whom do your sons cast them out? therefore shall they be your judges.
28 But if I by the Spirit of God cast out demons, then is the kingdom of God come upon you.
44 Then he saith, I will return into my house whence I came out; and when he is come, he findeth it empty, swept, and garnished.
45 Then goeth he, and taketh with himself seven other spirits more evil than himself, and they enter in and dwell there: and the last state of that man becometh worse than the first. Even so shall it be also unto this evil generation.
Verse 45 concludes: “Even so shall it be also unto this wicked generation”, showing that this passage is meant to be understood as a parable. “Unclean spirit” is a phrase often synonymous with “demons” in the Gospels. We showed in chapter 4 that Jesus was using the language of the day when talking about demons, and so He was here. Jesus was effectively saying, “In the same way as you believe unclean spirits can go out of a man and re-enter him, so this generation was once cleansed, but is soon going to become even worse than it was initially”.
Christ's conformity to popular language did not commit him to popular delusions. In one case, he apparently recognizes the god of the Philistines: "If I by Beelzebub cast out demons, by whom do your children cast them out?" (Matt. 12:27). Now, Beelzebub signifies the god of flies, a god worshipped by the Philistines of Ekron (2 Kings 1:6), and Christ, in using the name, takes no pains to dwell upon the fact that Beelzebub was a heathen fiction; it was a mere accommodation to popular speech on the subject of demons.
Sin comes from within and nothing from outside a man can enter him and defile him (Mk. 7:15).
Careful reading indicates that “the unclean spirit” is synonymous with the man, as a deaf demon refers to a deaf man in v. 22 of the same chapter. “When the unclean spirit is gone out of a man, he walks through dry places...”. Walking through a wilderness and deciding to return to one’s house is clearly language applicable to a man. This is all confirmed by the fact that Jesus is almost certainly alluding to a verse in the Septuagint version (which was the Bible in common use in Christ’s time) at Proverbs 9:12, although it is omitted for some reason in the A.V. This verse clearly speaks of a man, not a spirit, “(the scorner of instruction) walks through a waterless waste, through a land that is desert, and with his hands garners barrenness”.
The “spirit” often refers to the attitude of mind (e.g. Dt. 2:30; Prov. 25:28; Is. 54:6; 61:3; Ez. 18:31; Mk. 14:38; Lk. 2:40; 2 Cor. 2:13; 12:18; Eph. 4:23). an “unclean spirit” may possibly refer to an unclean state of mind, which would fit the context in vv. 34–36. Because “as a man thinks in his heart, so is he” (Prov. 23:7), the spirit would be synonymous with the man. Thus the parable would describe a man’s attitude of mind being cleansed and then his going into an even more degenerate state as happened when Saul’s ‘unclean spirit’ was cured by David playing the harp, and then it returned even worse. Notice that we read of “an evil spirit from the Lord” affecting Saul (1 Sam. 16:14); this attitude of mind was sent by God, not a super–human evil being.
Grk. akathartos =impure (Y) from ‘a’ (as a negative particle) and a presumed derivative meaning ‘cleansed’. The word therefore, means ‘impure’ both ceremonially and morally (i.e. lewd) or especially demoniac. (S). It means in this context a religion not purged, pruned or cleansed.
3 see notes on Matt. 12:43
ruwach: can represent the mind of an individual: Gen. 26:35 (mind); 41:8, 45:27; Ex. 6:9; Ex. 35:21; Num 5:14, 30; Deut. 2:30, Joshua 2:11 (courage); Joshua 5:1; Judges 8:3 (their anger); 9:23; 1 Sam. 1:15; 1 Sam. 16:14-16, 23; 18:10; 19:9; 1 Kings 21:5; 2 Chron. 36:22; Ezra 1:1,5; Job 7:11 (spirit); 15:13; 20:3; 21:4; 32:8,18; Psa. 32:2; 34:18 (spirit); 51:10, 17; 77:3,6; 78:8 (spirit); Psa. 106:33; 142:3; 143:4; Prov. 1:23; 11:13; 14:29; 15:13; Prov. 16:2,18,19,32; 17:22,27; 29:11 (his mind); 29:23; Ecc. 1:14,17; 2:11,17,26; 3:21; 4:4,6,16; 6:9; 7:8,9; 10:4; Isa. 11:2; 29:24; 30:1; 54:6; 57:15; 61:3; 65:14; 66:2; Jer. 51:11; Ezek. 3:14; 11:5 (spirit, mind), 19; 13:3; 18:31; 20:32 (mind); Ezek. 21:7; 36:26; Dan. 2:1,3; 5:12, 20 (mind); 6:3; 7:15; Hab. 1:11 (mind); Hag. 1:14; Mal. 2:16.
Clean Heart: See Psa. 51:10, 73:1; Prov. 20:9. This is the opposite to an unclean heart or possibly spirit.
Right Mind: See Mark 5:15; Luke 8:35.
Spirit: relates to the sentient element in man by which he perceives, reflects, feels and desires.” H.P. Mansfield “To The Strangers Scattered Abroad” on 1 Peter 3:19.
Pneuma (pneuma): can represent the mind of an individual as well as his mental state and disposition. Matt. 5:3; 26:41; Mark 2:8, 8:12; 14:38; Luke 1:47,80; 2:40; Luke 10:21; John 3:5-8; 4:23,24; 11:33; 13:21; Acts 17:16; Acts 18:5,25; 19:21; 20:22; Rom. 1:4,9; 2:29; 7:6; Rom. 8:1,4,5,6,9,10,11,13,14,15,16,26,27; 11:8; 12:11; 14:17; 1 Cor. 2:11,12; 3:16; 4:21; 5:3-5; 6:17,18,20; 7:34; 16:18; 2 Cor. 2:13; 3:3,6; 4:13; 7:1,13; 12:18; Gal. 3:3; 4:6,29; Gal. 5:5,16,17,18,22,25; 6:1,8,18; Eph. 1:17; 2:2,18,22; 4:3,4,23; 5:9; 6:18; Phil. 1:19,27; Col. 1:8; 2:5; 1 Thess. 5:23; 1 Tim 4:12; 2 Tim 1:7; Philemon 25; Heb. 4:12; 12:9,23; James 4:5; 1 Pet. 3:4,19; 1 Pet. 4:6,14; Jude 19,20.
Jud 9:23 Then God sent an evil spirit between Abimelech and the men of Shechem; and the men of Shechem dealt treacherously with Abimelech:
That is God let develop a bad attitude between Abimelech and the landowners of Shechem
1Sa 16:14 But the Spirit of the LORD departed from Saul, and an evil spirit from the LORD troubled him.
What does this tell us one Yahweh is in control of the evil spirit not Satan the demon. Second the spirit of Yahweh is his holy spirit. The evil spirit does God’s will not Satan’s will. The Hebrew word translated “evil” may refer to the character of the spirit or to its effect upon Saul. If the latter, another translation option might be “an injurious spirit”; cf. NLT “a tormenting spirit.”
Thus the holy spirit or spirit of Yahweh is supernatural the evil spirit is not, it is a feeling of ill will between two parties as the above usage show us and the spirit of Yahweh is always used thought-out the Hebrew Bible as the holy spirit
1Sa 16:15 And Saul’s servants said unto him, Behold now, an evil spirit from God troubleth thee.
They believe that this is an affliction sent by God. Where is satan in all this?
1Sa 16:16 Let our lord now command thy servants, which are before thee, to seek out a man, who is a cunning player on an harp: and it shall come to pass, when the evil spirit from God is upon thee, that he shall play with his hand, and thou shalt be well.
They recommend that they find a skilled musician, insisting that when the musician plays, Saul will be well. They make no suggestion that anything supernatural is occurring.
Now do you recommend that the best response to an attack by one of satan's minions is to play some music, in order to send it away? If not - why not?
1Sa 16:23 And it came to pass, when the evil spirit from God was upon Saul, that David took an harp, and played with his hand: so Saul was refreshed, and was well, and the evil spirit departed from him.
Whenever David plays, Saul is 'refreshed and well', and the 'evil spirit' goes away. There is no suggestion that anything supernatural is occurring. We are told very bluntly that music causes evil spirits to leave, though we know that this 'evil spirit' returned to Saul at times.
1Sa 18:10 And it came to pass on the morrow, that the evil spirit from God came upon Saul, and he prophesied in the midst of the house: and David played with his hand, as at other times: and there was a javelin in Saul’s hand.
Does the text say that the supernatural minion of satan, or a troubled spirit sent by God as an affliction? The evidence, I believe, points to the latter. This interpretation is also verifiable. Show me someone 'possessed' with an evil spirit, and let's have some good music and see what happens.
1Sa 19:9 And the evil spirit from the LORD was upon Saul, as he sat in his house with his javelin in his hand: and David played with his hand.
The real problem for people who believe that these 'evil spirits' referred to in these two places of the Old Testament are supernatural beings, is that they cannot escape the fact that Scripture insists that supernatural means are not required to send them away. Just some good music is all that is necessary.
And the reason why these passages remain such a stumblingblock to thise who believe that they refer to supernatural beings, is that these 'evil spirits' are described in the Scriptural record as:
1) Being sent by God to do His will, not as the minions of satan.
2) Behaving in a manner identical to psychological distress.
The fact that these 'evil spirits' are sent away by taking steps which people naturally use to soothe their troubled feelings, is very telling.
So What was that 'evil spirit' sent by God to Saul?
I believe it was a psychological affliction. Let's see what an earlier 'evil spirit' sent by God is:
Judges 9:
22When Abimelech had reigned three years over Israel,
23Then God sent an evil spirit between Abimelech and the men of Shechem; and the men of Shechem dealt treacherously with Abimelech:
1) If these 'evil spirits' are supernatural beings who are the buddies of satan and do his evil will, then why does God always send them?
2) How do you send an supernatural evil being 'between' two groups of people? Do they have to share?
3) What do other translations say?
TLB:
22-23Three years later God stirred up trouble between King Abimelech and the citizens of Shechem, and they revolted.
NAB:
22 When Abimelech had ruled Israel for three years,
23 God put bad feelings between Abimelech and the citizens of Shechem, who rebelled against Abimelech.
NKJV:
22 After Abimelech had reigned over Israel three years,
23 God sent a spirit of ill will between Abimelech and the men of Shechem; and the men of Shechem dealt treacherously with Abimelech,
NLT:
22 After Abimelech had ruled over Israel for three years,
23 God stirred up trouble between Abimelech and the people of Shechem, and they revolted.
CEV:
22 Abimelech had been a military commander of Israel for three years,
23-24 when God decided to punish him and the leaders of Shechem for killing Gideon’s seventy sons.
So God turned the leaders of Shechem against Abimelech.
TEV:
22 Abimelech ruled Israel for three years.
23Then God made Abimelech and the men of Shechem hostile to each other, and they rebelled against him.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)