Showing posts with label devil. Show all posts
Showing posts with label devil. 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.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)